Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The proper format sigh (1 WTC or WTC 1)

Hi Golbez, sorry about moving those numbers around in 1 WTC/WTC 1. I was going to ask if there had been any discussion about that. NIST uses the other convention, but I don't mind standing corrected on this. I've probably just grown to used to the other form.--Thomas Basboll 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am wrong then I am correct in stating it was the other one.

Jussenadv 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Early attempts to understand the collapses

I dont think the title of that is acurate, epsecially it is recently that the conpiracy theories have gained popularity. Raemie 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus that has been reached on this article is that the best explanation for/description of the WTC collapses is the one that the mainstream engineering community has arrived at. The popularity of the controlled demolition hypothesis does not make it a "recent" attempt to understand the collapses; indeed, it has no currency in the engineering literature. It has, however, been briefly considered by the NIST investigation and dismissed. If the conspiracy theorists are right, then that may one day be acknowledged by engineers. If that happens, the relevant parts of the article will be shifted around. Controlled demolition will move up into the "collapse mechanism" section, and sagging floors will move down into the "earlier attempts" section. The trouble, in short, is that controlled demolition is not currently being considered as a solution to the engineering riddle of the collapses. (Engineers see the riddle as largely solved.) The best we can do is say that it has been considered.--Thomas Basboll 11:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As if it is undeniable truth

The combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse. The impacts severed load bearing columns and dislodged fireproofing from the structural steel. Heat from the fires then gradually weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards. The towers collapsed abruptly when the perimeter walls finally buckled. Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. Total collapse was then inevitable.

The above statement has been seriously questioned (made void, perhaps?) by the recent post on arxiv.org by Charles Beck [1]. The author rigorously shows that the avalanche created by the collapsing floors and the building on top of them is not sufficient to drive the rest of the building to the ground. Instead, the building collapsed because a wave of massive destruction (WMD) propagated through the bulding moments before the collapse started. The author does not speculate what may have caused the WMD but gives the estimate of how much the building must have been damaged by the WMD. User:FeraPhysica 10/16/2006

While this statement may one day be proven correct, it certainly has *not* been proven correct yet. Nor has the above statement actually been proven correct in any reasonably logical form by any person. Until evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (the very doubt which, btw, grows deeper and larger each day amoung the populace), this statement should *NOT* be stated as if it is undeniable truth. At the very least, a "offical speculation suggests ... " Alma Entity 08.30.06

This depends on what you mean by "proven". I have not been able to find one dissenting opinion in the mainstream engineering literature. On the contrary, Bazant and Verdure (forthcoming) write: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering(though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was ... " what the NIST report described, and essentially what this summary says (Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press, pdf here [2].) That is, the account provided in this article is the "generally accepted" account, which has not yet even been criticized by "the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering." That's as close to "proven" as an encyclopedia article can get. Don't get me wrong, I think the engineering community has done a terrible job of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt ... among the populace" that their collapse mechanism is the right one. (See the section on the limitations of the NIST study.) I think they should engage with the "outsiders" in painstaking detail. But the mechanical aspects of the collapse cannot be any better "proven" than what can win consensus among engineers. If a paper is ever published (in a comparable journal) that explicitly dissents from Bazant's assessment of the consensus, well, then we can talk about moderating the language. It is the undenied truth at this point. Though not, of course, undeniable. The consensus among editors of this article, at least at this point, is to base the account on mainstream engineering sources. This is not "official speculation", it is "scientific consensus".--Thomas Basboll 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with basing the article on 'Mainstream' engineering sources is that it accepts the publishing constraints under which those sources, journals typically, operate. To publish an article on 9/11 that accepts or proposes a theory which contravenes the 'accepted' view seriously risks running into circulation problems if competing journals don't follow suit. It's an 'Emporers New Clothes' scenario. I would suggest that the article be renamed 'Accepted thoeries of the collapse...' and also that it references, or at least has links to, alternative theories. Aridol 30 August 2006

