Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Observations

I have neither the sources nor the objectivity to edit this article. However, I am in a position to comment. Before the disaster I took a course in the architecture of New York City at Columbia University. We specifically studied the World Trade Center. My neighbor survived the 1992 bombing from the eight-sixth floor and my uncle survived 9/11 from the seventy-second floor of the north tower.

This article makes no attempt to explain why the structural supports for these towers were concentrated at the outer walls and a hub near the elevators, other than to note that this was nonstandard. I can no longer prove this (the textbook has been sold), but the primary reason for this design was to make the building more marketable. By freeing the interior space from structural supports, the office floors could be divided any way the tenants preferred. There were no obtrusive columns to obstruct the view in meeting rooms or to interfere with the placement of walls and equipment.

Also, among the safety considerations within the article, the article makes no mention of stairwell size. Both of the people I know were trapped in stairwells for extended periods. It was simply too crowded to move. My neighbor needed three hours during the first bombing attempt. My uncle took over an hour and was among the very last to escape alive. Hundreds or perhaps thousands of lives could have been saved if the stairwells had been larger. The speed with which a building can be evacuated is directly related to its stairwell capacity. Since stairwells are the primary exits in any type of disaster, this issue really merits attention in new high rise constructions.

The matter of gypsum or reinforced concrete really takes a back seat to this more fundamental issue. Few people from the upper floors of either tower survived on 9/11, even those a few floors below the impact. Within minutes after the impact the stairwells became so crowded and slow that only the handful who ran to the stairs first had any chance of survival. Never mind how the stairwells were reinforced: they had been built too small. Durova 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The facts about the design were in one (if not several) of the PBS specials produced on the buildings. I would request citation on the stairwells (I'm sure somebody's done a post- analysis on them), but feel free to insert what you know about the basic building design considerations. --Mmx1 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC

>>"By freeing the interior space from structural supports, the office floors could be divided any way the tenants preferred."

'Freeing the interior space from structural supports' is a historical fact of virtually all designs of tall buildings since the use of steel in building design, which started by the turn of the century. This statement defines virtually every office building in the world today.

>>"the primary reason for this design was to make the building more marketable."

Indeed, as most reasons have been for anything being constructed since the evolution of barter to currency. Bov 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to undermine the fact that the stairwells probably was undersized, I'll just want to point out that another reason why a lot of people didn't make it out, was that the security doors was locked at several floors as one can read in the testimonys from the survivors [1]. EyesAllMine 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Buidings

I'd like to call for citations for this statement:

. . . extensive retrofittings of `60s/`70s era skyscrapers that share the WTC's main features, such as Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center, are underway.

First of all, at least in the case of the Hancock Center, I don't believe the implication that it shares the WTC's "main features" is correct; even a layman can see that the external-girder structure of the JHC is significantly different from the WTC's internal-core arrangment. A quick google search turns up no mentions of such retrofits to either building. Jgm 10:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read it several times, that the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building share the same basic design as the WTC, and that the "tube within a tube" design is videly applied to high rise buildings all over the world. I will try to find the sources. EyesAllMine 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll note that if, indeed, the design is "widely applied", the section on Construction here (which describes the WTC construction as unique) needs to be re-written. I really don't think Mies put those big girders on the outside of the Hancock for decoration, though. Jgm 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:

   * The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
   * The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
   * The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
   * The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)

[2] C. Nelson 06:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This reference (to yet another 9/11-related website rather than architectural or historical information) does not quite convince me, at least in the case of the Hancock Center, which has visible external steel beams that are markedly different from the internal-core and external-aluminum cladding structcure of the WTC. Setting that issue aside for the moment, where's the citation for the "extensive retrofitting"? Jgm 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The above posters are correct. The WTC, Hancock, and Sears use the "tube" concept. but with variants. The WTC was a pure tube. The Hancock could not use closely spaced columns because of the apartments, so the wider spaced columns had to be braced and tied with diagnols, thus sopreading out the lateral loads over the building faces. Sears is a bundled tube, incorporating nine tubes, in a 3X3 configuration. The first two buildings have a tube within a tube. Sears' is different because the nine tubes support each other and make the structure of the interior tube (not core) redundant. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/john_hancock.html (

Also, there is some confusion with terms. The WTC was a steel building, and so are the Chicago ones. They are all clad in aluminum, although of different finishes. The cladding is not structural, just a finishing component put to cover exterior structural components and seal the building from weather. (Gary Joseph 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Gary, thanks for the more detailed information. I was aware of the basic structure of the Hancock; I still disagree with the statment that it "shares the basic design features of the WTC"; as I've stated (and as you confirm), it's a visibly and significantly different design. Moreover, after two weeks of requests, nobody has provided a reference for the supposed "extensive retrofitting" on these buildings. Unless such a reference appears soon, I will delete the statement I quoted above. Jgm 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I would delete the statment because there is not connection between the building's and the type of retrofit that occurred. It says nothing about if it was the structure or something else. ( I doubt the former. I know both buildings have had emergency systems, lighting, etc updated. And the Hancock has had some strutural changes to the top with the new exterior observatory). But your comment highlights the problem I have with accuracy. When some says "basic design" or "main features" a layman does not know how far to take that, especially if it does not conform to what someone can perceive. Tube buildings behave the same in basic ways, but differ in most and very specific ways. The WTC would have no diagnol force lines, except for the hat trusses at the roofs, but JHC does. Sears does not either, but each tube in it structurally acts like a fraction ( depending on where it is in pla) of one WTC tower. This is what I mentioned about this article having accuracy issues. It is one thing to say the WTC facades are Vierendeel trusses versus the "behave like one". It makes all the difference to understanding.(Gary Joseph 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Missing chapter 7 ?

I have just read the Report, http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm and I noticed that chapter seven seem to be missing. Does anyone know why it is missing? DanielDemaret 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and is that report the most official government report? I am asking here, since I assume all editors read the official reports before editing here. DanielDemaret 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it sure looks like chapter seven is missing from the FEMA report. I'm not sure what you mean by "the most official", but the latest report is the NIST report on the towers and the NIST report on building 7, which is still a draft. The public comments on the first is also worth looking at. EyesAllMine 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Controlled Demoliton paragraph

I think it is not only baseless but incorrect to state that a theory lacks 'scientific foundations' when faculty teaching science courses at major universities are putting the theory forth! Just because some on here disagree with the theory does not mean it does not have a scientific foundation. Thus I am removing the phrase "This theory lacks scientific foundations so far" from the the controlled demolition paragraph, which currently reads:

"A distinct minority has challenged the findings of mainstream engineers, the U.S. Government and independent researchers, arguing that controlled demolition may have occurred. This theory lacks scientific foundations so far. For more information, please see: 9/11 conspiracy theories." Bov 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that professors of theology were considered scientists now. Even if you discount Griffin, you have to consider that university professors can say some nutty things after they get tenure. We cannot claim that a theory has scientific foundation until there is scientific consensus for the theory - the results are repeated by independent, unbiased scientists. Since no 9/11 conspiracy paper has been accepted for publication in any legitimate scientific journal, I don't see any reason to omit this sentence. Rhobite 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Rhobite speaks the truth in this matter...off the cuff remarks by some professors at some college or the work by a professor independent of that university that is unsanctioned by the university is not science and deserves no mention at all, but if any is made, it should be only in passing.--MONGO 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Notes on the NPOV dispute from a third party

Please be aware that this article is about a structural collapse, and that there is verifiable mathematical and architectural information that is not included in this article. These omissions, more than anything else, seem to be responsible for this article's lack of neutrality. The United States government is not considered to be a creditable information resource regarding a structural collapse, as U.S. Congress members are not architects, scientists, or mathematicians. These three fields of study should be seen as the most creditable in distributing information regarding a structural collapse, and omisions of this information from such fields, in an article such as this, will inevitably lead to a biased account that overcredits a specific resource, in this case the United States government.

I have not been able to follow the entire talk page conversation, but I would like to make one simple note that may help resolve the issue:

Wikipedia, as well as most other creditiable organizations, usually take verifiable Scientific evidence to be the most creditable and most believable type of evidentuary support. The fact that this page lacks verifiable Scientific evidence is very strange, considering that architecture is mainly mathematical and scientific in nature. Perhaps a discussion of the buildings' actual architectural constructions and scientific information related there-to would be the most beneficial addition to resolving this neutrality dispute. Obvious notes from the Loose Change crowd would be documentation on the melting point of the steel used in the World Trade Center construction in comparison to the burning point of Jet Fuel; early eye-witness reports of multiple explosions; and Fire Chief transmition reports (Fire Chief's being considered experts in their field of work, namely structural fires). Other, mathematical, consideration should be given to: the angles at which the towers fell; the probability that the towers would collapse at these angles, given the angle of impact (of the respective planes) and general contruction of the towers; the probability of a tower collapsing (historically as well as mathematically); debris found post-collapse and the probability that more or less debris would be found.

Probability, eye-witness reports, relative melting points, and mathematical angles are the most credtiable type of information regarding a structural collapse. While I do not feel qualified to fix this article (I was searching through POV articles and thought this one might be interesting to fix), I do believe that finding, including, and crediting this type of information would be the best way to resolve this neutrality dispute. Gamerider, 17:37 2006 Feb 28 (-8 GMT)

I am quite in agreement.

It is not our duty to argue scientific fact in lieu of more qualified and researched physicists and architects. It is clear that there are good arguments on both sides (and thus it is so hard to argue), so perhaps we should display both arguments, without displaying one or the other as scientific fact. Wikipedia should not be made to agree with politically controlled mass media sources. It seems the most appropriate to present both cases to allow the reader to form their own opinion, so we should not let either be extraordinarily censored or hidden from view. By hiding most of the alternative explanation under a small link, you obscure a valid argument, based on the same sort of scientific speculation (unfortunately, most actual evidence was recycled before architects could do actual research). In complete fairness, this page should be extended with a new section, and invite both sides to come into focus in the very beginning.

Do note that the word "conspiracy" will serve to discredit the perspective in the public's eye. Knowing this (strong) nuance in the English language, dismissing the alternative explanation as a "conspiracy theory" does not consitute for being entirely "NPOV". Indeed, NPOV does not mean that it must agree with CNN. Hidrogeno 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This may sound snobbish, but this is a structural engineering problem, not a physics or architecture problem. The folks with the training and experiance in the field of structural engineering are structural engineers. Architecture and (to a lesser extent) physics are somewhat related fields, but have different focuses. If you don't understand that, you will not be able to judge the reliability of sources.

Now Richard Feynman was a physicist, but his role in the investigation into the Challenger disaster was important. That wasn't because his knowledge of physics gave him some special insight into the problem - rather he was a very straight-forward and amiable person who took the time to listen to the low-ranking engineers who did understand the problem. Also, he had enough of a common background to understand what they were talking about and enough of a reputation to get other people to listen to him.

When I look at groups like "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" I don't see any Structural Engineers or even Civil Engineers included as members. That doesn't mean that what they are saying is wrong, however it does mean that they don't have much of a claim to expert status. Toiyabe 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we could start by adding a section called "Collapse Features", which would just be a list of the OBSERVED features of each collapse, in categories, e.g. "Sudden Onset", "Symmetry", "Collapse Times", "Pulverization", "Dust Clouds", "Molten Metal", "Ejections" etc. and contrast the observed similaraties and differences between each of the three buildings.—This unsigned comment was added by 71.128.166.192 (talk • contribs) .

Observed by who? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Observed by anyone who views the videos and photographs. Does anyone seriously deny ANY of these collapse features that I listed? Just go look for yourselves. Sudden Onset, Symmetry, 12-15 sec collapse time (twin towers), 6.5 sec collapse time (WTC7), pulverization of non-metalic material into fine powder, dust clouds which expanded at least 5x the volume of the intact buildings within 30 sec, mushroom clouds, molten metal is observed dripping out of the south tower moments before collapse, red-to-yellow hot metal is photographed being removed from rubble weeks after 9-11, Concrete powder and shattered steel members are observed to be ejected laterally for hundeds of feet.

Tom Harrison's question "Observed by who?" is quite revealing, as apparently Tom Harrison has not yet observed these features. Tom Harrison, I invite you to make these observations yourself, then come back.

71.128.166.192 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be original research. If you think the article needs a detailed visual description of the collapse, find a reliable source and quote him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As a mathematician, I call bullshit. Architects combine engineering and art; but they are not typically concerned with how buildings are collapsed. Math.....lets just say that I wouldn't trust a mathematician to do my taxes. Statistics? You must be joking. Statistics are a good predictive indicator. But even a 99% likelyhood doesn't mean something CAN'T have happened in retrospect. That's the fundamental flaw in Intelligent Design. A few PhD's lost a few billion on that bet. Look up the book "When Genius Failed" - their prediction model failed due to a 26-sigma event - not going to compute it but it's less than 1 in a million. Particularly in this case, where there's insignificant similar data to draw upon. How many buildings are there similar to the WTC? How many collapsed/set on fire/had planes crash into them? There isn't even a sufficient sample size.

Angles? This is not a elementary physics problem involving perfectly elastic collisions. The towers collapsed due to structural weakening from the impacts and the subsequent fire, so the "angles" of the impacts have nothing but tangential influence on the eventual collapse.

This is not science, this is pseudoscience.

How convenient that you eliminate the most relevant authorities to the topic, who are structural and materials engineers. --Mmx1 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What about my idea of a neutral, OBSERVATION based section, where we just list the observations, allowing all the "conclusions" to reside in differenent paragraphs? Observation is the very BASIS of science. Submission to "authorities" such as politicians is anti-science.

71.128.166.192 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, we must all admit that the controlled demolition theory has a distinct SCIENTIFIC ADVANTAGE over any other theory, and that is because controlled demolitions have happened many times in the past. No one disputes they are possible. WHEREAS, any other theory requires NEW SCIENCE, some NEW HYPOTHESES to attempt to explain events which have NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. The principle known as Occam's Razor says, when faced with competing explanations for some observation, the explanation which is the simplist, and requires the LEAST amount of assumptions and new hypotheses is probably correct.

71.128.166.192 19:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow - A plane flies into a building, the building collapses and you argue Occam's Razor supports a theory that the building collapsed due explosives placed by nefarious government agents? Toiyabe 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can get around to WHO did it until you firmly establish WHAT happened, exactly. Building 7 was never hit by a jet plane. The twin towers easily survived the jet crashes, standing motionless as the ordinary office fires burned. Far worse fires have burned for far longer over far larger areas of buildings, gutting many floors, and never has a steel frame collapsed outside 9-11. The empire state building easily survived a jet crashing into it.

Even if some jet crash did enough damage to cause structural collapse in some other building (clearly possible), the collapse would not have the specific features of a controlled demolition. Rather, collapses would tend to be asymetrical, and not systematically pulverizing.

Yes, Occam's razor clearly favors controlled demolition, because they have happened many times before, whereas all other theories are unprecedented. Everyone must admit this point.

71.128.166.192 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Steel frame buildings have collapsed before 9/11/01. No jet-engined aircraft has ever struck the Empire State Building. No other office building has ever had a fire involving ~15,000 gallons of jet fuel after having several structural columns severed. "Asymetrical collapse" and "systematically pulverising" are non-sense jibberish. You do not understand Occam's Razor. Toiyabe 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're just wrong. THere are no historical examples of steel framed high rise buildings undergoing complete collapse for any reason other than controlled demolition. Toiyabe, or anyone, please direct us to any evidence you have to contradict this.

Jet fuel is irrelevant to the collapses, because according to all sources, the jet fuel burned away in 5-10 minutes. And you must comment on WTC7, which was never hit by a jet.

Heck, even 911 conspiracy sites admit that steel frame buildings have collapsed. Of course they can weasel out of it by saying no steel skyscraper has collapsed, which is true but given the small sample size, its not very significant. And what of it? If other skyscrapers had been hit by 300,000 lb. aircraft and survived, or even collapsed in a very different way, then you might have an interesting point.

NO. NO. NO. By "collapse", here we mean TOTAL collapse, pulverization into powder and shredded steel. Those earthquake-toppled buildings are NOTHING like the WTC. They toppled over, asymetrically, they were NOT pulverized, there was NO molten steel, NO mushroom cloud, etc.

69.231.9.59 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point about the time it took to cook off the jet fuel is also irrelevant. The temperatures involved are what's relevant (and no, you don't have to melt steel to weaken it).

WRONG. THe "cook time" is very relevant. Even if the jet fuel did burn hot enough to significantly weaken the steel, we would have expected collapse to occur when the steel was hottest and weakest, not 40 minutes later after the jet fuel was long gone, and the steel had cooled back down.