There's a slippery slope there. All articles could be called "accepted theories of...", and all sciences are subject to conservative academic publishing outlets. There definitely needs to be an article called "Collapse of the World Trade Center", and the only way to make it serious is to grant that, for all its shortcomings and constraints, mainstream engineering science provides us with the best possible explanation. Until the engineering community is won over, there is no way to present the alternatives. It is too difficult to separate lay opinion from relevant & qualified alternatives if we look outside the peer-community of engineers. At this point, there is the "earlier attempts" section, which even includes controlled demolition (perhaps the most alternative of serious alternatives). These might be expanded a little to acknowledge the history of differing views. But we can't start calling the current consensus into doubt in an encyclopedia article. That fight must be taken elsewhere.--Thomas Basboll 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept your statement on the inclusion of 'accepted' in the title. It would certainly establish a precedent. However, I would take issue with the view that mainstream engineering science provides the 'best possible explanation'. In my view it provides the 'most acceptable' explanation where acceptability is defined by what's 'comfortable' with the populace and therefore with mainstream engineering science, specifically providing a solution that does not involve the implication of a conspiracy or 'inside job'. To simplify the point, the accepted solution is that which can explain the collapse of three steel framed structures without the need for controlled demolition, because absent a conspiracy, a controlled demolition following the impacts explains the collapse better than any of the 'accepted' theories. For the mainstream community, acknowledgement of a conspiracy is a non-starter and therefore rules out a range of alternative theories. Aridol 31st August 2006

The stress should be put on "possible", not "best", where the possibilities are conditioned by exactly the issues you mention. However, in science there is at least a tension between physical principles and popular "comfort". (In the popular media, for example, the collapses just needed to be represented by a vague computer simulation.) It took about four years for engineers to agree on the specific solution. While I agree that anything that implied conspiracy was probably a non-starter for them, they were not just going to accept any "comfortable" theory. So even if NIST's theory doesn't satisfy us, it is the best possible theory. I think there is an interesting story in all this about how mainstream engineers dealt with what they saw on TV, who took it up and tried to explain it, what the range of opinion was, how it was settled. Especially interesting is how consciously the demolition hypothesis was dismissed at different stages. A very interesting struggle in its own right. But this article is written, as it were, by the winners. It's one of the spoils?--Thomas Basboll 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus Tom. I agree especially on the more philosophical point regarding the manner in which a solution was found and more to the point the variety of external pressures that played a part in the process. Engineering, as well as being a scientific discipline, is also a career path. I wonder whether the specifics can be attuned to existing theories of the philosophy of science. Aridol 30 August 2006

The statement that "the combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse" is incomplete. Secondary explosions did occur and it did factor into the collapse of the towers. This statement needs to reflect objective reality. To say that the secondary explosions played no part in the collapse of the towers is not reality; the only questions is the extent that secondary explosions played. --Slipgrid 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Please read this: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html It's very informative. 87.118.100.99 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is of mostly historical interest today, however. The NIST report (2005) rejects the essential elements of this explanation: the perimeter walls bowed inwards (pulled in by sagging floors) rather than outwards (released by the joists). Also, the pancaking floor failure account has been superceded by a column failure account. See Collapse of the World Trade Center for more info and refs.--Thomas Basboll 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New NIST article for you guys. NIST to launch controlled demolition probe on WTC 7. [3] SkeenaR 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Videos of the collapse clearly present it as starting at the floors affecting by the jet collision. To believe that detonated implosions took place, one must presume the hijackers were able to successfully aim for a floor that had already been pre-rigged AND that they had been told about, OR that the explosives were hurriedly implanted AFTER the collision. The videos (& the sounds in them) clearly show floors falling into the floors below them - something that does NOT happen with planned demolitions. Even after the main mass hits the ground (an event that cannot be timed exactly visually because of the dust), spires of about a dozen storeys of the outside skeleton stand for several seconds afterwards - also not typical of controlled demolitions. While the collapses resembled controlled demolitions in some ways, they also differed from them significantly - including the time it took to fall. The outward explosions (quite small) that do occur several floors below the descending "stack" are easily accounted for by loose concrete debris falling faster on the inside with enough force upon collision with other layers of concrete flooring to explode the windows out - and also by the compression of the air in advance of the falling stack --JimWae 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

>>"one must presume the hijackers were able to successfully aim for a floor"

Computers can be programmed. Assuming the attack was an inside job, those benefiting would never rely on a group of poorly trained outsiders to necessarily properly steer the plane into a critical target.

One does not "presume" if he is smart - they could either program planes to hit what was needed or reprogram demolition scheme after the hit (no neeed to implant!! - just reorder the "go off" times). Eiher way is not at all complicated using today's technology.

>>"The videos (& the sounds in them) clearly show floors falling into the floors below them - something that does NOT happen with planned demolitions."

I think that's about how buildings fall. They wouldn't have the plane hit halfway up and then start the demolition from the bottom -- they would be immediately exposed that way.

Why ppl use such stupid rhetoric? It wasn't supposed to look like "controlled demolition". Towers were supposed to collapse and destroy all the evidence - that's all. First cut the columns at the right place - then after it starts to collapse blow off everything else in the right manner.

>>"spires of about a dozen storeys of the outside skeleton stand for several seconds afterwards - also not typical of controlled demolitions."

Entire buildings don't make it to the ground after a controlled demolition at times -- many things happen with those events. But focusing on details of some demolitions doesn't disprove it in this case. There are many features beyond the visual details you are talking about as well which support demolition, as shown here.bov 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose spires were left standing because no explosive were planted below those dozen storeys, only above. The core was "hardcore" :) and it stood for some time. I would even say that this is argument FOR the demolition!! If it stood even after half of the building fell on it then why would it collapse at all?! SalvNaut

It is the nature of conspiracy theories that any evidence there is, is evidence for the theory. If there is no evidence, that is evidence for the cover-up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the nature of theories that they remain theories until disproven.--Slipgrid 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the nature of science that any evidence there is, is an evidence for the theory. Although the correct theory might not be known, only hipothesies exist. It's the nature of scientist to look through all the evidence and confront it with theory. NIST didn't do it (investigate the CD hypothesis). It's the nature of perpertators to destroy evidence! (steel from WTC, FBI tapes). And there are so many reasons (or strange coincidences if you preffer Tom) to doubt official theory, yet there is no strong evidence to support it. Where is the link to AL-Quaida(more than Osama video)? Why the money for the attacks wasn't tracked to the source! (this is the most important part of such investigation!) Why NIST report is incoherent and contradicts itself? Their paint study had shown that 157 out of 160 pieces of steel they investigated never reached temp.>250C and that NONE of the steel was more hot than 625C for >=15minutes (and probably was never close to it)? (check for yourself) Why they didn't study the collapse itself? What was with WTC7 and WTC6 (strange white cloud)? NORAD standdown, war-games, Pentagon got hit, how there was no air defense? United 93 shot down, steel from WTC quickly destroyed(!), no black boxes were found, yet someone says they were (yet Ali passport found, van with Koran found...), operation Able Danger, some guy form FBI destroys data... ah.. molten metal... For more reasons go look here or watch Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometimes.