69.231.9.59 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In the end you can come up with far more 'gotchas' then I care to try and explain. That doesn't prove a darn thing - lots of folks play those games with regards to evolution any other description of a complex process. It may be fun, but it does not help anyone understand the process in question. You don't get anywhere by inventing a non-falsifiable theory that can fit any data set.

That's not to say that NIST et al have yet succeeded in coming up with a good explaination for the collapse of the WTC buildings. I don't know one way or the other. I only know that the process of examining actual data and analyzing the data using fundamental engineering principles is the way to get to a good explaination. Wild-ass speculation based on what you saw on TV with vitually no knowledge of fundamental engineering principles is not the way to get to a good explaination. Toiyabe 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

FEMA, NIST, 9-11 have not come up with any complete theory, they keep changing what little theory they do have, and candidly admit that THEY DID NOT STUDY THE FREAKING COLLAPSES, only the events leading up to them.

It is required to explain not just heating steel, but melting it, because WE OBSERVE MOLTEN STEEL, both right before, and weeks after the collapses. Those fires were not hot enough to even weaken the steel, and UL did fire tests on actual models of the floors, exposing them to temperatures of 2000+ F for 2 hours, and could not damage the steel. That's why NIST had to switch to a computer model to "prove" the weakening of the steel, they hide the details of the computer model, will not release it, and still cannot show how weakening the steel in one area of the building will lead to global collapse, so they just ignore it.

This makes my point about Occam's razor. FEMA, NIST etc are trying to come up with a NEW theory, when controlled demolition DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY NEW THEORY AT ALL.

There is no structural steel that is not significantly weaker at 2000 F then it is at room temperature. I doubt there is any steel alloy at all for which that is true. You must be grossly mis-interpreting test results. I did not know that "we" have observed molten steel in the WTC collapses - other conspiricy-minded folks have claimed otherwise (funny how either the presence or absence of molten steel is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy). It seems to me that readily observable quantities of molten steel are inconsistent with controlled demolition. Toiyabe 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

One must distinguish between FIRE temperatures, and STEEL temperatures. Steel is an excellent conducter of heat, and will wick away heat which is applied to it, expecially in a highly interconnected steel structure such as WTC. Even if the WTC fire achieved a FIRE temperature of 2000 (which it did not), that is not the same as a STEEL temperature of 2000.

It is Underwriters Laborotories which certified the steel, and they were asked by NIST to conduct tests on a model of a WTC floor assembly. They did so, in a blast furnace, exposing it to temperatures of 2000 degrees for 2 hours. The floors did not fail.THis was a fire hotter, more concentrated, and of longer duration than the WTC fires, by all accounts. NIST did not like these test result, so they switched to a very mysterious computer simulation to "prove" what actual tests on actual steel failed to prove.

Yes, "we" may observe what must be molten steel or iron (NOT ALUMINUM or LEAD) dripping out of the south tower moments before it collapsed. This was during a time when, just before, the fires appeared to be going out. Thermite (Iron oxide + solid aluminum powder) will produce temperatures well in excess of that needed to melt steel, and is used for that purpose. The use of Thermite, or one of its variations, is perfectly consistant with a controlled demolition. Standard stuff.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

Here is video of molten metal splashing out of the south tower. We can observe it. All of us. PLease observe for yourself. Also observe the eyewitness testimony of people talking about pools of molten metal at ground zero. Also observe the large chunk of red-to-yellow hot metal pulled from the rubble weeks after 9-11.

It would be easy to quote reliable physicists, mechanical engineers, fire captains, eyewitnesses, etc on the collapse features we can all observe. "Sudden Onset", "Symmetry", "Nearly Free-fall collapse times", "pulverization", "lateral ejections", "sounds of bombs", mushroom cloud". Problem is, MONGO and others will just get rid of it, as they have done do many times before.

69.231.9.59 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe--Point of fact: molten steel was found. Check out: www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm (not a "9/11 truth" website). The government theory of the collapse cannot exlain how jet fuel and ordinary building file could have done that. With respect to observed features of the collapse, check out the reports of the firefighters and others at the scene who saw, heard and were injured by explosions in the twin towers (See "Oral Histories" section in Archive 1 of this talk page; the oral histories passage was deleted from the article and was not restored despite the response to the objections raised to it).--216.57.0.210 23:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It would take an awfull lot of thermite to produce the kind of heat you are talking about. For example, say only 1000 gallons of kerosene made it into a tower and burned. Kerosene has a energy density of ~ 140 MJ/gallon. Thermite has a energy density of ~ 4 MJ/kg. It would take 35,000 kg of thermite to equal the heat released by that relatively small amount of kerosene. Certainly the heat observed in the days after the collapse had nothing to do with any thermite placed by nefarious agents.

Certainly thermite can produce the temperatures necessary to melt steel, but it takes an awful lot of it - It takes about 1 MJ to melt a kilogram of steel starting at room temperature. Therefore it takes about 1 kg of thermite to melt 4 kg of steel. Again, your theory relies on rediculous quantities of thermite. It's highly unlikely that someone could have hidden enough caused collapse, but even then there would have been little residual molten steel which wouldn't have stayed molten for long.

The theory that an intense fire can weaken structural steel is not new or exotic. I don't know anything about this UL test, and can't comment on it. However, if your contention is that fire is not a threat to the integrity of steel structures there's a whole lot of experiance and theory that contradicts you. But if you can prove that the engineering community is wrong, we can save an enormous amount of money on the construction of new structures, and you'll be a hero. Certainly that would be a better use of your time then debating with me here. Toiyabe 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, you're confusing heat with temperature. All of the kerosene in the world could be burned and it will not reach a high enough temperature to melt iron or steel, whereas a thermite reaction will. Even if there were jet fuel present moments before the collapse of WTC2, (which there wasn't) it would not, and could not produce what we all observe: molten yellow-to-white hot metal.

Apparently, but stating it would take "an awful lot of thermite to produce the kind of . . ." Toiyabe is suggesting that controlled demolition is not done. Yet we know it is done. This is giving me a headache. Please, anyone, link us to any evidence of a fire producing anything remotely resembling what happened on 9-11. We have been searching for over 2 years and no examples have emergerd.

THe fundamental problem with this article is that we are trying to present conclusions about an event for which there are no conclusions. The FEMA report and the NIST report, both referenced here, CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER. Everyone must admit this. THe FEMA report report claims that the floor broke loose from the vertical columns, whereas the NIST report requires that they HELD firmly.

More to the point, how can we cite as a reliable source the NIST report which ADMITS, in PLAIN ENGLISH, that it did not study the collapse? It might be a good source for an article about the plane crashes, or the fires, BUT NOT THE COLLAPSES.

I reiterate my challenge, which has not been addressed. Occam's razor would clearly slice on the side of an explanation that we all know to be scientifically possible (controlled demolition), as opposed to one which requires elaborate and convoluted theorizing (the various and conflicting government reports).

And what about WTC7?

69.231.9.59 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A:Get a username. B. stop capitalizing words as we don't need the emphasis. Why are we still talking about the melting of steel? Why we we still insisting that there were pools of molten steel when I have never seen proof that there was. What part about 500+ mph aircraft collisions did you miss? More importantly, do you have any proof that the buildings were destroyed by contolled demolition? I don't want to hear the hypothetical. I want you to provide proof that the buildings were imploded. This would mean that someone credible saw people planting explosives, or a confession from one of those involved, documents or correspondance between parties involved in the effort to implode the buildings.--MONGO 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, we are still talking about the melting of steel, because molten iron and steel are observed, dripping out of the south tower moments before its collapse, and in all three rubble piles weeks after 9-11. Mongo, jet planes can certainly sever vertical columns in a building, and in some other case could lead to some kind of "collapse" (but nothing resemnbling what we observe on 9-11). However, on 9-11, the plane crashes did not cause any kind of collapse, as evidenced by the fact that the buildings stood motionless for 59 and 102 minutes. Plus WTC7 was not hit by a jet at any speed.

As to proof of demolition, yes, I believe there is proof. THe most reliable kind of proof is the video and photographic evidence, and these collapses exhibit many specific features consistent with controlled demolition, and which have never been observed before in any other situation.

Mongo, you won't believe controlled demolition until one of the bad buys admits it? Well, you might be waiting a long time for that. That's the thing with people. Sometimes they lie and leep secrets. Although photos can be faked these days, 9-11 is the most video'd event ever, and I believe that the pix and videos are legit, and far more believable than the government agents who have published the various conflicting 'explanations".

I reiterate my challenge, which has not been addressed. Occam's razor would clearly slice on the side of an explanation that we all know to be scientifically possible (controlled demolition), as opposed to one which requires elaborate and convoluted theorizing (the various and conflicting government reports).

69.231.9.59 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer a single question I asked you. When you have proof that there was controlled demolition, then we will talk. For what it is worth, we don't put original research in the articles here, so nothing you have written is going in the article. This is not a blog.--MONGO 04:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the unfair and non-WP tactics of MONGO and others, this article is totally NOT NPOV. Yes, Mongo, I answered your questions. Let me now copy your questions, and copy my answers, so everyone can see.

MONGO: Why are we still talking about the melting of steel?

A: We are still talking about the melting of steel, because molten iron and steel are observed, dripping out of the south tower moments before its collapse, and in all three rubble piles weeks after 9-11.

MONGO: What part about 500+ mph aircraft collisions did you miss?

A: Jet planes can certainly sever vertical columns in a building, and in some other case could lead to some kind of "collapse" (but nothing resemnbling what we observe on 9-11). However, on 9-11, the plane crashes did not cause any kind of collapse, as evidenced by the fact that the buildings stood motionless for 59 and 102 minutes. Plus WTC7 was not hit by a jet at any speed.

MONGO: More importantly, do you have any proof that the buildings were destroyed by contolled demolition?

A: As to proof of demolition, yes, I believe there is proof. The most reliable kind of proof is the video and photographic evidence, and these collapses exhibit many specific features consistent with controlled demolition, and which have never been observed before in any other situation.

MONGO: I want you to provide proof that the buildings were imploded. This would mean that someone credible saw people planting explosives, or a confession from one of those involved, documents or correspondance between parties involved in the effort to implode the buildings.

A: Mongo, you won't believe controlled demolition until one of the bad buys admits it? Well, you might be waiting a long time for that. That's the thing with people. Sometimes they tell lies and keep secrets. Although photos can be faked these days, 9-11 is the most video'd event ever, and I believe that the pix and videos are legit, and far more believable than the government agents who have published the various conflicting 'explanations".

Folks, we could just as easily ask, "Where is the proof that fires and gravity caused 3 skyscrapers to crush themselves into fine powder?" There certainly is no proof of that, and the "official" story keeps changing. The NIST report completely contradicts the FEMA report. The 9-11 commission report contains baldfaced lies (i.e. the towers had no cores) and so is ruled out as a credible source.

Mine is NOT original research and you know it. We can reference Dr. Steven Jones (BYU), Dr. Judy Wood (Clemson), Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan(UL), Morgan Reynolds (Bush administration official), Jeff King (MIT) just to name a few. Of course you can (and will) just delete everything, as you have done in the past. We could just as easily refuse to acknowledge the credibility of any "official" source, which is why I suggest we rewrite the the artcile, presenting the observations as observations, and the explanatory theories as theories.

We should make note of the fact that the FEMA and NIST reports contradict each other, that is a fact.

I reiterate my challenge to anyone interested in maintaining the integrity of wikipedia, which has not been addressed. Occam's razor would clearly slice on the side of an explanation that we all know to be scientifically possible (controlled demolition), as opposed to one which requires elaborate and convoluted theorizing (the various and conflicting government reports).

69.231.9.59 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Changes, Quality

Construction of the towers began in 1966 and were completed in 1972. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Unlike many skyscrapers of the period, WTC does not include stone bearing or masonry in the facade but aliminum cladding sheathing the perimeter columns. Also unique was its grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building.

The construction of the towers began in 1968, althought "bathtub" was started two years earlier. The towers were completed in different years. Also, towers do not use bearing masonry, not even the Empire State Building. There were other buildings built before the WTC that use aluminum cladding on the exterior ( Chase Manhattan Plaza a few blocks from the WTC).

Also, this article needs some help, controversial issues notwithstanding. Much of the information is incorrect and not accurate. It seems that constant additions are appended to existing text and not coallated into it. (Gary Joseph 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

To say "this article needs some help" is putting it mildly. The fundamental problem with the entire article is that the authors presume to report on an official explanation which simply does not exist. The FEMA report and the NIST report completely contradict one another, for instance. The 911 commission report contains obvious lies (e.g. that the cores of each tower was a "hollow steel shaft").

There is absolutely NOT a scientific consensus as to what caused the collapses, even if you exclude the scholars for 9-11 truth. The supposed final word on the subject was supposed to be the NIST report, which [A] did not even study WTC7 at all and [B} admits, in plain english, that it only studied events leading up to the twin tower collapses, not the collapses themselves.

TruthSeeker1234 04:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the 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, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view."

• Just more rubbish about controlled demolition, disguised as a scientific approach. It is not "our" job to prove the mainstream accounts...it is your job to prove that controlled demolition did happen, not that it could have...and no one has even shown how they could have ee imploded so the vast bulk of the last 20kb of wording on this page is bloggish, not encyclopedic.--MONGO 06:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO: you are spinning around as usual. You are saying that we should not prove the mainstreem account aka the official eplanation, but we should proove the alternative???? Lol. Wikipedia is not about proof at all. Wikipedia should only describe the various beliefs. We are not in a position to prove or disprove anything. It is clear that you are beyond being able to look further than your own point of view. EyesAllMine 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article need all the help it can get. Is there some kind of wiki-procedure to call in help from more people in mediation an such? EyesAllMine 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Borderline personal attack? I stated that you must prove that the buildings were imploded, not that it is theoritically possible...we don't deal in the hypothetical here...we need proof that the buildings were imploded, not a lot of questions that are somehow supposed to be used as proof of controlled demolition. Do you have proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

First, Wiki does have a method for calling for help in revising an article and for mediation. But I do not hink this article needs the latter. I volunteer my service, but not if the alternate theories are not mentioned, and not if they are detailed. The point is that the alternate theories are not grounded on experience or history, just thought exercises (and something else I will not mention). But we should acknowledge that they exist.

I guess I could easily say that the WTC towers (1,2 and 5) were brought down by time traveling beings that materialized in the towers, detonated explosives deep inside the buildings, then disappeared. That does not make it a viable theory, no matter how much my psycology wants it to. But for those who believe in those alternate theories have to SUBSTANTIATE what they say, just as much as the "official" sources have to.

For the record, I do not believe in any of the alternate theories. (Gary Joseph 16:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

You guys need to explain what you mean by "alternate" theories. Let's ignore controlled demolition for a moment. You still have to decide if you're going to go with

[A] The "Pancake Theory" - where angle clips fail and floors break away from the core and perimeter - advanced by FEMA, Thomas Eagar, NOVA

[B] The "Column Pull Theory" - where angle clips hold very strong and pull perimeter columns inward - advanced by NIST

[C] The "Core Meltdown Theory" - where jet fuel fires melt the core columns - advanced by several expert structural engineers - Steven Block (Stanford), Micahael Shermer (Scientific American) University of Arizona, Chris Wise, others

OK?

EyesAllMine is exactly correct. We should present the photographic evidence and description of the observatons. Then we should explain EACH of the various theories, including controlled demolition, and reference the prominent experts who advance each one of them, and leave it at that. This would be the Wikipedian thing to do.

TruthSeeker1234 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, Shermer isn't a structural engineer, he has a Phd in the History of Science and a degree in Experimental Psychology. SkeenaR 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No way...there is no proof of controlled demolition and this is not the forum to post it in article space...this is not a blog. Prove that there was controlled demolition and then we can discuss it, otherwise all these long paragrphs above simply look like a blog with nothing but opinions.--MONGO 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Other than mentioning the alternate theories, I do not think we should go into detail. The list of theories A-C are not alternate. They fall within the norm of building behavior and can be deduced from the forensics. Just because the materials scientists are not omniscient does not make their uncertainty and disagreement a sign of conspiracy. I think that what we should seek is substantiation, not "proof". Which is why we have "theories". I do not think that those pushing for controlled demolition are going to be happy, but as soon as the rest of us reach a consensus, then we can start correcting this article then resubmitting it for FAC.(Gary Joseph 07:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

I think this is an interesting statement (made by Gary above): "The point is that the alternate theories are not grounded on experience or history". Cause that is some of the critique being raised against the official explanation as well: Never before in history has high rise buildings collapsed due to fire. Neither has it ever been experienced :) Until now nobody has ever seen molten metal in the basement of burning buildings. EyesAllMine 09:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The buildings were also hit by wide body jets...what part of that contnues to be mystifying? I have seen no proof that there was pools of molten steel at the WTC site...and if there were...no surprsie, the fires there ranged for three months...maybe molten or melted aluminum.--MONGO 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe ... only an independent deep-going investigation, that will take into account ALL the phenomenons observed, will answer what kind of molten METAL it was. It is still a fact that molten METAL never has been observed in the basement of burning buildings. Another fact is that melted aluminium never turns orange, but stays silver-colored. EyesAllMine 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gary Joseph has issued a blatant false statement:

" [Theroies A-C] fall within the norm of building behavior and can be deduced from the forensics."