I don't know what kind of conspiracy there was. Goverment, CIA, foreign intelligence - who knows?! But given so many question marks there just MUST be another ivestigation. Why? Why some ppl prefer to close their eyes shut and preffer everything is OK? Why you trust so much ppl that have so much power over you? What is wrong with demanding another ivestigation? Look, USA started 2 wars because of 9/11 - it is a BIG deal. --SalvNaut 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• in science, speculations remain speculations - until they have some degree of confirmation, have predictive power, a wide degree on explanatory power, and gain acceptance within the scientific community - at which point they are promoted to theory status --JimWae 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that - part of scientific community starts to turn their heads towards these theories. Let's see what happens next - in the meantime we can call for an investigation, because the danger of "let's just forget about it" exist. That is no good. 9/11 should be explained precisely without doubt. --SalvNaut 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the conspiracy theory is that the entire building was pre-rigged, and wired - unknown to anyone who would have told us about it by now. This plan was conveyed to the hijackers in some way. Then, the wires survived the crash & fires, and none (or hardly any) of the prerigged explosives went off prematurely. Then the demolition began starting with the impacted floors, & the computers proceeded to detonate floors with expert timing just in advance of the falling stack - with the only visible evidence being a few smallish puffs of dust ahead of the stack & an enormous cloud above it. Some also seem to maintain that the computer was also able to detonate the floors above the impact. --JimWae 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we take it one fact at a time?--Slipgrid 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-rigging: Unusual Evacuations & Power-Downs in the WTC Prior To 9/11[4]. Who would told us about that? Those 5 (or so ) people who probably were wireing? Maybe they are afraid for their lives, maybe the were from another country.

Why you think the plan was conveyed to hijackers? What for? Their job was to hijack planes, thats all (maybe it wasn't them who flight the planes - remote control?). What wires had to survive? - radio activation. Have you seen cutter charges? Have a look here (link fixed) on the bottom of the page.

Do you know what a bomb fuse is? This is the part that makes sure nothing goes off prematurely (maybe something did go off - would you notice?)

Cutter charges are quite small and might be very well attached to a columns. Charges could have been radio-checked for being OK. Then demolition program would do the rest - with fine enough timing (to make it look a bit messy) - no prob. for CPU. As I said probably those above had to be detonated too (if there were any - plane remote control excludes it) to destroy evidence.

You keep asking questions. I don't know answers either - I just use my imagination and knowledge. But all of it doesn't matter. Why don't you start asking questions that ppl from 911 Truth movement ask and demand another investigation? Those questions need to be answered not yours.

You can't disprove conspiracy by showing it isn't possible because it is - it has happened in the past, many cover-up operations were conducted by intelligence all over the world, nothing unusual about it. --SalvNaut 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Explosions and Controlled Demolition

For the love of objective reality, the section on controlled demolition needs to be updated. It is clear that secondary explosions helped cause the collapse of the WTC. Secondary explosions were widely reported by first responders and workers at the World Trade Center. Why is this allowed to be referenced as a conspiracy theory, when the evidence of that day clearly shows secondary explosions?

Video of Firefights reacting to a secondary explosion... note the loud boom that causes the Firefighers to jump and make comments.

Police officials tell MSNBC reporter of explosive devices found at WTC

Firefighter tells of eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions

Here's someone's play list, with links to many clips that give evidence of secondary explosions

I suggest we remove the link to the conspiracy theory page for this section, and add evidence of secondary explosions. I then suggest that we make it very clear that secondary explosions helped lead to the collapse of the WTC. --Slipgrid 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This section says, "Controlled demolition has never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship." Is this objective? Should the wiki reference the MSM? Lack of reporting is evidence of nothing. I believe this line should be removed. --Slipgrid 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here but I've read up quite a bit of this talk page. I would think that the first responder testimony would support the section on secondary explosions. All of those firefighter quotes are reputably sourced, yes? I say we put them in. Let's hear it for objective reality.

Zarcon 05:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop using sockpuppets, it's obvious you're all the same person. "Objective reality" is a rare enough phrase, and to have it used by this person on their second edit? This is getting childish. --Golbez 05:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you get a checkuser done instead of smearing three people? SkeenaR 06:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't doing anything wrong; a checkuser is only for abusive users. That doesn't mean I can't call out their incorrect statements and opinions. Anyway, I've clearly gotten to wrapped up in this, so I'll withdraw from all the associated discussions. --Golbez 07:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, it's almost impossible to not either start yelling or start insulting when we have to deal with this stuff.--MONGO 08:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I say something wrong? I'm not the same person as anyone. I read thru a lot of this talk pages and I've seen firefighter quotes that say there were explosions and bombs in the twin towers. I was just agreeing with Slipgrid, I think there should be a mention of this in the article. Zarcon 16:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how you write like him, too. --Mmx1 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anyone, I'm just me. What do you guys think about adding some firefighter quotes about explosions?Zarcon 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that?--MONGO 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

While it may be a bit unsatisfying, we have to keep in mind that a WP article does not refer directly to "objective reality". It has to refer to current state of human knowledge, i.e., the expert consensus, such as it is. It has so far not been possible to convince the experts that the testimony of these witnesses or the puffs of smoke in the videos are suggestive of anything other than a gravity-driven, total progressive collapse, caused by the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires. This may lower our opinion of the experts, but there is no way to step outside this framework in writing a WP article. Evidence for controlled demolition can only be introduced with reference to mainstream engineering opinion. That's why the section looks as it does. With the new NIST FAQ, this alternative hypothesis is fleshed out much better. The only other community of peers that talks about controlled demolition is, of course, the conspiracy theorists. That's why the link is there.--Thomas Basboll 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't firefighters experts? Zarcon 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A firefighter is an expert at putting fires out, not determining their causes, or the causes of related effects. Articles about famous fires don't report the testimony of firefighters unless a statement has been selected by the fire investigators. In this case, the investigators determined that some of the eye-witnesses misinterpreted the effects of the collapses as their causes.

One suggestion for how to deal with this constructively would be to improve the section on the physical features of the collapses, drawing on the NIST report to produce a more detailed description of what they looked and sounded like. That description can then be suitably balanced to include all the relevant evidence and testimony.--Thomas Basboll 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a fabulous idea, Thomas. Zarcon 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You might quote someone else's description of the collapse. Constructing our own description would be original research. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Summarising NIST's would not.--Thomas Basboll 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Has NIST done an itemized summary, or would we have to read through and create our own? Gosh, NIST is like 10,000 pages!Zarcon 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dewaseling

Why cannot we deweasel the expression

the idea has remained in circulation and the rapid collapse of the World Trade Center has been described as the "grassy knoll" of a new generation of 9/11 conspiracy theories

who "has been described" refers to according to the writer? Who is doing the description?--Pokipsy76 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The "new generation" phrase originally modified conspiracy theories in general, not 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not true that WTC demolition is new to 9/11 theories; it was there from the beginning. Moreover, it also not entirely true to say that 9/11 belongs to a new generation. Many old-school CT'ers, from JFK and OKC, are also involved here. As for the speaker of the "grassy knoll" analogy: NY magazine reports the association, but there are many comparisons of this kind out there. The reference clearly provides the source. NY magazine is a good source for "has been described", but it is odd to say that (only) NY magazine has made the comparison.--Thomas Basboll 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So who is "describing"? We have to be more specific since weasel words must be avoided in wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 11:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "has been described" is weaseling. But I think I get your point. How about just making the claim stronger: "the rapid collapse of the World Trade Center has become the "grassy knoll" of 9/11 conspiracy theories".--Thomas Basboll 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Has been described" belongs to the "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." entry in the list of weasel expression to be avoided in wikipedia. Your suggested change would violate NPOV: you can't express a point of view like it was the truth, you must specify that it is a POV *AND* you must specify who has that POV.--Pokipsy76 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"the rapid collapse" makes it sound like there was only one of them, not three. Also, the rapid collapse(s) may be the grassy knoll of the controlled demolition theories, but not the many other conspiracy theories about 9/11. Zarcon 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. The rapid collapses of the three WTC buildings. Now, no analogy is perfect but I would say that the WTC "demolition" is to 9/11 what the grassy knoll "second shooter" is to JFK. That is, you don't have to believe that shots were fired from the grassy knoll to believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but it is a common thing to include in such a theory. Time magazine recently confirmed the analogy, by the way.--Thomas Basboll 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So the WTC fires would be like the "magic bullet"?