No, Mr. Joseph, total symmetrical pulverizing destruction of a steel framed high rise has happened many times before, ALWAYS due to controlled demolition. There are ZERO examples of this type of behavior from any other cause besides controlled demolition (apart from the alleged examples of 9-11).

You have also missed my point about theories A-C. Even if we were to disregard controlled demolition, we still have three different, mutually exclusive theories to contend with. How do we decide which is correct? What do we say about the other two?

These official theories have just ignored all of the most interesting features of these very dramatic collapses, a very un-scientific thing to do.

One can use strightforward reasoning to show that no type of pancake collapse could occur in less than 80 seconds. This is because the free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the floor below is .8 seconds. At each impact, some part of the mass must stop moving, and begin falling all over again (conservation of momentum). Therefore, each of 100 floors must take .8 seconds to fall to the one below, adding up to 80 seconds.

The fact that the collapses took place at nearly free-fall speed (10-15 seconds) demonstrates that lower floors MUST have begun falling BEFORE being struck by the ones above. But Why? The lower floors were not damaged. And even if they did start falling before being struck from above, then why would upper floors be pulverized into dust, in mid-air, when there is nothing below them interfering with the fall?

MONGO, I have addressed your cursory comments before. Yes, a jet airplane hit each of the towers. If the towers had begun collapsing immediately, this might be a different discussion. But they did not. THey stood motionless for 56 and 102 minutes.

TruthSeeker1234 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I would be very curious to see what sort of "consensus" is reached among those pushing for the "official" theory. Which one are you going to choose -

A] CORE MELTDOWN THEORY (various "experts" shortly after 9-11) B] PANCAKE THEORY (FEMA, Thomas Eagar, NOVA) C] COLUMN PULLING THEORY (NIST)

and why?

Mongo, which one do you like? I don't think I've heard you say. Gary Joseph, how about you? Tom Harrison, are you around? Which "official theory" do you like, and why that one? This is going to be good, seeing as how none of the official theories even attempts to explain pulverization, symmetry, molten iron/steel, horizontal ejection, collapse times, mushroom clouds, and eyewitness reports of multiple explosions.

TruthSeeker1234 06:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo: (1) Here is the evidence you asked for: "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm (not a "9/11 truth" website). (2) As to "proof" of controlled demolition, I think you have an epistemological issue. Can it be proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Not directly through eye witness testimony or direct observation. Only through developing a model based on pieces of evidence researched. The first step is to have an open mind, learn what questions to ask and then try to gather some facts to begin to answer them. --216.57.0.210 15:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And besides, there is an abundance of eyewitness testimony of multiple explisions, and explosions in sequence. This testimony comes from firefighters, police officers, news reporters and maintenence workers who were on the scene. Here again is the video showing molten iron and/or steel dripping out of the south tower just before collpase. As EyesAllMine has pointed out, it cannot be molten aluminum, because it melts at temperatures below yellow-hot, and thus retains its silvery color when melted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 TruthSeeker1234 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, here is another citation for molten metal : ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6.) TruthSeeker1234 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So, may I please write a section on "Collapse Features" that describes the observed features and has pictures? I'd like to do that, but not if MONGO, et. al are just going to delete it it. MONGO, Tom Harrison, Gary Joseph, how about it? Let me know. I propose to include: Sudden onset, symmetry, collapse times, pulverization, dust clouds, horizontal ejection, mushroom clouds, and, of course, molten metal. All statements will be referenced to reputable sources and photographic evidence. This section will contain no theories or explanations at all. Any objections?

TruthSeeker1234 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can say, "It looked like a mushroom cloud in the video," or "Molten steel dripped from the window." Maybe we could quote, in context, a reliable source describing the collapse. Since you seem to be starting with the conviction that the government blew it up on purpose, and you're trying to find and add material to support this position, I'm skeptical about the reliability and objectivity of what you might choose to include. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It will all be original research. The only way these edits could happen is if we allow non peer reviewed websites that are in control of a single or couple of webmasters and have failed to have correct scientific cross examination occur. Controlled demolition simply did not happen. In fact, it's completely unproven. Article space is not the place to dwelve into speculations that have no basis in fact. Could have does not equate with what did happen.--MONGO 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Truthseeker1234 should have a go and let the editing speak for itself. Skepticism about the content can then have its chance. Collapse Features sounds like an excellent idea. SkeenaR 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But how does a section describing details of collapse features such as symmetry, collapse times, etc, imply controlled demolition? It should only do that if the NPOV policy were violated. Right?SkeenaR 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the reliability and objectivity about the current version. Tom Harrison, when I asked for sources on some of the assertions in the article, you replied to me that we don't need sources for obvious things like "the sky is blue". A mushroom cloud is as obvious as a blue sky. So is the molten metal dripping out of the south tower. There are reliable sources for this stuff, such as physics professor Steven Jones. And no one is a more referenced source on 9-11 than Jim Hoffman. Nobody. He is hands down the #1 reseacher out there. But you anti-science guys are will just question any source that does not support your pre-concieved notions.

Look, forget controlled demolition for one minute, and answer my previous questions, which you all are so conveniently ignoring -

Which theory are you going to go with?

[A] Core meltdown theory {B} Pancake theory {C} Column Pulling theory

As the article currently stands, it is a mish-mosh of original research not consistent with any one theory. The FEMA report and the NIST report cannot both be true, they are mutually exclusive. That is, the FEMA "pancake" theory requires that the angle clips supporting the trusses broke, while the NIST "column pulling" theory requires that the angle clips held strong and "pulled" the exterior columns inward.

Next, since at least one of these two theories must be false, once we pick the "correct" one, and go with it, can we discard the other one as an unreliable source? If not, why not?

Also, may we please discard the 9-11 commission report as unreliable, since it claims that the twin towers had no core columns, a blatant lie? If not, why not?

None of the "official" sources have been peer reviewed, but Tom Harrison has already established a double standard, claiming it is not necessary for them to be. I dont' get it, but whatever. Answer my questions please.

TruthSeeker1234 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What theory...? The WTC towers collapsed, debris hit WTC7, fires raged for hours, the building was destabilized, it collapsed...end of story. The "official sources" are the collective efforts of thousands of researchers and investigators. There wasn't controlled demolition and that is where you want to take this article...it won't be happening.--MONGO 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

page break

Please respond to my point that the FEMA and NIST reports are mutually exclusive. Also, what about the core meltdown theory? There are peer reviewed articles and mainstream media sources which advanced that one also.

Who says the reports are mutually exclusive? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, for crying out loud. Anyone who can read and understand says that they are mutually exclusive. For the umpteenth time, the FEMA report says the angle clips broke first, the NIST report says they held strong. Something cannot break and also not-break at the same time. This is as obvious as a blue sky, or a mushroom cloud. The reason NIST had to change the theory was because numerous people pointed out that if the floor pans broke away from the core, the core would be left standing. This all came after the first official theory, which held that fire melted the core. FEMA had to abandon that theory because numerous people pointed out that jet fuel does not burn hot enough, ever. User:TruthSeeker1234|TruthSeeker1234]] 02:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case - there is no 'official' explaination of WTC7 collapse: [3] NIST has asked, on 31st March 2006, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC to come up with one. When that report is completed, then there will be an official theory, until then there is none. 134.219.128.121 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I am glad to see you have already made up your mind about how WTC 7 collapsed. NIST has yet to release its report on the subject, the FEMA report characterized its own report on the collpase of WTC 7 as only having "a low probability" of explaining it, but you are already satisfied with your conjecture. At the same time, you dismiss the views of others ("case closed") who prefer to see as many of the facts (even ones that do not support your "theory") before making up their minds. Perhaps the wiki article should try to present facts instead of first deciding what conclusions we wish to reach then presenting facts that support those conclusions. Reality is sometimes ambiguous and our goal should be to provide some facts, not to cherry pick the facts we like. Please respond to this and to my previous comment to you (posted on 15:51 on 17 Apr.). --216.57.0.210 15:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom H., we should post the descriptions of eye witnesses who saw the collapse. There are many firefighters, policemen, office workers, etc. who describe a range of interesting phenomena before the collapses--some of them are consistent with the NIST report, some of them not. Tom? --216.57.0.210 15:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is another distinct theory we should include, the one advanced by Frank Greening, where he suggests that the aluminum alloy from the planes melted, and that this molten aluminum then came in contact with rusted steel beams, causing a thermite reaction. Perhaps we can call this one the "accidental thermite" theory, or something like that. Alternatively, we could include it as a variation on the "core meltdown" theory.

Each theory should have a subsection called "criticism of the _______ theory". Mongo, you can go nuts writing the criticism of the controlled demolition theory.

TruthSeeker1234 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:NOR...we don't make up our own theories and call it encyclopedic...nor do we use information from non peer reviewed websites that offer nothing but questions and no proof. Fairly straight forward...the article space is not going to be a regurgitation of nonsense from unencyclopedic and suspect sources.--MONGO 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see a theory that Wiki authors made up, read the article as it currently stands. It is vague, it cites mutually exclusive sources, it makes many assertions which are not sourced at all.

I didn't make up the core meltdown theory. It was the official theory for months. They had to get rid of it because skeptics debunked it. Nor did I make up the Pancake theory, it was put out there by FEMA and Thomas Eagar and NOVA. They had to get rid of that one too, because skeptics debunked it. I didn't make up the NIST "column pulling" theory either. It too has been debunked, for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the molten metal. This led Frank Greening to come up with his "molten aluminum triggered spontaneous thermite reactions" theory. Dr. Jones and his students did some some simple tests with molten aluminum, and debunked that one. The debunking should go in the "criticisms" sections. I'm not aware of anyone who has seriously attempted debunking the controlled demolition theory, but if you can find a reputable source which does, then that should go in the article as well.

This article makes naked assertions which are not sourced. I have tried to delete them. They were restored. I have put "source needed" tags, and was admonished for "cluttering up the page".

Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts. There are at least 4 (or 5) separate, mutually exclusive theories out there about what caused the twin towers to collapse. THat is a fact. They have been endorsed by specific individuals and agencies. THat is a fact. So far, controlled demolition is the ONLY theory for the collapse of WTC7, NIST has given up trying to come up with one, and given the job to a private company. That is a fact. They may very well come out with a "fire did it" theory for WTC7, and when and if they do, that should be in the article.

Frankly, given that NIST only studied events leading up to the collapses, not the collapses themselves, I think it is very generous to even consider them a source at all, never mind that they are not peer reviewed. But heck, it's the government, so I guess we have to. Do we have to? Is there a seperate Wikipedia rule for the government, or what?

Would someone please respond to my complaint that the 9-11 commission report contains outright lies, and therefore cannot be considered a reputable source?

TruthSeeker1234 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What lies...? I don't see any lies.--MONGO 09:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo - Have you read the report? Seabhcán 11:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The 9-11 commission report stated that the core of each twin tower was "a hollow steel shaft". I am trying to proceed using a very civil tone, but there is no other way to characterize that than a lie. The core of each tower was 47 massive box columns, interconnected and free standing, founded on bedrock. TruthSeeker1234 15:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read the exchange over the last few days.... and all I will add is "good luck ".(Gary Joseph 20:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

I started the collapse features section. There are sources for every statement, please be a little patient while we add them in. There are also pictures corresponding to almost all the subsections, these would be most educational for our readers. I could use help adding this stuff in. Thank you.

TruthSeeker1234 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

None of that belongs here. If it belongs anywhere, it should be 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I'm not even sure about that. It all looks like your own original research. Maybe an op ed to the Times, or your own weblog would be the place for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, that is your silliest comment to date. There was nothing there about any conspiracy, nor was there any original research, and you know it. It was simply a listing of well-documented, observed features. Your RV was vandalism. I will repost it with the sources and pictures in a day or so. Below is what I posted, and I would invite anyone to dispute any one of these facts:

TruthSeeker1234 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. By "observed features" you mean uncited eyewitness testimony tied together in an original synthesis of speculation. --Mmx1 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, by observed features I mean features that are recorded on videos and photographs for anyone to observe. Instead of issuing vacuous profanity, Mmx, perhaps you could state which of these observations you think are false.

TruthSeeker1234 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First, learn to use indents. Second, wiki does not determine truth, it reports secondary sources. See WP:Verifiability.

Here's a list of unverifiable parts of your piece:

"the impacts left gaping holes" "
"the loads were redistributed onto the intact columns"
"The towers stood motionless as the fires inside them burned."

" sudden, total structural collapse."

"The South tower had about 34 floors above the impact zone." 
"As the collapse began, these top floors tipped over towards the south for about 2 seconds, 
 attaining an angle of about 20 degrees away from vertical."
"Then this top part stopped rotating, and began shattering into pulverized dust and shredded steel,
 falling downwards into the large dust cloud forming beneath it."

And so on and so forth. In other words, all of it. To illustrate how observation can vary, take "sudden, total structural collapse". In fact, it was reported in the New York Times and discussed in the PBS special that video analysis showed that the antenna began falling before exterior - so the core collapsed first and it was in fact not a "sudden, total structural collapse." It is pointless to argue here about our personal interpretations; nor is it the place of Wiki to document them. It is the place of wiki to document secondary, PUBLISHED sources on the matter. --Mmx1 00:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

These are not my personal interpretations, they are all from published sources, as you will see when I repost the section. I agree that my wording about sudden onset is unclear. The collapses were not instantaneous, they took 12-15 seconds. I believe I was clear about the antenna drop in "above the crash zones". Thank you for the sources on the antenna drop, I will use that. I did not include the inference that this means the core failed first, because that is an inference, not an observation. I was sticking to verifiable observations.

Jeez, this is like pulling teeth with you anti-science guys.

Bullshit. I will not refrain from calling it as I see it Anti-science? I'm a mathematician by training. This is not about science, but writing. Let me reiterate. This is not a place to be conducting original research, as you are doing. What secondary sources do is to compile primary sources (witnesses) and coalesce a theory or story from them. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SECONDARY SOURCE. WIKIPEDIA IS A TERTIARY SOURCE. Can we cite primary sources? If appropriate. But citing eyewitnesses to support a theory is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Moreover, basing conclusions on eyewitness testimony is not science, it's journalism. --Mmx1 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to cite Dr. Steven Jones, among many others. His peer-reviewed paper cites much original, published research. That makes his paper secondary research, which will make the use of it here tertiary. He is a professor of physics at a major university.

I'm glad to know you consider yourself scientific. As a mathemetician, surely you are familiar with basic logic. Something cannot be x and not-x at the same time. If you have read the NIST report and the FEMA report, surely you must concur that they are mutually exclusive. FEMA requires that the "angle clips" attaching the floor trusses to the core and perimeter columns are weak, and break first. The NIST report requires that these same "angle clips" hold very strong, "pulling" the perimeter columns inward.

The clips cannot break and also not-break. At least one of these two theories must be wrong. This is not original research, as Dr. Jones and others have published on the ever-changing official theory.

Yes, I repeat that those who support any of the various "official" theories are anti-science, because these official "studies" simply ignored a great long list of relevant data and observations, a very un-scientific thing to do. For instance, any correct theory must account for the molten metal, observed shortly before, and for weeks after the "collapses". A correct theory also must account for the collapse times, which none of the "official" theories have even attempted to do.

Anyone can issue profanity as a substitution for scientific argument. Unfortunately, it only makes you sound like . . .like and anti-science individual.

TruthSeeker1234 03:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't claim that Jones's paper has passed peer review until it is accepted to a legitimate scientific journal. A book by David Ray Griffin, a professor of theology and fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorist, isn't exactly an unbiased scientific source. Rhobite 04:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't claim that the FEMA or NIST or 9-11 commission reports passed any peer reveiw, or were published in any "legitimate" scientific journals.

Collapse Features - Twin Towers

Sudden Onset

Both twin towers survived the jet crashes. While the impacts left gaping holes in the sides of the buildings, having severed many perimeter columns, the loads were redistributed onto the intact columns. The towers stood motionless as the fires inside them burned.

Then, at 9:59 am, 56 minutes after the jet crash, the South tower suddenly fell into catastrophic collapse. About a half hour later, at 10:28 am, having stood for 102 minutes after suffering its impact, the North Tower also fell into sudden, total structural collapse.

Above the Crash Zones

The South tower had about 34 floors above the impact zone. As the collapse began, these top floors tipped over towards the south for about 2 seconds, attaining an angle of about 20 degrees away from vertical. Then this top part stopped rotating, and began shattering into pulverized dust and shredded steel, falling downwards into the large dust cloud forming beneath it.

The North tower had about 12 floors above the crash zone, and a large transmission antenna on the roof. The antenna went first, falling almost straight down into the building for about 1 second before anything else visible was moving. Then the perimeter columns above the crash zone gave way, and the 12 upper floors compacted to about 8 floors, while below the impact zone the structure was still motionless. Finally, about 4 seconds after the the initial drop of the antenna, the structure below the crash zone began collapsing, beginning at the crash zone and proceeding downward.

Symmetry

Both collapses were remarkably symmetrical, falling nearly straight down and ejecting material laterally in all 4 directions. Even the south tower, which began with the upper part toppling to one side, recovered symmetry. By the time each the collapses were half-over, they looked almost identical to one another.

Collapse Times

Both towers fell down at nearly free-fall speed. Government reports put the figure at 10 seconds, but independent researchers clock it at 12-15 seconds. A precise time is impossible to know, because by the time the roofs hit the ground, they were obscured by the huge dust clouds.

Totality

Both towers were totally destroyed. The steel frame was shredded into pieces, most being 30 feet long, or shorter. The remaining non-metallic contents, including the 4" thick concrete floors, the office materials, and the human beings, were mostly pulverized into a fine powder. This pulverization occurred as the buildings were falling. The resulting rubble piles were about 3 stories high.

Lateral Ejection

From beginning to end, each of the two collapsing buildings ejected steel members and clouds of dust sideways, in all four directions, up to 300 feet. During the collapses, both towers exhibited several horizontal "plumes", sharply focused jets of dust and debris emerging from center windows about 20 stories below the level to which the total destruction had proceeded by that point in time.

Dust Clouds

The pulverized buildings produced pyroclastic flows of dust, expanding to about 5 times the original volume of the buildings within 30 seconds. These clouds flowed outwards in all directions, down streets and between buildings, eventually leaving a coating of thick, toxic dust over much of lower manhattan. After each collapse, a mushroom shaped cloud formed above where each building had stood.

Molten Metal

Molten metal, flowing and in pools, was reported in the sub-basement areas of each rubble pile for weeks after the collapses. A large chunk of what appears to be red-to-yellow hot metal was photographed being pulled out of the North tower rubble 8 weeks after the collapses. Moments before collapse, what appears to be molten iron was video taped dripping out of a corner window of the south tower.

TruthSeeker1234 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The molten metal part is easily documented by reliable sources, see Talk:Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Molten_metal. I think we can find sources to the rest as well EyesAllMine 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Link To the FEMA Report

"World Trade Center Building Performance Study" by FEMA seems to have been moved. Does anybody has a link form the FEMA website that works? The report is cached here though - also the missing chapter seven EyesAllMine 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

External link: wtc7.net

There is no reason to delete wtc7.net from wikipedia coverage. Furthermore, there is no wikipedia requirement to segregate "conspiracy theories" into a separate place, merely User:Rhobite's desire for that to be so. Wikipedia policy itself states to use google or yahoo search results as sources of information. On google, searching for 'World Trade Center 7' yields wtc7.net as the #1 hit. On yahoo it is number two. User:MONGO has called this site "junk science". This is an incorrect categorization and I cite this as supporting evidence of my claim: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/4/10/1?rss=2.0

Google unearths physics gems

21 April 2006

Google could be a good way of measuring the "impact" of a particular scientific paper and might even be used to replace traditional citation indices, according to a new statistical analysis by physicists in the US. The researchers have found that the Google PageRank algorithm, which measures the relative importance of Web pages, can provide a systematic way to find important papers. The technique also uncovers scientific "gems" -- top papers overlooked by conventional searches (physics/0604130).

MONGO is correct, it is a conspiracy site and it should be linked in one of the many CT articles. This article covers events which actually happened on 9/11. You lost me on the Google reasoning.. you're saying that since Google can help find scientific papers, according to a physics news site, Wikipedia should link to wtc7.net, even though wtc7 is not a scientific paper, nor does it contain scientific papers? I guess I don't follow the logic. Rhobite 04:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I infer that google is good at finding resources that have scientific insight. Does that logic make sense? Kaimiddleton 05:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Are ya'll smoking crack? You interpret the page to say that a high pageranking means a website is scientific? Read the fracking article.

In their study, the researchers simply "applied this algorithm to the
entire network of citations" for all articles in the Physical Review
family of journals published between 1893 to June 2003. 

They are using pagerank as an alternate method of ranking published papers because it's a better way to measure importance than counting direct citations (e.g. the equivalent of counting direct links to webpages). They are not using page rank on the WWW to determine scientific worthiness. It is not measuring "scientific insight", it is essentially a refined popularity count.--Mmx1 12:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't popularity the only tool wikipedians have to sort out what's legitimate? Isn't popularity what makes the New York Times a "better" source than, say the Deseret Morning News? How exactly are wikipedians supposed to determine what is "reliable" and "legitimate" from that which is not? Near as I can tell, on this article, "legitimate" is whatever Tom Harrison, Rhobite and MONGO say it is. If that's the case, WP should just change their rules to reflect reality.

Um..No. For example, The Onion is more popular than the New York Times. That doesn't make The Onion more legitimate. CSPAN is less popular than NYT, but is more legitimate. --Mmx1 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, wikipedians should be free to disregard sources which contain outright lies about relevant topics. Is there anyone here who does not concur that the 9-11 commission report issued a blatant, baldfaced lie, when it stated that the cores of the twin towers were "a hollow steel shaft"? Or does this simply not matter to the anti-science crowd? TruthSeeker1234 16:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Show me the context. Since the cores surrounded elevator shafts and stairwells, they were essentially hollow. --Mmx1 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:MONGO has called wtc7.net "junk science". Such a claim is defamatory, especially coming from an administrator, and has no place in a discussion such as this. My point stands that google is a valid tool for vetting the quality of research. In fact, I will contact google engineering and ask why wtc7.net ranks #1 in their search. All kinds of serious researchers use google. I know a doctor who is a kidney specialist. He says that when he is researching a particular set of symptoms on the internet, the first thing he turns to is google. If that points him to journal articles then he'll try those. I assert that my point stands. Kaimiddleton 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I need my kidneys replaced and I go to this doctor, he's going to google websites on how to perform the surgery? I better get my will together.--MONGO 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

wtc7.net is collection of conspiracist nonsense. Hoffman's speculations are junk science. The site is not a reliable source for anything but what Jim Hoffman thinks. The link to it belongs in articles like 9/11 conspiracy theories, or any of the many favorable pov fork articles about Hoffman and his fringe ideas that his fans have managed to shoehorn into the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is already doing way too much to boost his page rank. I don't see how our readers gain from all the links we provide to him and the other purveyors of this nonsense. I can imagine that he might be eager for links from Wikipedia, but a link to his site does not belong in this article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison I find your usual neutral tone to have slipped into a derisive one. Here's from the Junk science article:

Junk or bunk science is a term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are perceived to be driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. It is these motives that distinguish junk science from pseudoscience and controversial science.

It looks like I'm in a 3:1 minority among editors here in my opinion about the veracity of Hoffman's claims, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I posit that you make the statement based on a political bias as mentioned in the definiton above. I equally claim that the FEMA report is junk science. The NIST report is better science, but also better manipulation of the presentation. For instance, it does detailed analysis of the effect of airplanes striking the towers, but in the case of building 7, doesn't explain what caused the building to collapse! The information is just left out. I claim this is politically motivated. So who is correct? Right now it's just a popularity contest to decide that. Kaimiddleton 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I have said is rude or derogatory...if you believe what you read in those websites, then I suggest that you need a better education if you actually believe that, yes, junk science. It isn't peer reviewed by hundreds and thousands of researchers, investigators and structural engineers...I have yet to see one prominent company on controlled demolition be cited in "those" websites which could substantiate the claims of the controlled demolition crowd...I have patiently waited for any editor to prove to me that controlled demolition or a deliberate government coverup occurred and no one has done so....I'm always open to proof...I would like to see proof of controlled demolition...please, please do show me where this proof is. Why hasn't the media anywhere come forward and declared that controlled demolition is the truth...demonstrate a society where true free press exists that this junk science has been accepted as fact and has been printed as so in a reputable newspaper.--MONGO 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Verification

I put some {{fact}} labels in the article this morning under the paragraph about the design and the critique of it. The whole paragraph lack sources. First Mongo and now Tom Harrisson has, as usual, removed the tags. I will repeat myself: Don't be afraid of facts. Facts are neutral, and making verifications in articles is a good thing. Verifiability is especially important for Wikipedia. The label might be ugly (according to MONGO), but it is very practical in an ongoing encyclopedic work - 'cause you can remember wich parts of an article still needs citation, while your digging them up. Why on earth is that abusive Tom? Why cant we put a source to this part of the article? EyesAllMine 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you put them in to prove a point, in an attempt to discredit the mainstream view, and to hold the article hostage. I don't think you added them to elicit information. The article is already well supported by the references included. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, the design section is not well supported at all, it appears to be original research. If the claims are correct, what possible objection could you have to citing sources? Tom Harrison, which part of WP protocol allows for you to play the role of a cyber-psychiatrist, and presume to know the thoughts and motivations of authors? Your deletion was, as usual, vandalism.

TruthSeeker1234 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't vandalism...you need to read about WP:VAN and then you'll understand what vandalism is. Be careful about what you refer to as vandalism.--MONGO 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely one point I'm trying to make, through all my edits - and that is that the facts of this article should, like in any other article on Wikipedia, be verifiable. We've come a long way, and we still need to come a long way yet. I have tried to point out several times, as has several others that a lot of the facts in this article needs sources. I really, honestly, don't understand why this is resisted so hard. EyesAllMine 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is as follows: Tom Harrison, MONGO, et. al do not care about WP policy, but care very deeply about preserving the "official" version of the "collapses", at all cost. I post a list of visual observations, which are both published and as obvious as a blue sky, and Tom Harrison says it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Very silly. The problem is, when reasonable people confront the observations, they immediately realize there must be something very wrong with the official explanations. They also realize that posting the pictures and the observations would allow any reader to come to the same realization. So, the cover-up is in full swing, here at Wikipedia. I'm very grateful for this talk page, as it will serve as a document on the lengths people will stretch to avoid the truth. TruthSeeker1234 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep personal attacks off this page, period...you have an article dispute, then address the content, not the messanger...personal attacks do have to be tolerated. Please provide proof...I am waiting patiently for that.--MONGO 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom: How can verifiable source notation be able to "discredit the mainstream view, and to hold the article hostage."? EyesAllMine 07:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

By following every declarative sentence with a {{fact}} tag, not looking for references yourself, and ignoring the references already included in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We have been through this a couple of times. The burden is not mine to find the source, as I have not written the tekst. As it says in WP:V

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

"1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

and

"As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

I have looked for proper sources to the design criticism, but have not been able to find them. I think you are beeing unreasonable, and giving me motives I do not have. That is a lack of good faith. Lets find the sources, citate them in a way so it os verifiable, or else delete the paragraph. EyesAllMine 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

Tom Harrison has repeatedly removed factual, relevant, published, sourced material from this and other articles, as has MONGO. THey have removed requests for sources on the original research which pervades the current article. These are deliberate attempts to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. I hereby restate and re-allege that Tom Harrison and MONGO are guilty of vandalism. I further state that this vandalism is deliberate, and premeditated, not merely negligent.

I challenge either of you to submit this dispute to an independent arbitration service, using our real names, and publishing the results.

Mr. Harrison, it is observations and facts which "discredit the mainstream view", but WP does not have a policy for "preserving the mainstream view at all cost". It has policy for citing sources and using secondary research. Please stop vandalizing this article.

TruthSeeker1234 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a dispute resolution mechanism. I invite you to follow it. I will not be replying to you again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Truthseeker1234, it's a good time for you to read WP:NPA...you have a problem with the message, then address that...do not attack the messenger. No vandalism has been committed either. There is a distinct difference from what you think is vandalism and what is actually efforts to ensure unencyclopedic and unproven allegations and original research out of article space. Furthermore, no one here is mandated to reveal their true names...and your comments about submitting this to an "independent arbitration service" indicate to me that you could possibly be threatening legal action...an indefinitely blockable offense. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...what part of that do you not understand? I have yet to see you provide one ounce of proof of anything. Lastly, this is the discussion page for this article...we don't need to clutter up article space with a bunch of fact tags...they are ugly and unnecessary.--MONGO 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is tons of proof of controlled demolition - molten metal, sulfidation of steel (FEMA), steel beams "partly evaportated" (FEMA), free-fall collapse times (9-11 commission) , enegetic horizontal ejection of very heavy objects for hundreds of feet (obvious), mushroom clouds (obvious), bright flashes(obvious), squibs, eyewitness reports of explosions in sequence. Anybody with the intellectual honesty to just make observations from the videos and pictures can see this for themselves. THere are many published primary and secondary sources for all of this. And you know it. Clearly, by arbitrarily deciding what is and is not a "reputable" source, those with the power can slant any article in any direction.

The problem with WP dispute resolution is that it is the fox guarding the henhouse.

Tom Harrison has now stated that he will not be replying to me again. I invite anyone to research this talk page, and the article history, to determine if Tom Harrison ever responded to the substantive criticisms I and others have made, . . .OR . . .if he deleted valid changes that he did not like, and failed to require sources on assertions that he did like.

There are no legal threats here. I was simply offering that I will voluntarily reveal my real name, and voluntarily submit this dispute to an independent arbitrator, and allow the results, whatever they may be, to be published for all to see. Tom Harrison or MONGO or anyone else is free to voluntarily agree likewise. I cannot force anyone to do that, and there is no threat.

I re-state, and reallege that Tom Harrison and MONGO are deliberately vandalizing this article, and are in stark contradiction to WP rules. Our questions about sources, facts, observations, have never been addressed, and I am very confident that any truly honest evaluation of this history will conclude the same.

TruthSeeker1234 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't take arguments off-wiki...remember that...I post anonymously, though a few know my real name only one or two wiki editors know what I do...it's not that impressive. I could care less who you are...if your "facts" do not prove controlled demolition, and you offer nothing but speculations (as you have done here repeatedly), then nothing you have had to say on this matter is notable. I think you have Wikipedia confused with a blog. Non scientific websites that post nonsense and offer no proof clearly do not belong in an encyclopedia.--MONGO 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What is this crap? "Fox guarding the henhouse?" It's not like the USG owns wiki. I doubt your "independent arbitrator" would be that independent anyway if you aren't willing to accept volunteers on MedCabal or the consensus of the community via RFC--Mmx1 18:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact vs Theory

Can we perhaps all agree that fact and theory should be distinctly separate in this article? For example, in the Collapse of the two towers section, many statements are good and beyond dispute, eg "The south tower, 2 WTC, was struck at 9:02:54 am and collapsed 56 minutes and 10 seconds later, at 9:59:04 am." whereas others such as "the hottest part of the fire in the south tower burned near a corner of the building" appear to me to be speculation. Perhaps this is part of the official report, in which case it needs a citation, or perhaps it is the opinion of an editor. In any case, whether the statement is true or not, it is not as factually based as the former example and should be distinctly indicated as such. I propose we place indisputable statements at the beginning of sections, and then have separate later paragraphs for inference and conjecture, with clear citations as to their origin. Seabhcán 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this EyesAllMine 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but you must understand a few things. THere is no one official report, there are several, and they contradict each other in important ways. Second, we have already asked for what you suggest, and MONGO, Tom Harrison have deleted any attempts, and they will again. It is hopeless against these anti-science guys. Power beats science, every time.

MONGO, please confirm or deny molten metal. Please confirm or deny 12-15 second collapse times. SImply issuing ad-hominem attacks, or dismissing everything you don't like without addressing the issues is un-scientific.

TruthSeeker1234 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit disagreements

Mongo, please explain these edits and how you think they are 'junk science'. The statement "A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer." is unsourced. Is it just your opinion? I attempted to tone it down by inserting 'may have', which you reverted. Without this inclusion, I will have to delete the section. Without a source, it is junk science.

How is this image, a photo taken of the WTC and published by FEMA, junk science?

How is the statement "7 WTC collapsed seven hours later at 5:20pm, but without casualties as it had already been evacuated." junk science?