Well, I think suggestions like "pancake collapse" or "truss failure" would clearly count as "magic bullets". The current MB (according to conspiracy theorists) is column failure. Just as the JFK MB had to explain a lot of holes (too many, the C-theory goes) column failure has to explain too many different collapses (three).--Thomas Basboll 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that there were collapses (plural), not a collapse (singular)? Zarcon 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there were three collapses. But "the collapse of the World Trade Center" can be discussed as a single event so no change in the article title is necessary.--Thomas Basboll 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can three events be discussed as if they were a single event? I understand that multiple events can be given a collective title. "The World Series" is a collection of 4-7 baseball games. So we can refer to "the series" meaning all of those games. But it would never do to call the series "a game". It isn't a game, it's at least 4 games. Simlilarly, we oculd give the collapses a collective title, but "collapse" could not be it.

Is changing the title of an article a big deal? I suggest "9/11 Skyscraper Collapses"Zarcon 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It think it's a bit more like saying "The U.S. First Army is a field army of the United States Army." I.e., the collapse Seven World Trade Center was the third collapse in the collapse of the World Trade Center (though I would never recommoned that formulation specifically). In some cases (game/series) there will be different categories available, in other others (army/army) there will not. The difference is a matter of convention. Yes, changing the name of the article will be inconvenient and confusing, since it is currently a well-established link both within and outside WP. Changing the articles title as you suggest would be like changing the title of 1977 World Series to "1977 Major League Baseball champion series games". Not untrue, just unusual. "The Collapse of the World Trade Center" has a conventional meaning that identifies the topic precisely. Nobody thinks it happened in an instant, or is led to think so by the article. That's my humble opinion anyway.--Thomas Basboll 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, many people have all sorts of misinformation about WTC, including the notion that all 7 of the buildings collapsed upon being struck by aircraft. Your army analogy is not apt, IMO. The U.S. First Army is a division of the THe U.S. Army - a part of the whole. Thus, we could refer to the collapse of floor 98 as being a part of a whole building collapse. But referring to 3 distinct building failures in the singular would be akin to saying "in 1943 the U.S. Army fought the Germans at the Western front in France, and at the Eastern front in Poland". It would confuse the reader and not inform him that it was mostly the Russians fighing in Poland. Similarly, the current article title is plain false.

As to the baseball analogy, I think a better analogy to the present situation would be to assume that they named it wrong to begin with. Say they had titled it "the championship game" even though it was a series of games. Referring to "The 1977 championship game" would be confusing, because people would not know which of the games you meant. Non-baseball fans would incorrectly assume it was a single game.

Zarcon 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if there is a perfect and concise title for the subject. "Collapse" would usually refer to an individual building (particularly since the various buildings were destroyed by different mechanisms: WTC 1 was struck by a plane, WTC 7 wasn't, etc.), but since the complex as a whole was destroyed as a single event, collapse can be a suitable term. Peter Grey 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the courts found the destruction of the twin towers to be two events for insurance purposes. If there is a consensus that the current title is the best one, I'll drop this. On the other hand, if a better title can be found, and people only question the convienience of changing it, then I say would should change it.

"9/11 skyscraper collapses" "Collapses at the world trade center" "9/11 building collapses"

Zarcon 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NIST Internal Consistancy

I'd like to include some quotes about pancaking, since that is a heading. Here, NIST advances the pancake theory:

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." [5]

But here, they specifically denounce it:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, . . ." [6]

I don't want to make NIST look bad, so perhaps it's best just to ignore this?? Zarcon 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be referring to two phenomena: the structural failure in the fire zone, where several floors likely buckled in concert, and the progressive collapse of the undamaged floors below the fire zone. (Or possibly mixing a technical and non-technical meaning of "pancaking".) Hopefully there's a reference where they spelled that out properly. Peter Grey 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, Peter. I think they are saying that pancaking is an explanation for what the CT's call "squibs", but saying that no pancaking occured in the actual collapsing of the buildings. In other words, they are two unrelated things. NIST endorses pancaking, just not to explain the overall collapse, just the dust ejections. I haven't found any NIST passages that explain it, but we can keep looking.Zarcon 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Added the NIST quotes Zarcon 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition of 7 WTC?