You changed the title of an image to the emotive "Firefighters at Ground Zero, during recovery efforts of missing persons" from the more neutral "Rubble at gound zero, severed box column in background". How do you know what these firefighters were doing when the photo was taken? Do you have a source? To me they look kitted out for cutting box columns, which was a major part of the clean up work. If you look carefully, you can see a third man crouched behind the firefighter to the left of the image who looks like he's cutting steal.

For the third time you have reincluded the word 'minority' without explaining what you are refering to. A minority of what? All people? All researchers?

You have reincluded a link to an article in Popular Mechanics (while calling it Popular Science for some reason). Can you explain to me how this article, which debunks theories not contained or refered to in this article, has any relevance? Seabhcán 08:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted User:Tom harrison's recent edits, as they are identical to Mongo's. See [4]. I have directed Tom to this discussion, which I assume he overlooked before. Seabhcán 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course my edits are not identical to MONGO's, as you can see [5]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So tiresome when we have to deal incessantly with those that are determined to have completely unproven nonsense be a part of the article, just because they have some agenda or simply want to believe in the impossible. Nothing you have asked here, Seabhcan is even worht responding too. We have already discussed this same nonsense in essence, dozens of times. In all honesty, anyone that believes in a U.S. Government coverup or controlled demolition must have zero understanding of the scientific method.--MONGO 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, it is not wether it's true or not, it is wether it's verifiable/soured/citated (WP:V) or not that counts. You keep saying that it can't be included because it isn't true. Neither you nor I can say what the truth is, that would be original research. We can only refer to what others has said about the subject. I think I am going to ask for mediation, what do y'all say to that? EyesAllMine 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added back the beginnings of the "collapse features" section. It is sourced. I'm going to keep adding to it, as it is factual and very important to an encyclopedia. If it is vandalised again, I'm all for mediation. TruthSeeker1234 21:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Seek it, because I will delete it as OR. --Mmx1 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What does OR mean? EyesAllMine 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research. You've established pretty clearly your intent to create a synthesis of "observations". --Mmx1 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OR means Original Research. The citation that Mmx deleted was sourced to the 9-11 commission report, and 9-11 research. The freefall collapse times are also obvious. There is no possible way that any reasonable wikipedian could consider this original research. I would very much like to continue adding collapse features, as they are scientific, correct, sourced, documented, important, and very interesting to readers. Please stop vandalising this article. TruthSeeker1234 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sourced from a geocities site; part of a new section titled "Collapse Features", and consistent with the samples posted here in this talk page. --Mmx1 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, this dispute is irrelivant to any policies of your government. I am not an American. I do not care about your local political disputes. I am a physicist. And I will argue the facts based on sources and logic. Regardless of what you may believe to be true, wikipedia is not faith based, you must provide references and sources for your statements. I also think it is time for mediation. Seabhcán 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can there now be any doubt that Tom Harrison is vandalising this article? I post about the collapse times, and cite the 9-11 commission's report, and Tom Harrison deletes it. It is time for mediation, and it is time for Tom Harrison to be blocked. Tom Harrison, please review WP rules. TruthSeeker1234 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the estimates for the collapse times belong in the "Collapse of the two towers" section, right after the second sentence. I don't see why that information should go in the "Controled demolition speculations" section. Toiyabe 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to create a new section called "collapse features" which is simply a list of observed features of the collpases. Collapse times is only one of about 10 categories. I believe this could be a very NPOV, strictly observation based section, with pictures, and absolutely no theorizing or explaing at all. At least Toiyabe agrees it should go in the article, whereas Tom Harrison want us to believe that he thinks it is original research. Mongo doesn't want it either, because he thinks it is junk science.

TruthSeeker1234 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No one knows how long it took the entire structure of each building to complete the collapse...they disappeared into the dust by the time they were at the 45 floor. So these collaspe times are not relevent and prove nothing one way or the other. It amazes me that someone that claims to be a physicist could be so misinformed as Seabhcan apparently is. Don't mislead in image summaries and article text to push a POV. Does a single editor here have one shred of proof of controlled demolition...what, I can't hear you...oh, so you don't, and the reason why? well, gee, maybe it's because there wasn't any controlled demolition. It is absolutely ludicrus to believe there could ahve been...especially since there is no proof.--MONGO 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The 9-11 commission said it took 10 seconds (south tower). Collapse time is very relevant, if for no other reason that it is interesting. MONGO, there is no proof that any core columns were damaged, or if there were, how many. It's all speculation. THere is no proof that fireproofing was torn off of anything. There is no proof of how hot the fires burned. It turns out that many of the observed features of the collapses are most easily accounted for by the contolled demolition hypothesis, which is likely why Tom Harrison, MONGO, et al are so opposed to the "collapse features" section. Far easier to vandalize them out of the article than have to deal with them. Claims that "collapse features" constitutes original research are ludicrous. TruthSeeker1234 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please initiate the mediation process? Thanks. TruthSeeker1234 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More speculations of course on your part. Why didn't those above the point of impact in the north tower and only a handful in the south tower not escape? We have done no vandlaisms here and your continued implications of this are going to result in a disruption block by an admin neutral to this issue. You have zero proof of controlled demolition. All you have are questions. There is no room for meditation if we are going to have to have controlled demolition nonsense in this article. This isn't a blog and we are not going to add a bunch of original research and speculations to appease those that wish to see this article turned into nonsense.--MONGO 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If this weren't a matter of such importance, this page would be hilarious. Mongo, we have much more than questions. We have pictures, videos, observations and published research. If you think the controlled demolition hypothesis is such "nonsense', then please shut me up by answering one question: What is the source of molten metal observed dripping out of the south tower in this video? It cannot be aluminum because it is the wrong color. Was there a man up there with a huge cutting torch? Or what?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

Even if we don't present the controlled demolition hypothesis in this article, shouldn't we present the other theories? Why shouldn't we present the "core meltdown" theory? Several prominent experts back this theory, it is published in mainstream primary and secondary sources, its inclusion in WP would be tertiary. Who are we to decide that the core meltdown theory is wrong?

Lastly, let me correct you. I have not IMPLIED that Tom Harrison vandalized this article. I have STATED it in no uncertain terms. I hereby restate and re-allege that Tom Harrison vandalized this article when he deleted the part about collapse times. It is relevant, important, and backed by no less than the "official" source, the 9-11 commission report. You guys can't have it both ways. Either that source is reputable, or it isn't.

TruthSeeker1234 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that's molten metal? It could be dripping jet fuel. It frankly looks like the sparks from an arc welder more than "drops of metal". If it were "dripping", why are they accelerating away from the building in a varying arc (come to think of it, it looks a lot like the discharge of a swaying high-voltage line). Oh, and have you ever seen aluminum heated? Or aluminum sparks when you cut it? --Mmx1 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to Mmx for actually looking at the video! Burning Jet fuel is excluded because it is lighter than air. Aluminum is excluded because it remains silver-colored when melted. Electrical sparks are excluded because they do not splash upon hitting a solid object, and they tend to be of a much more uniform size, and are white-hot. This substance is yellow-hot, which reveals a white-hot interior upon splashing. The thermite reaction is a violent one, generating tremendous heat, accelerating the by=product molten iron away from the source.

Here is a side-by-side comparison with a known thermite demo, where you can observe how the molten iron accelerates away from the source in varying arcs:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm

TruthSeeker1234 06:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha! I knew that is where you were going with this...oh yes, the good ole Thermite explosion...sure...I haven't the slightest idea what is in that video...it could be a lot of things. It's not because the buildings were blown up...that's ridiculous. Why on Earth would the U.S. blow up the buildings? Regardless, if an unattributed video showing something coming out of an opening in the building is the best proof you have of controlled demolition, then I'd really like to see that on the front page of the Washington Post...get ahold of Carl Bernstein...he's the chief investigative reporter for the paper...he needs to know....stop wasting your time here since the best way to make sure the whole world knows the truth is through the media...call them right away.--MONGO 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, you demand scientific proof of the conspiracy theories, on the other you accept the government theory without question and say it is by definition rediculous that the US gov would bomb the buildings. (ie. the US government would only bomb foreigners) I'm sceptical about both the conspiracy theories and the US government theories, whereas you have faith in one but reject the other out of hand. I think you need to examine your understanding of science and belief. Seabhcán 10:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but you best hit your textbooks...and maybe you'll pick up a bit of common sense along the way. The U.S. Government theory...exactly what is that...in what manner is it a theory? Let's be simple and stick to the facts...please try to follow along...airplanes slammed into buildings...buildings severely damaged, structures visibly compromised, fire evident everywhere in impact zone...buildings collapse. News?--MONGO 11:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you also have "no idea" that "if that region on any floor below the top floor is catastrophically damaged, the entire building is doomed". This is unsupported speculation, at best. Since you cannot provide an answer as to the source of the molten metal, let's try a different one:

If we're going to pick one theory as the "correct" one, how do we decide which of the various ones is right? No one has yet attempted to answer this question. Is it the "truss failure" (pancake) theory? Or is it the "column pull" theory? Or is it the "melting core"? These are seperate, mutually exclusive theories, all published, all backed by experts. And precicely NONE of the experts has properly studied the collapses, because NONE of them ever examined the physical evidence, because the physical evidence was destroyed. I believe the WP policy is that we present ALL of the theories, and cite the leading experts who back each one. Attempting to decide for ourselves which one is correct constitutes original research, and is not allowed. Please comment. TruthSeeker1234 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no theory...what theory are you talking about? If, once again you mean the moronic concept that the buildings were imploded, then absolutely not...why..because there is no proof...how hard is that to understand...where is the proof...lets have it! We don't include nonsense and call it encyclopedic...it isn't...how do we state this..."Elmer Fudd thinks the buildings were blown up"...what sources do you propose as ones that are creditable for your conspiracy theory rhetoric? I am very interested in seeing what peer review or substantive scientific cross examination they have undergone.--MONGO 11:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed papers:

1: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Prof. Steven Jones [6]

2: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, David Ray Griffin [7]

3: 9/11 Commission Report

Oh, wait, that last one wasn't peer reviewed was it? Guess we'll have to remove all reference to it throughtout wikipedia then, eh Mongo? Seabhcán 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly who peer reviewed the first two? Or are you unaware that the true civil engineers at BYU...the University that Jones teaches at do not concur with his findings...and that he has yet to publish them...hence, they are original research. David Ray Griffin...since when did he learn about controlled demolition...he is the one who is going to publish Jones's book and he himself is a conspiracy theorist. Interesting that Jones wasn't able to get a real publisher to get his junk science into print...any reputable publisher knows what his motivation is. These folks can't compare to the thousands of researchers and investigators that work for dozens of federal agencies. Find somthing from here or even from these guys who have done some of the biggest implosions in the world...the biggest of which is this world record [8]...a building not even half as large as either one of the WTC towers...and they are the experts in their field.--MONGO 12:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that people disagree with Jones' paper does not make it junk science, nor does it mean that we shouldn't mention it. We should reference Jones' paper and present the arguements against it. If it is bogus the best way to show that is to talk about it. Your attempts to censor discussion is childish and makes the 'conspiracy nuts' see conspiracies where there aren't any. Seabhcán 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm going to try again, read carefully. There are several expert-published theories as to what caused the twin towers to collapse. For the sake of discussion, let's ignore the controlled demolition theory for one moment. We still have at least four seperate, mutually exclusive scenarios.

[A] Core meltdown theory - FIre melts core columns - various experts, mainstream media, Scientific American

[B] Pancake theory - angle clips fail first and floor trusses fall away from core and perimeter columns - FEMA,NOVA

[C] Column Pulling theory - angle clips hold strong, floor trusses sag and "pull" perimeter columns inward - NIST

[D] Spontaneous Thermite theory - aluminum from the aircraft melts and comes in contact with rusty core columns, creating a thermite reaction - Frank Greening

In a sense, the 9-11 commission report contradicts all 4 of these scenarios, because all 4 of these scenarios involve the core columns, and the 9-11 commission report denies the existance of the core columns.

Having said all that, from a strictly scientific point of view, controlled demolition has a scientific advantage over all of these other theories, because we know it is scientifically possible to demolish a building with explosives. That alone does not prove anything, but at least controlled demolition does not require any new theories to explain the behavior of the buildings, whereas all other explanations are unprecedented.

Finally, none of the official theories has anything definitive to say about WTC7, a topic very interesting to readers of this encyclopedia. TruthSeeker1234 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What sort of bullshit is that? "the 9-11 commission report denies the existance of the core columns". That's based on the out of context phrase "hollow core" that you've jumped on. Given that the core consists primarily of elevator shafts, hollow core is a very accurate description. --Mmx1 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

your missing the point. The report uses the description "hollow core" to claim that the core provided no structural load bearing, when infact it was the primary structural element. Seabhcán 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lies. The only reference in the 9-11 commission report to the core is on page 558, in the footnotes for Section 9:

 In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the
 centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of  
 the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and 
 stairwells were grouped.

The primary collapse conclusions are NOT present in the 9/11 commission, but the FEMA Report. Read and enlighten. --Mmx1 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just caught this brilliant piece of deduction from above.

Burning Jet fuel is excluded because it is lighter than air.

Well holy fucking shit. I didn't know that. I guess that means a 757 is a blimp, because all the gas it's carrying must make it a lighter than air aircraft. You sir are a genius. Boeing and Airbus must be knocking down your door. --Mmx1 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Burning Jet fuel is lighter than air, because its hot. Cold, liquid jet fuel is not. Whats your point.

Also I think you proved my point above: The commission report states "exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building". This statement is 100% untrue. Seabhcán 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Untrue according to who? The PBS special on the construction also stated that the exterior walls bore most of the weight. Moreover, they did not say it bore no weight, as you allege.

Re: Jet Fuel, ROFL. You know, that bit wasn't directed at you, but you've just outed yourself as an idiot. Basic chemistry primer: liquids are basically incompressible. So they don't appreciably change volume with temperature as gases do. Since buoyancy is a factor of density, (when we say "lighter than air", it means it has less density than air and hence floats), and neither volume or weight change for a heated liquid, the density remains constant...and higher than air.

The only way for it to be lighter than air would be if it boiled into a gaseous state (which would probably ignite under the conditions). Even while burning, only the surface molecules of gas are being converted in the chemical reaction of combustion; the rest remains liquid. That's why it's a fire (sustained combustion) and not an explosion (instantaneous conversion into gas). --Mmx1 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think burning jet fuel would be liquid. When it burns, it vapourises and becomes a gas. Burning jet fuel cannot remain as a liquid. Yes, some people say the walls held up the building, others say the core did (the builders, for example) I'm not asking for you to believe what I say, simply that both sides (with sources) should be presented in the article.Seabhcán 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

At the surface it does; but the entire liquid (particularly the areas not in direct contact with the flame (e.g. the interior of droplets) won't unless it reaches the boiling point of jet fuel. For example: firefighter lighting an oil slick. It burns at the surface but the oil beneath the fire remains liquid. --Mmx1 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, if it all turned to gas (nearly) instantaneously, we wouldn't need to fight jet fuel fires....just let it vaporize and blow away. If only it were that easy. --Mmx1 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok. It depends how you define it. I would say that any part of the fuel not burning is not burning jet fuel, whereas you include the unburning liquid. Fair enough. How do you respond to my more important statement above: "I'm not asking for you to believe what I say, simply that both sides (with sources) should be presented in the article." Seabhcán 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But you won't have "burning" without unignited fuel to sustain the reaction. That's what separates fire from explosion.

Cite the "other side" that says the core was the primary weight-bearing structure, because I haven't seen it. --Mmx1 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Inside the outer tube there was a 27m x 40m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower", Journal of Materials, etc 53 (12) 2001 pp8-11 (An article which makes the case that the towers fell due to warping. The original 'pancake' article) There are many others. Seabhcán 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (Here's the link [9] Seabhcán 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Flames are lighter than air. This is why they go up. When Mmx said that the yellow substance streaming out of the south tower might be jet fuel, I assumed he meant flaming jet fuel, because clearly the substance is emmitting light, not simply reflecting it. Liquid jet fuel (while heavier than air) is excluded because it does not emit light. Burning jet fuel flames do emit light, they are gaseous, and they are lighter than air.

Thank you Mmx for the full quote in context. Nowhere does the 9-11 report mention 47 steel box columns, founded on bedrock. It is misleading in the extreme to characterize the core of the towers as "a hollow steel shaft", in my opinion. But it is not my opinion that counts. We should mention this report, along with everything else.

How about responding to my central point which is that there are many official theories, not just one. TruthSeeker1234 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But something has to sustain those flames....and that something is heavier than air.

Well an elevator is a hollow shaft, is it not?

Regarding your "official theories", SCIAM does not say the core melted - it advances the breaking angle clips theory. Nor is Frank Greening "official". The "official" conclusion has always been that the trusses sagged, placing a lateral strain on the angle clips that they were not designed to hold, resulting in their failure. Everything else is misattributions and misquotes from the 9-11 "truth" movement. --Mmx1 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

These official investigations into the collapse should be viewed in context - They are searches for lessons that can be applied to help prevent similar failures in the future. You are looking for the big "Why" answer, and you'll never be satisfied because it doesn't really exist (or at the least it is beyond our capability to discover). That, in a nutshell, is the difference between a scientist and an engineer. Toiyabe 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, yes an elevator is a hollow steel shaft, but was NOT the core of the building. The core was 47 box columns. Get it?

I was being polite about your silly suggestion that the substance coming out of the south tower could possibly be jet fuel. The volume of Jet fuel would easily combust completely in far less time than it takes to fall the distance observed. It doesn't matter. A prominent physics professor thinks it looks like molten iron, and that's what we should report.

Here is a listing of the mainstream experts who support the core meltdown theory, including SCIAM's role.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html

NIST maintains that the angle clips held strong, pulling the perimeter columns inward. This is in stark contradiction to the FEMA report that says they broke away. You can't have it both ways, and you guys should read up. TruthSeeker1234 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? This is a very complex problem, and it is impossible to come up with a theory that explains all the data unless you are willing to settle for a creationist/conspiracy theory. It is much easier for me to belive that there's an invisible man who lives in my garage and opens the door when I come home, then some complicated theory that involves a coal-fired power plant 100 miles away, an electric motor and radio waves - This is your application of Occam's Razor.

As to suggesting two different failure modes, what's the problem? We will design for both cases in the future. Toiyabe 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[10]. The dark areas are the elevator shafts. Looks pretty hollow to me.

Given your statement about burning fuel being lighter than air....I don't think I'll take your word on the time of fuel consumption. Besides, I'm not saying it IS jet fuel, just that it's one of the possibilities. Given that Jones is a theoretical physicst, not a materials engineer, I don't put much stock in what he says either.

That 911research link is a joke. It doesn't have official accounts, just initial speculation from the days afterwards. The MIT professor only says "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements".

Fine, I see NIST maintains that the outer columns buckled. They even admit it's a "Probable collapse theory". All it is, is quibbling over the exact collapse mechanism. It doesn't make your any more valid. --Mmx1 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As fars as TruthSeeker1234's comments...we don't report what we think we see...I think I see molten metal coming out of the building...any information about a thermite explosion is going to need proof that thermite was used...there is no proof and there are no observable evidences that prove thermite was used...it is ludicrus. If they were going to blow the buildings up, why add the further complication of airplanes into the situation...the "coverup" magnifies ten fold. A truck bomb did a lot of damage in 1993...why not so it in the simplist manner...honestly, my government is too inept to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude...I would believe UFO's to be infinitely more believable than controlled demolition, even though there is zero proof of the latter.--MONGO 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More stuff

Stop the presses! I reread FEMA. Quote:

"Just prior to the collapse (of WTC2), a stream of molten metal - possibly aluminium from the airliner - was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level)"

FEMA, Chapter 2, Section 2,2,2,3, page 34

OK guys, FEMA admits it. Jet fuel. LOL. Electrical sparks. ROTFLMAO.

Mmx, please read and think more carefully. Again, YES, elevator shafts are hollow. So are water pipes. So what? The elevator shafts did not support weight. They did NOT comprise the core of the towers, as the 9-11 commission implies. The cores were 47 steel box columns.

Thank you for the quote where NIST admits they only have a theory. This is exactly my point. MONGO, listen up. We should present what NIST says as a theory, just like they say it is. Not proof. Same goes for FEMA. They came up with a different theory, and we should present it as such. Mmx, you are correct, FEMA, NIST are "quibbling" over what caused this unprecedented failure. That's how we should present it. Unsolved. Still quibbling. The scholars for 9-11 truth are also quibbling. They have a different theory.

The many mainstream press accounts of the core meltdown theory may be a joke to you, but that is original research and your opinion. The fact is, there were many mainstream media accounts quoting structural engineers and others in support of this theory. We are only qualified to report on this stuff, not to dismiss it. Please review WP rules.

MONGO, we are not going to quote ourselves claiming molten metal. We are going to show pictures, and quote experts from published reliable sources. No observable evidences? Sorry, there are pictures and a litany of people who, in published reliable sources say there was molten metal. According to the skeptics, the reason that the conspirators would involve jet planes is so that they could blame it on someone else. A controlled demolition requires access to the building for days or weeks, which would immediately place suspicion on the owner and/or the security company. TruthSeeker1234 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Published reliable sources...exactly where are those? I see, yes, the wide body jets makes it "easier" to blame on somebody else...sure. And you say "according to the skeptics"...exactly who are these people and how do you propse to cite them as reliable witness...look, I appreciate your contibutions to this talk page rather than edit warring, but truthfully, your accusations of vandalism were completely wrong. If anything, your attempt to add nonsense to the article is more in line with vandalism. In a nutshell, you have yet to provide one reliable link to a website or reputable book that we are going to agree is notable in regards to this contolled demolition bunk.--MONGO 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew that was going to get taken out of context. The "theory" covers the mechanism of failure ONLY They're quibbling over the mechanics of the collapse, as clearly nobody was on hand to see which failed first. But the overall cause is that the fire weakened structural components, causing the trusses to sag. Quibbling over whether the outer columns or the angle brackets failed first is like arguing whether a car crash victim died first from the tree trunk through his head or the steering wheel column in his chest. Either way, he died as a result of the car crash, and the fact that we're not really sure which killed him first doesn't mean that he was actually killed by aliens from Jupiter.

I wasn't purporting that the drip wasn't metal, just that there are many possibilities from our amateur point of view. I seem to recall you rejected the possibility it was aluminium.

Regarding the "mainstream accounts", look at the context. They are people commenting days or weeks after the disaster, asked to offer an opinion. No studies or analyses had been done, just people's best guess. --Mmx1

Yes, molten aluminum is excluded because it is silver-colored. Don't take my word for it. Go look at the pictures. Notice how the FEMA guys chose their words carefully. They knew all about molten aluminum.

I restate and re-allege that Tom Harrison vandalized this article. See reasons above. No one has atempted to explain where I am wrong.

Mmx, you said "Statement in a Footnote describes the core as a "hollow steel shaft" and says the exterior columns bore most of the weight, not that there were no core columns." Will you please tell us how the core can be a hollow steel shaft, and also have 47 massive steel box columns?

Still no one has properly studied this issue, because the evidence was destroyed. It is all just speculation. MMx, the ENTIRE point is to describe the mechansim of failure. If the official reports disagree, we must present this disagreement. Your car crash analogy is flawed, because the tree trunk theory and the steering wheel theory are not mutually exclusive, it is only a question of which happened first. The FEMA and NIST theories are mutually exclusive. If the floor trusses broke first, they are then unavailable to pull on the perimeter columns.

Any of the "fire did it" theories are more akin to aliens from Jupiter, because they are unprecendented. At least controlled demolition is scientifically possible, and has actually happened many times before and after 9-11.

The official theories did not, and cannot explain the collapse times, which is why you anti-science crowd are so desperate to keep that info out, despite the fact that 9-11 commission says it was 10 seconds. Remember, the part Tom Harrison vandalised out of the article?

The official theories did not, and cannot explain the molten metal, before and weeks after the collapses.

I believe this is why normally fair people, like Tom Harrison, must resort to vandalism to keep the info out. TruthSeeker1234 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Molten Aluminum is silver....like....here[11]. Wrong again, I see. There were 100+ floors on two buildings. Certainly you're not saying all 200+ floors had to have failed in the same manner. The two are not mutually exclusive. --Mmx1 02:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to be more specific again. Aluminum melts at about 1220 F, below the cherry-red hot shown in your picture. If it is uncontained, it will begin to flow away from the source of heat, and retain its silvery appearance, because it has low emissivity, and is highly reflective. On the other hand, if the aluminum is contained, it can be heated beyond its melting point, up into the cherry red hot range of 1300-1400 F. The molten metal in the WTC2 video is yellow hot, and uncontained. Hope that clears it up.

Mmx, the NIST report only studies collapse initiation, not all 220 floors. We are trying to report on collapse initiation. Your speculation on the rest of the floors is your own. The mechanisms of collapse initiation reported by NIST and FEMA ARE mutually exclusive, for the reason that I explained, and that you ignored. TruthSeeker1234 02:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is again: wide body jets slammed into the towers going 490 and 595 mph respectively...major structural damage is more than apparent...no one in n. tower above point of impact survive...a handful above the point of impact in s. tower manage to get out...fires rage for an hour plus....buildings collapse....fires continue in debris for 3 months....thousands of reserachers, investigators and journalists look into every detail...no proof of a government coverup or controlled demolition is found...none. You have none.--MONGO 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's last post contains a lot to respond to. Here we go.

"major structural damage is more than apparent" - Perimeter columns are severed, the photographic evidence confirms this. Damage to core columns, if any, is speculative. After impact, buildings are motionless, vertical lines are still plumb, no sagging or collapsing is apparent. Buildings were specifically designed to absorb impact of similar aircraft.

The elevators all either stuck in place or crashed down to their lower levels. Again, not one in the N. tower above the point of impact survived..and only a few above the point of impact in the s. tower survived...the south tower was hit slightly off center, which preserved slightly, the integrity of one stairwell allow those to escape. The south tower cantered as it fell, towards the point of impact slightly. The pan floors which were held by both the interior columns and the exterior sheathing supports were only 3 to 5 inches thick and only held togther by reinforcing wire, not rebar. Essentially clips held the floors at their points of support...they carried 85% of the weight of the building as the steel was relatively lightweight throughout as a total sum of the weight of the building. All elevators and stairwells were in the center, none were on the outside perimeter...stroong evidence since almost everyone died, that the damage to the center columns was severe, especially when the avaiation fuel caught fire and warped about 15-20 support clips...at that point, each tower was completely unstable. Buildings were designed to absorb impact by low speed jet possibly lost in the fog, not a high speed impact as it occured.

"no one in n. tower above point of impact survive...a handful above the point of impact in s. tower manage to get out...fires rage for an hour plus...." - Yes, there were certainly fires in those buildings, evidently the one in the North tower was more widespread than in the south. After a half hour or so, South tower fires appear to be smoldering, oxygen starved. FIrefighter reports only two isolated pockets of fire, which he thinks he can knock down with two lines.

That is not the case...smoke is easily seen emerging from both buildings even as they started to collapse.

"buildings collapse" - Whoops. Hold on. FIres have never ever made a steel framed highrise collapse outside 9-11. As with the official reports, you try to make it sound routine. Anything but.

Those other buildings you mention were not hit by wide body jets at 500 or more miles per hour and laden with aviation fuel, so there is no comparative analogy here.

". . .fires continue in debris for 3 months..." - Very good point. Unless there were pools of molten metal under those debris, what is the source of this persistant heat?

Who knows...paper, office furniture, ceiling tiles, insulation. The kiln like situation...like smothering mulch.

" . . .thousands of reserachers, investigators and journalists look into every detail.. ." - Well, they didn't look at the metal very much, because it was (almost) all destroyed. What little is studied reveals sulfidation, and steel beams "partly evaporated". While many independant researchers report on many very interesting collapse features (collapse times, symmetry, pulverization, horizontal ejection, molten metal, etc.) these features are mostly ignored by "official" sources.

That's becuase they offer nothing but questions, not answers.

". . .no proof of a government coverup. . ." - The evidence at ground zero was destroyed, video and photographic evidence is ignored, WTC blueprints are gone, interviews with Air Traffic controllers are destroyed, black boxes are found but never released,

Thye evidence at ground zero wasn't destroyed. The need to first do all that could be done to try and rescue people, followed by the necessity of getting that asbestos and biohazard removed from a city of 8 million people was imperative

". . . or controlled demolition is found. . ." - Except for collapse times, pulverization, symmetry, dust clouds, demolition rings, bright flashes, molten metal, horizontal ejection, squibs, pyroclastic flows, mushroom clouds, and a litany of eyewitnesses who reported seeing, hearing, and feeling multiple explosions, you're right, there is very little evidence for a controlled demolition.

These collaspe times have nothing to do with anything as there is no comparative analogy...simply put, this is the speed any building that collaspes will collapse, whether it is from controlled demolition or from the events that happened on 9/11. Pulverizatiuon, of course, the floors and drywall were simply limestone ands gypsum, and is easy pulverized by the violence of the collapse. Mushroom clouds> Where...oh you mean dust and smoke being forced out of the buldings by the overpressure of the collapse and prior to that...also known as a backdraft. Of course poeple heard multiple explosions. With all the air pockets that were breached by the expansion of pressure and pockets of oxygen that gave the collapse and fires room to expand...still just a backdraft. Molten metal...in limited amounts...the main problem has nothing to do with melting steel...all that was needed was for the steel to bend or tweak...anyone can get their home fire grate to do just this in less than an hour using only wood.Nothing you have provided is proof of controlled demolition...it is all speculation and, well, really without scientific merit. But surely you've heard that before haven't you.--MONGO 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker1234 05:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, TruthSeeker, but true or not, it is a fringe theory and should have only a brief mention in this article (Wikipedia is a devotee of Historicism, not truth). If we could get a detailed breakdown of the more accepted theories here, explaining points of agreement as well as contradiction, and points unexplained by the mainstream theories, it would be a major improvement to the quality of the article. Seabhcán 09:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This question of proof is beside the point here. Even if there was 'proof' of the conspiracy theories, would that mean that we would remove information on the government account? No, we would keep both. We need to stop trying to convince each other of our pet beliefs. *Our* beliefs are irrelevant and Original Research by definition. Wikipedia should present sourced information on common beliefs and commonly accepted facts of both official and fringe groups. Seabhcán 13:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Seabhcan, our job is to document evidence and reasonable inference from evidence by serious researchers who have studied these issues closely, not to come to a decision and write only what we believe. With respect to evidence of molten steel, as I have previously quoted on this page: "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm (Johns Hopkins University is a reliable source, I think we all could agree). What does molten steel mean? It's not for us to decide but we should include it in the article. I also don't understand why the 9/11 Comission's estimate of collapse times should be removed from the article. --JustFacts 14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You have previously posted on this page...this appears to be your first edit. The problem is that there are no reputable scientist that have peer reviewed evidence that support the conspiracy theory "evidence" so we can't cite them...their work is primarily speculations and has never appeared as credible witness in the media, in a scientific journal or sanctioned by a university or association of accredited peers. Johns Hopkins is fine of course and I don't personally care if the molten steel comment from that source is here...but linking to a video that is unattribted which shows, well, who knows what it shows...looks to be a fluid and a few sparks, but it certainly doesn't appear to be some lava like molten steel "poring" out of the building...photographic evidence that is unattributed is not acceptible becuase it is easily doctored...almost any PC can do wonders with a picture, so the original as filmed and attributed to the original source is mandatory. Also, your link doesn't seem to be working.--MONGO 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo - you really love to grasp at straws! The video of the liquid is mentioned by the 9/11 commission, thus it is highly unlikely that it was 'doctored'. There have been numberous publications, of which "Research in Political Economy"'s 2006 edittion (available on Science Direct, is but the latest. However, I feel that none of these publications will ever recieve the Mongo-stamp of approval. So lets stick to 'official' reports. I will happily let you decide on a list of approved publications. Post it here, and we will work from that. Just accept that ALL information contain in them can be posted here. Even if we were limited solely to the NIST, FEMA and Commission reports, there would be more than enough contradictions to keep us busy. Simply agree that you do not have a Line-item veto on these publications. Seabhcán 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, you can't pick facts from it and synthesize them into a theory, either explicitly or implicitly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for personal theories, as we both know. Your comment is a distraction. I'm saying that we should use information from sources to write articles. That is generally how I contribute to Wikipedia. How do you do it? Seabhcán 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"interesting view from Tom" Thanks, but it's not original. I acknowledge that some may find it distracting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is including information which is only notable because conspiracy-minded folks think it supports their pet theory. There's a large number of rational explainations for that "liquid", and an infinite number of irrational ones and none of them amount to anything. The presence or absence of that information ought not convince anyone of anything, however including it indicates that it is considered significant. Same thing as if the JFK assasination page included information on what Castro ate for breakfast that day. Toiyabe 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of being 'conspiracy minded'? This phrase, along with Mongo's 'junk science' are being thrown around to silence debate. It's pathetic. Seabhcán 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets ignore the liquid too. Lets pretend it wasn't videod or mentioned by the 9/11 Commission. Can we mention the disagreement about the cores? The 9/11 commission say the walls took the building's weight, while NIST say it was the core. Can we at least mention that? Is that a conspiracy? Seabhcán 15:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the "conspiracy-minded", I'll have to think of something nicer. I think the 9/11 commission is incorrect that the perimeter columns took most of the dead load, based on the tributary areas. It would be nice to have another authoratative source to point to. As it is, one is correct and the other is incorrect. Not sure what the article would gain by stating that. Toiyabe 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that an article on the collapse shouldn't point out where experts disagree? What use is such an article? Seabhcán 15:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is something that is very knowable, not something that is subject to interpritation. One or the other made a stupid mistake or gross misstatement. That's not the same thing in my mind as experts disagreeing. Toiyabe 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But as Wikipedia editors it is not our job to figure out who is right. We must just present what was written and said. Seabhcán 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To a degree, yes. However, if we did have a statement from the structural engineer responsible for the design that agreed with NIST's report I think the article could be dismissive of or even ignore the statement by the 9/11 commission. At this point I would support some edits that discuss this disagreement and oppose others depending on the context and whether the disagreement is being used to push an agenda. Toiyabe 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

After looking through the 9/11 commission report, I find that it does not deal with the structural aspect of the WTC collapse. The sentences "These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped." come from a footnote on page 541. The word "steel" appears in the entire document four times, three of which are in the footnote mentioned. The word "column" appears twice, both in that footnote.

This is a pointless issue. The 9/11 commission report shouldn't be used as a source on the structural aspects of the WTC collapse. Toiyabe 21:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, this isn't the forum for debate. There are plenty of forums on the web for debating the various merits of the U.S. government's position and the positions of various conspiracy theories. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not debate theory. Let's stay focused on our mission here please. --Durin 15:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly the place to debate how to move forward with this article. That is what I have been doing throughout. (But maybe I'm the only one.) Seabhcán 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Seabhcán, I agree with you completely. EyesAllMine 16:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article, as it currently stands, is a synthesis, a shallow pet theory based on selective bits and pieces of the various competing official theories. It ignores many relevant, published facts, yet contains many unsupported assertions. According to WP rules, the article should present the observations, with pictures, and cite experts who confirm the observations. Then it should explain each of the theories, and cite the experts responsible for each theory. It should have criticism of each theory, and cite experts on that too. If you want to leave controlled demolition out of it, pretending that this theory does not exist, that is denial of a fact. This theory exists, there is probably 10 times as much being published in support of this theory than the other 3 combined, but whatever. It is certainly true that the "mainstream media" have ignored controlled demolition, but I don't see anything in WP about "mainstream media". Even if we ignore the controlled demolition theory, we should still present the other 3. NIST calls what they did a theory, not a fact. It is original research to claim otherwise.

Responding from upthread -the collapse times, the molten metal, the ejection, the pulverization, the symmetry, the mushroom clouds are not a theory. They are observations. They belong in the article. They are very interesting, they are published, they are observable to anyone with eyes, and beyond dispute.

MONGO, there are no historical examples of steel skyscrapers collapsing straight down (except from controlled demolition). Your speculation about normal collapse times is just that, and it defies the laws of physics. In order for the overall structure to fall anywhere near the speed of free-fall, lower floors must begin falling BEFORE being impacted by upper floors. Otherwise, the whole thing would take 80 seconds (.8 sec /floor x 100 floors), assuming zero resistance from the intact structure, and zero air resistance. This is because the free fall time for one floor is .8 seconds, and because in order to conserve momentum, a significant part of the falling mass must stop moving at every impact. Factoring in the resistance can only slow things down more. Factoring in the energy spent pulverizing and ejecting things can only slow things down more than that. This is well explained by Mechanical Engineer Judy Wood, an expert worth citing.

[link removed]

MONGO, on pulverization you forgot about all the concrete floors, and the desks, and computers, the phones, and carpet, and human beings. All of it was rendered into fine powder, IN MID AIR, not when it hit the ground. This does not happen when buildings fall down from earthquakes. Nothing remotely resembling that.

In a gravity collapse, any overpressure caused by falling material must be matched by a corresponding underpressure above. The expansion of the dust cloud, and the formation of a mushroom cloud at ground zero have not been tackled by the official theories, and is most easily explained by a tremendous source of energy, far beyond that which is available from gravity.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Gravity operates vertically, of course, so the propulsion of heavy objects horizontally for hundreds of feet in all directions is also very hard to explain absent another source of energy.

Seabhcan, you can rest assured that if anyone attempts to include observations of collapse features, or details the differences between the various "official" theories, the anti-science guys will vandalize it within minutes. See the article history.

I'm done. Perhaps S911T will publish my article about my experience here. I'm sure someone will. Thank you all for a very educational experience. It is an instruction in how mass-psychology works, and how normally rational people will deny plain facts when they conflict with their deeply held, subjective, faith-based world-view (in this case, the view that government officials would never perpetrate such atrocity). Good luck to everyone, and thanks again. TruthSeeker1234 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing but insults...that'll get results. I have yet to see you mention anything that can't be explained otherwise. You compare the collapse to other colapses, when there are no precidents similar to this one to compare to. Thousands of books have been published on Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and UFO's and not one of them has ever been able to prove they exist...is that a government coverup too. The complexity of "pulling off" contolled demolition or anything of the kind is so massive, the U.S. Government could never do it...they are too inept. All you have presented are simple tidbids that even in combination provide evidence of nothing. Nothing you state here is properly attributed as one would expect in a scientific rebuttal. This page looks like a blog. I guess the truth hurts people that don't want to believe it...but the infinitely more complex is somehow more believable. This is a prime example why everyone should learn about the scientific method and not believe nonscientific propaganda websites that no news media pays any heed to.--MONGO 02:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And more...this is just a page break

Hi. I am a structural engineer and have worked in the field of controlled demolition. Just thought I would inform anyone interested that it would take a team of 200 to maybe 225 skilled implosion technicians 4 to 5 weeks to set the charges need to reduce just one of the world trade center towers. Thermite would be not used as it is too unstable under the conditions that would be necessary to perform a successful reduction. I read here about this issue of molten metals, but rest assured this isn't steel or even from a ferrous related combustion sequence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doug Madson (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 April 2006.

Is there anything else you care to add. Were the buildings blown up?--MONGO 07:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The buildings were not blown up. The force of impact and the fires reduced the buildings.

Pancake Theory

The towers were collapsing like there was no resistance. Dudtz 4/29/06 5:15 PM EST

Actually, they provided slight resistance. The towers fell about 20% slower than if there was zero resistance. Nobody has yet been able to explain why there was so little resistance, though. Seabhcán 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Resistance is not the only thing that would slow down a gravity-driven "pancake" collapse. Assume a 110 story building where each floor is held up by band-aids. By that I mean, assume each floor is held up with such weak connections that adding a single grain of sand on top of the floor would cause it to collapse. Allow floor A to fall down and impact the floor below it, floor B. It will take about .8 seconds to fall 13 feet. Assume a perfect hit, where floor A gives up 100% of its momentum to floor B. Assume no energy is wasted breaking anything. Floor B can indeed begin moving down as fast as floor A was moving just before impact. However, floor A must then stop moving. This is called conservation of momentum.

Then, if there is now nothing underneath floor A, it can begin falling again, but it must start falling all over from zero velocity. The same is true at each impact. Some significant part of the mass must stop moving at every impact. It is an amount equal to the mass of whatever is being moved. You can see that even assuming zero resistance, just accelerating the mass downward will take at least 80 seconds (.8 seconds/floor x 100 floors).

Adding air resistance can only slow things down a bit more. Adding the tremendous resistance of the intact structure can only slow things down a lot more. Then understand that this same gravitational potential energy (now converted into kinetic energy) must also be responsible for all of the pulverization observed. This too must be subtracted from the energy availble to accelerate the mass down toward the earth, thus slowing things down even more.

If all of this seems impossible, it's because it is. Buildings simply do not contain enough gravitational potential energy to crush themselves into fine powder in free fall time.

TruthSeeker1234 07:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Truthseeker, it's hard to take you seriously when you say these kinds of things. First of all, you can't naively use conservation of momentum between the floors. Say Floor A fell on to Floor B and B held up and did not fall. Momentum of the floors before A hits B = Mass of A x Velocity of A. Momentum of the floors afterwards = 0 (no further collapse). Is the conservation of momentum violated? I'll give you a hint - NO. This is basic high school physics stuff that you just don't appear to understand.

Even if momentum were conserved, that doesn't mean that each floor starts from a velocity of 0. Assuming momementum is conserved and the floors all weigh the same, after the first collision the two floors start falling at 1/2 the impact speed and accelerate from there. After the second collision the three floors start falling at 2/3 of the new impact speed and accelerate from there. If you could do the math, you could then compare this situation to free-fall. I wouldn't bother because the assumption that momentum is conserved among collapsing floors is not correct, and should lead to large inaccuracies.

You are in way over your head here. If you stick to reliable sources you might find something worth adding to the article.

Sebachan as a physicist, you really should speak up when you see this misuse of physics, instead of rushing to Truthseeker's defense. Toiyabe 14:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this instance they did.--MONGO 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo! Seabhcán 10:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA--MONGO 12:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Trolling?

Mongo recently protected this page and removed the following comment which he described as trolling: Wikipedia:No personal attacks clearly states that statements like "Mongo is a troll" "can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." However, the statement made by Mongo "get a life" is clearly trolling. I leave it to others to make the judgement. However, I will now remove the protect. Seabhcán 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets take a look at your edit summaries, my friend...not to mention, your edits as of late. The comments left by this anon IP were inserted four times, I then sprotected the page...I would have done the same had it been repaetedly done against you. Nothing stated by the anon IP or you here in this section could be considered constructive in terms of article enhancement. In fact, your reinsertion of this definitely constitutes a personal attack in itself. Do you have any proof of controlled demolition, aside from what is observed in photographs...by proof I mean, eyewitness that saw bombs being placed, etc....surely the number of people that would be needed to pull off controlled demolition would be large enough that by now, at least one credible witness would come forward with actual proof of implosion. My sprotection was definitely not in bad faith as your edit summary states.[12]--MONGO 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I have no interest in the controlled demolition theory. I do not think it should be present here. You seem to assume that everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest is pushing a POV. You set up these strawman arguements as a way to discredit your opponents. What I want is reasoned debate about how to best present the factual data in this article. I assume, like me, you have read the NIST, FEMA and Commission reports? I will happily work soley from these sources. But this is irrelavent to your poor behaviour on these topics. If your behaviour improves, I think we can work together. Seabhcán 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this again...if you support the actions of an obvious troll than you can be no better. If anyone's behavior is poor, it's yours. Your edit summaires and insulting commentary do nothing but fuel the fire. Therefore, I do not assume any good faith from your "contributions". While you were being so helpful to this article, I spent my time fixing all the crummy cited references and standardizations...you're sole contributions have been POV laden and insulting...you're the troll, buddy.--MONGO 10:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I would also recommend basic courses in logic, to avoid the numerous fallacies employed here. -- Jibal 13:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for Seven World Trade Center

In this section it is stated Firefighters appeared to have abandoned the building and let the fires burn. It remains unknown what criteria they used to determine that it should be abandoned or who decided to abandon it. Since little could be seen from the outside, and no one was able to observe what happened within the building, the cause of the collapse is disputed.

I am curious, if someone could point to a citation that firefighters ever actually entered the building or attempted to stop it from burning. I will probably change the article to reflect citation missing soon if this is not fixed. I figure I might as well try to see if talk can remedy it first though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix4e (talk • contribs)

Are you serious, or are you pulling our collective legs? Do you believe that it is disputed that firefighters entered the 7 World Trade Center to determine to the source and extent of the fire and to assist in the evacuation of people from the building? patsw 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is (or was 8 years ago and I see no reason to change) that the FDNY will only enter buildings to prevent loss of life. If a building is evacuated and the fire not in danger of spreading to neighboring buildings, it is common practice to evacuate and fight it from the outside only. No sense risking lives over property. Given the height of tower 7, there's not much they could do from the outside. --Mmx1 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The premise of your statement is "if a building is evacuated..." When the fire at 7 WTC was first detected, the building was, of course, not empty. It had to be evacuated and so fire department personnel were in the building to determine to the source and extent of the fire and to assist in the evacuation of people from the building. Later a decision had to made either to continue to attempt put the fire out or to abandon the building and the decision was made to abandon the building to avoid further loss of life. patsw 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that it was initially occupied, I'm replying to Posix's allegation that "It remains unknown what criteria they used to determine that it should be abandoned or who decided to abandon it." as if it were irresponsible to let it burn down. The criteria is always human life first. The FDNY is under no obligation to protect property and they will and have let unoccupied structures burn down rather than risk firefighters to fight it from within. --Mmx1 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I changed all the cited references (found in the text) to one format...namely cite.php as explained at Wikipedia:Footnotes.--MONGO 10:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the change in font sizes. The guideline is that article content not include specific font changes, and the Wiki's html generator owns formatting. It hinders readability by people with some vision impairment to reduced the font size. WP Manual of Style:Formatting Issues patsw 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine...the featured articles I have worked on all had reduced font sizes in the references, but the reduced eyesight impairment is a definite concern and I agree with your changes.--MONGO 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen somewhere (I can't find it right now, maybe in the Village pump) a suggestion to add the reduced font size reference formatting to the sitewide .css. I it might happen. This would include a special .css identifier and one could go into their personal stylesheet and set the font size differently (to suit those with vision impairment or other preferences). -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, found it: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive#proposed_change_to_css_.28.references.29. Looks like people were unable to agree on this. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That would have been neat though. Still need to fix the format for the general references...at least smiliar to the way I have cited references for uniformity, as right now they are all just imbedded.--MONGO 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Consider and discuss NPOV with respect to this article

TruthSeeker1234 06:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the NPOV paragraph over and over. It seems to me that for this article, NPOV policy would "require" that the "conflicting views" be "fairly presented, but not asserted". It also seems to me that "all significant points of view" should be "presented, not just the most popular one." It also seems to me that we should not present "the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view" as "the correct one". I also feel that we should leave readers to "form their own opinion" . Can someone please explain to me clearly where I am wrong. Thank You. TruthSeeker1234 23:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that readers should form their own opinion. Your proposal is not in keeping with the undue weight clause of NPOV, please read that section.--MONGO 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A special problem with this article is the duplication of presentation of those minority points of view which appear in 9/11 conspiracy theories and the lack of expertise of the proponents of views which dispute the findings of the 9/11 Commission. The due weight for speculation and coincidence without evidence is a link to the conspiracy theories article. If you want to change that consensus, you cannot simply declare it, you have to persuade some editors to change it. patsw 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If physicists and mechanical engineers are not experts, then who is? Politicians?

Is this the same 9/11 commission that said the core of each tower was a hollow steel shaft? And the one which did not mention WTC7? What possible thinking can lead anyone to conclude this is a reliable source of information for WP? I am stumped on this.

Where is the WP policy for "duplication of presentation of those minority points of view"? Link me.

And just out of curiosity - If one were trying to find proof a controlled demolition (which is not the job of WP editors), besides sudden onset, symmetry, pulverization, near free-fall collapse times, ejection squibs, huge dust clouds, molten metal, mushroom clouds and a litany of eyewitness reports of explosions in sequence, what OTHER evidence could one ever expect? What else could you possibly want? Tell me.

One more WP policy question. I've asked this about 5 times and never gotten an answer. Even if we leave out the controlled demolition theory, even if we leave out Frank Greening's accidental thermite theory, even if we forget the laughable "core meltdown theory" that was so popular for a while, shouldn't we at least present both the FEMA theory and the NIST theory? NPOV requires this, I say.

TruthSeeker1234 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FEMA and NIST are already here, look at the references. Evidence...have you ever written a scientific paper? Nothing you have presented proves controlled demolition...furthermore, if you are going to try and have something as outlandish as this in the article, you need proof of some sort. Nothing you have mentioned would prove controlled demolition...everything you mention is just as explainable by the facts of what is known. Honestly, this isn't a blog...do you have one piece of proof?--MONGO 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplication...? Link me? Wikipedia:Editing policy#On editing styles

Physics

We're not a discussion board to argue if a physicist is qualified or not to write on controlled demolition. Present something that's a coherent proof for a point of view and not merely suspicion that's verifiable, cited, and has the ability to explain how the 9/11 Commission findings were in error by some cause other than they all agreed to be part of a conspiracy to deceive the American public. patsw 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a coherent proof that any sort of pancaking collapse of a 110 story building must take far longer than 15 seconds

[link removed]

The person who wrote this is a professor of mechanical engineering at a university.

The scientific papers in support of conrolled demolition do not say ANYTHING about "they all agreed to be part of a conspiracy". In addition to providing a strong argument for controlled demolition, what these scientists have done is prove the falsity of the various official theories. The official theories cannot explain the molten metal, for instance. And what about the steel beams that were partly evaporated? And what about the sulfidaton? The mushroom clouds? These things are simply ignored by the official theories, and you all know it. Contolled demolition wins because at least we all know it is scientifically possible. It is the only explanation to emerge so far that can account for ALL the observations. Anyone can "prove" anything if they are allowed to ignore data which does not fit their theory. This is what FEMA, NIST and 9/11 commission have done, they ignored the data which did not fit. Unscientific.

Please read what I wrote carefully, you have avoided my point about NIST and FEMA. I know they are both in the article. For the hundredth time, FEMA and NIST present DIFFERENT theories of the collapse. They are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. At least one of them must be false. Please stop avoiding this. You guys have cobbled together a vague synthesis of the two theories, which is original research.

Please address the point that the 9/11 commission denied the existance of the core columns of these buildings, an obvious lie. They also completely ignored WTC7. Can a credible source do that? Answer my question as to the thought process of anyone who thinks they are a reliable source. I don't get it. It makes no sense to me.

I read the duplication link, and it says that duplication is a reason for deleting material from within "an article". It says nothing about duplication from another article.

Also, on the "undue weight" clause - The FEMA report describes its own theory about WTC7 as having "a low probability of occurance". Doesn't this mean we should not give undue weight to it?

TruthSeeker1234 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that "[link removed]" site is not a reliable source. The "professor of mechanical engineering at a university" does not give their name or the university at which he/she is a professor. Even if it really is a professor (and based on the quality of the argument, I highly doubt it) who put that together, that person is not willing to put his/her reputation on the line. Finally, the argument is un-published and un-peer reviewed.

The analysis appears to me to be bogus because it assumes every floor begins falling with a velocity of 0. Please note how he/she also claims that Hurricane Katrina was delibrately manipulated to hit New Orleans for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. Toiyabe 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The mechanical engineer is Judy Wood, Ph.D, Clemson University, she is most certainly putting her name on the line. Her name appears at the S9/11T site.

When a moving object A collides with a stationary object of the same mass B , B can indeed begin moving at the velocity at which A was moving, assuming a perfect collision and no energy wasted breaking anything. However, A then must stop moving, even if there is no resistance present to impede B. In a pancaking collapse, some significant part of the mass must stop moving at every impact, and start falling all over again. Factoring in resistance can only slow things down more. Factoring in breaking and pulverizing things can only slow things down more, because once the energy is spent doing that, it is no longer available to accelerate mass downwards. If a building collapse taking minutes or hours seems absurd to you, that's because it is absurd. That's why it has never occured in all of history (except for the alleged examples of 9/11).

None of this really matters, because WP is not about proving things, it is about reporting things. The article should present the various theories, and cite the people responsible for them, and the criticism of each.

Please link me to any analysis and critique of the controlled demolition theory. Has anyone even attempted to debunk Steven Jones? or Judy Wood? or Jim Hoffman? I will study anything sent. Thank You.

Please, anyone, respond to my other questions. They are vitally important to the integrity of this article, which is OR as it currently stands.

TruthSeeker1234 16:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that she is hiding behind the name "Jane Doe" if she is indeed the author. I could not find the name "Judy Wood" anywhere on the site where that page is located. This is not the behaviour seen in reliable sources. Neither is it peer-reviewed.

It is in fact a staw-man arguement that puts forth an incorrect version of progressive collapse and then pokes holes in it. The straw-man nature of this arguement is obvious as it shows floors passing through each other, with the top floor hitting ground well before the bottom floor. The author did not try very hard to come up with a reasonable model of progressive collapse. Then, once the author has burned the straw man he/she presents controlled demolition as the only alternatitive. Nice, but not exactly the sort of work that would help an Assistant Professor get tenure. Toiyabe 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? I don't think we are reading the same paper. How on earth can this be a straw man argument? The various pancake theories state that upper floors fail, fall down, and impact lower floors, which then fail, and fall and impact the next lower floor, and so on. Conservation of momentum requires that a significant part of the mass must stop moving at each impact. You have not addressed this point, which gives me great confidence that Wood is indeed correct.

How bout the other important questions I have asked. Anyone?

I don't think anybody is arguing that progressive collapse can occur at free-fall speed. The question is how much slower than free-fall speed it will be. "Jane Doe's" straw-man takes about 90 seconds, based on the silly assumption that no kinetic energy is transfered from one floor to the next, so each floor starts falling with a velocity of 0, and each floor passes through the lower floors with it's velocity unchanged.

Let's say that collapse begins at floor 100. Floor 100 will hit floor 99. Floor 99 may be able to absorb the kinetic energy of floor 100, in which case collapse does not continue. If however, the kinetic energy (X) is just slightly more than floor 99 can absorb, then floors 99 and 100 will fall starting with about 0 velocity. When they hit floor 98 together, they should have twice the kinetic energy (2X), becase KE = 1/2 mV^2 and m has doubled. Half of that is absorbed by floor 98 (remember we are assuming that a floor can only absorb X), the rest continues as kinetic energy - the new KE is X = 1/2 (3y)V^2, where y is the weight of an individual floor. Solve for V, calculate the new V at which floors 100, 99 and 98 hit 97, parcel out the kinetic energy and calculate the V after impact and continue to 96. The V after impact will increase as you continue on down. This is the sort of analysis one would have to do, but it's very difficult to determine how much energy a floor can absorb. Also, that energy will vary depending on how much the floor was damaged. There will also be localized effects for the first few floors. Finally collapse did not initiate at floor 100, but probably around where the planes impacted.

You keep talking about conservation of momentum. That's almost impossible to apply to a earth-coupled system like this because you have to include the earth, and the mass of the earth is so huge that its delta-V is not measureable.

I'm only going to answer one of your questions at a time. You keep blurring the issue by bringing in too many things to address at once. I'm also not sure that answering your questions is productive. As many folks have said, this is an encyclpedia not a debating society. Toiyabe 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again, for about the 10th time, that while setting a threshold of peer-review for reference inclusion would be nice, it would mean excluding the FEMA, NIST and Commission reports. And I don't think anyone whats to do that. Seabhcán 20:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous...though only a few folks "signed" the federal reports, they are the compilation of evidence from thousands of investigators and researchers...that is certainly peer-review if I ever saw it. More so than some moronic website controlled by one POV driven webmaster.--MONGO 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that certainly is an original definition of peer review! I wish Pattern Recognition Letters opperated the Mongo-peer review system. I'd just have to tell them that several hundred people work on my project and in my paper would go. Unfortunately, scientific peer review is double-blind. The reviewer(s) don't know who I am and I don't know who they are (They also don't know each other). Their verdict is returned anonymously. But I do agree that it would be ridiculous to exclude the FEMA, NIST and Commission reports merely because they haven't been peer reviewed. Seabhcán 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And they are included...your point is what? Now we are to show how they are wrong based on what? See:WP:NOR.--MONGO 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, thank you for getting into the science. But you're off base. In your example, even if floor 99 has zero resistance to falling (let's say it was being held up with just barely enough strength to support its own weight, and no more), when floor 100 impacted it from above, they would not then fall together. Assuming a perfect hit, and no destruction, floor 99 would begin moving downward as fast as floor 100 was moving (about 30 feet/sec). But floor 100 would STOP moving. It has given up its momentum to floor 99. (conservation of momentum). Floor 100 could then begin falling all over again, starting at zero velocity. The same is true for each impact. Some significant part of the mass must stop moving. For both floors to fall together would violate conservation of momentum. Please think about the steel balls that clack together, and how one stops moving when it collides with another one.

In the real world, floor 99 has tremendous resistance to falling, which can only slow things down more. You are correct that it would be difficult to calculate the amount of KE spent in pulverization, but it is not necessary to do so. We know that it can only slow things down, not speed them up. The reason a building is able to fall so quickly in a controlled demolition is precisely because lower floors are allowed to begin falling BEFORE being impacted by upper ones. If this rapid pancaking thing were really possible, we would have seen it before 9/11. In reality, it has never happened before or since. Controlled demolitions, on the other hand, have actually occured many times.

TruthSeeker1234 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I can spot an error in your assesment, TruthSeeker. The Pancake theory makes the point that the object crashing down on the lower floor is a large chunk of the building, about 20 floors high. So the moving object is 20 times the mass of the floor it is hitting, and so only looses 1/20 of its momentum on collision. It wouldn't stop, but would slow down slightly. (of course thus the pancake theory somehow assumes that the structural strength of the top 20 floor is enough to resist this impact, but the lower floors are not) Seabhcán 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Do a little experiment - Hold a text book lightly between your knees. Drop another book of about equal weight on to it. Do they fall together? Or does the book you dropped stop, the book between your knees shoot out, and the book you dropped start to fall again? I think you'll find the former is the case.

Even so, your proposed scenario still results in near free-fall speeds. Floor 100 hits 99. 100 stops. 99 falls starting with the velocity of 100. Continue for 99/98, 98/97 etc. You'll find that the total collapse time is the same as free-fall from floor 100 plus free fall from floor 100 to 99.

You keep saying things like "conservation of momentum means that a significant portion of the mass will stop". The law says nothing of the sort. What it does require is that the total momentum of the system before a collision is the same as the total momentum after a collision. Unfortunately the earth is part of the system, as one of the floors is connected to the earth through the columns. The huge mass of the earth in comparison to the rest of the system means that you can't practically solve this problem using conservation of momentum. Sorry about that. Toiyabe 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, The earth is only involved in providing the attractive gravitational force, nothing else. The earth also provides the frame of reference (because we, the observers, stand on it and watch) and thus is stationary by definition and is not involved in the conservation of momentum of this reaction. In this case, TruthSeeker is correct.

But anyway, I teach physics for a living, I don't want to do it here too. This is an encyclopedia, and if 90% of people think that 2 + 2 = 5 and ten percent believe 2 + 2 = 3, then those are the two points of view we present here. The 'truth' is irrelevant. Probably 98% of people believe the official story, and the rest believe a spread of different theories. Thats what we should present in this article, warts and all, and leave the truth for Original Researchers to publish elsewhere.Seabhcán 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is presented...see [13]...and this clearly follows Wikipedia guides of WP:NPOV and undue weight. I think the most important thing you miss is that we really do not know for sure how long the buildings actually took to fall. Was the fall when it was first observable (occuring outside of our ability to document photographically) and when did it "stop". I've watched the videos, and the buildings each seemed to take over 25 seconds to fall, from the moment of initial failure to when no evidence of the main structure was standing. If you want to try and pick apart the FEMA and NIST reports, that's fine, but that will not go in the article as it would definitely be a violation of WP:NOR.--MONGO 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sebachan, the earth is providing a reaction force through the columns for the floors at the time of impact in addition to the gravitational attraction. If it wasn't then there would be no resistance to free-fall. MONGO was impolite to call you the Forrest Gump of physicists, but you should really try harder. Toiyabe 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not wrong, Toiyabe, but your not right either. Although the earth does provide a normal force resisting collapse, it doesn't mean that you have to factor in the "huge mass of the earth" as you said above. You can in fact ignore it. This is exactly because the earth is so massive in comparison to the towers. (Mongo's insults don't bother me. I've come to realise that he's probably just a 15 year old kid using his dad's computer, laughing through his zits at what he can get away with) Seabhcán 16:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA --Mmx1 16:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1...I wouldn't bother with Seabhcan...a quick look at his edit summaries [14] clearly shows he is the one who is consistently obnoxious and rude...comments like "Mongo's contribution to the world of science", "Mongo's version of reality", "Mongo's version of OR" (Original Research), not to mention his support of trolling by anon accounts, his support of nonscience and his comments as they appear in discussion pages here and in talk pages related to this elsewhere, clearly demostrate that he has been significantly more insulting than I have. I just this morning talked to a couple of guys at Controlled Demolition, Inc.[15]. They have done the largest implosions in the world. I explained who I was and asked them about their thoughts on what it would have taken to implode the WTC, etc. and I was laughed at. They told me that there is no way it could have been done wthout the assistance of hundreds of people and it would have been impossible to coverup. I asked them about building 7 and they stated the same thing. While we are here discussing the rate of time it took the buildings to fall, the conspiracy theorists fail to address the issue of this happening covertly....which obviously was impossible to coverup. Notice that none of the silly websites that address the conspiracy have an implosion expert who bothers to discuss this, and one a couple of self-proclaimed engineers who probably don't have the training of Toiyabe. I was told not to waste my time with "fools". Lastly, they told me that controlled demolition, or "reduction" as they put it, would not have decreased the amount of time to reduce the buildings to rubble. I asked them about the pulverization issue and they explained that this was due to the type of concrete used, a particualrily high level of sand mixture poured over nongalvinized floor pans, held together with medium grade reinforcng wire...little rebar was used in the floors themsleves. Almost none of the floors in the WTC had fire proofing applied to the underside of these pans...most was on the steel columns and everything was interconnected. Anyway, I asked them if the buildings could have been imploded and they said that it would have been a huge undertaking...they did not specify the number of people needed to set things up or how long it would take. Seabhcan argues about this as if we are dropping two different sized objects off a tall building or a cliff to see which one will hit the bottom first, and that is all besides the point. Lastly, I add my personal comment and that is something no one can explain: If the buildings were almost blown up in 1993, using a truck bomb...why not do it the same way essentially...why would they add in the extra complication of flying airplanes into the building? By doing so, they increase the level of coverup significantly. Seabhcan wishes to try and show how the federal reports conflict and his hope by doing so is to demostrate that they are just theories and therefore other "alternative" theories are just as viable. Don't be lulled into believing that his intentions are in keeping with facts finding. Besides, it can't go into the article unless he can cite a reliable source...and he isn't a reliable source...it is therefore original research. While Seabhcan (also an administrator) has been busy here adding nonsense, I took the time to standardize the references and I went through them to ensure they supported the comments made in the article...fact checking. The only thing Seabhcan has done is troll.--MONGO 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good work, Mongo. Very intersting info on the concrete. I don't know that before. (sorry about the insults, but realise that calling someone an "Anit-American Bigot" is not very friendly either. I didn't call you an anti-Irish bigot simply because you disagreed with me.) Seabhcán 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell User:MONGO — a Wikipedia Administrator — about WP:NPA? He has consistently and blatantly flaunted the policy throughout this and other conversations. When called on it, his response is characteristically childish and arrogant. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If floor 100 falls onto floor 99, and floor 99 holds up and does not collapse is conservation of momentum violated? No, because the earth has a very small delta-V that balances the equation out. The same holds if 99 does collapse and the initial velocity of 99 and 100 is less than 1/2 the impact velocity of 100 (which is most likely). But if you are analyzing this problem using momentum you can't ignore the earth's delta-V, because it is necessary to balance the equation. That is why this problem has no practical solution using conservation of momentum. Toiyabe 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the earth is so huge compared with the buildings you can treat it's mass as infinite in the equations. Modelling this system in terms of conservation of momentum is actually not hard - however it makes very many assumptions and simplifications - and is probably not useful in explaining why the towers fell. The important question is the strength of the building structure to resist impact from above - something I imagine the buildings were not designed to do at all. Seabhcán 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By that statement you appear to have finally stipulated to my point, albeit in a very weasely fashion. Of course, you can't do a conservation of momentum balance with infinite quantities on either side of the equation.

I think we can now consider this closed, and ignore any sources that claim to have analyzed this problem using conservation of momentum. If you weren't frantically trying to save face, we could have gotten to this point a long time ago. Toiyabe 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, I for one appreciate any physics education you can provide, I'm always eager to learn. In my examples, I have assumed one floor falling down into the next one, assuming equal mass. You are quite correct that a larger mass impacting a smaller one will only have to give up a corresponding fraction of its momentum, only slowing it a little. Assuming a perfect collision, the small mass would still arrive at the next impact before the large mass.

In the real world, there are no perfect collisions. Energy can be spent breaking things, converted to heat, converted to sound, etc. At the WTC, we know that almost all of the non-metallic contents were converted into fine powder in mid-air, beginning right from the start of the collapses. THis would mean that a large amount of the energy was being spent crushing things. For anything to be crushed requires high resistance. (e.g. hammer needs anvil, morter needs pestal). Yet a near free-fall collapse clearly requires very low resistance. It would seem that a gravity collapse could proceed relatively fast, or crush things, but not both.

I would ask everyone to consider this photo.

[link removed]

The collapse is about half-over. Almost all of the top half of the building has already been converted to powder, and is currently in the air and OUTSIDE the footprint of the structure. At this point in time, where is any force coming from that would push down on the intact lower half of the building? Thank You.

TruthSeeker1234 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)