I added the following info, which got almost instantly deleted:

One indication that twin towers did not collapse through controlled demolition is that they collapsed from the top down. In the third building that collapsed, 7 WTC, however, the explosion that led to the collapse took place at the bottom in a manner that is consistent with controlled demolition. Since this building housed several government agencies that alledgedly knew about the attacks, there is speculation that the building was proposely demolished to erase evidence.

The reason given for the deletion was that it was unsourced. Of course the first bit hardly needs to be sourced because the recordings show it. But that is just the core of a statement by a demolition expert I heard talk about this on tv. Can't I use something that was said on tv because it cannot be checked? DirkvdM 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which demolition expert? Some random person, unnamed, speaking on television does not an expert make. Dan Rather speculated on the day of the incidents that it appeared to be controlled demolition. Lots of conspiracy theorists rooted on that as 'proof' of a controlled demolition. Of course, Dan Rather isn't a demolitions expert in any respect. --Durin 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've found a source, the Dutch Wikipedia. next you'll be telling me I cant use Dutch sources. :) Actually, I've been wondering about that. Do sources for a Wikipedia have to be in the same language, even on the English Wikipedia, which isn't quite exclusively used by native English speakers? DirkvdM 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• There has been considerable debate here on this talk page regarding supposed controlled demolition of WTC 7. I'm not going to re-open that can of worms. See the archives section at the top of this page if you're interested in reading all of it. The outcome of it is that barring presention of significant proof that the building was destroyed through controlled demolition or that such a theory is notable, references to it are not going to last long in this article. --Durin 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, since the official explanation is so thin, there's is very little for the demolition hypothesis to attach itself to. (Has anyone checked whether engineers have taken a crack at WTC 7 in the scientific journals? My searches for WTC should probably have hit on them, but I wasn't specifically looking for it.) One thing that demolition theorists are good at, however, is describing what the collapses looked like in detail. I suggest you devote some time to improving the physical description in the WTC 7 section.--Thomas Basboll 20:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• 7 WTC describes the engineering investigations in more detail. It was damaged by the impacts and especially the collapse of 1 WTC (which, of course, negates the whole "controlled" demolition nonsense with respect to 1 WTC). Peter Grey 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The tv show I saw stated that surprisingly few controlled demolition experts were asked to look at the images, so they asked the leading Dutch expert, Danny Jowenko. The latter said the collapse of the twin towers couldn't possibly have been controlled demolition because it happened from the top down and the fire would have set off some of the explosives long before the actual collapse. But when he saw the collapse of 7WTC (for the first time) he instantly said that was a controlled demolition beyond any doubt (also notice that the centre collapses first, a strong telltale sign - it's too 'neat'). He was surprised when he heard that happened on the same day and speculated that a team of about 30 experts working fast might just pull it off. But only then did he hear there was a fire going on in the building and started doubting again. About the debris falling on the building - how likely is it that that would have caused such a neat collapse starting at the bottom? (But that is my observation, for what that's worth.)

Googling danny jowenko controlled demolition expert gives some useful links. Most in Dutch, but also some in English. DirkvdM 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because it looks like something, doesn't prove that it is something. There is no proof of controlled demolition...frankly, it's preposterous.--MONGO 10:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of us think its preposterous that the building fell down on its own, for no reason, as the US Government claims. This would be the first case in history of a suicidal building. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Earth looks flat. It's a telltale sign that the Earth indeed is flat. The Earth looks exactly the way it would look if it were flat. There must be a Dutch person somewhere who sort of agrees with this. How likely is it that the Earth would look flat but not be flat? It's just too 'neat' that it should look flat but not be flat. All this official "spherical Earth" nonsense is just a government plot. Weregerbil 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a good example, but you should remember that it was traditionally the state and the church which maintained the dogma of the 'flat earth', and this dispite the fact that the Greeks had measured the earth's radius thousands of years earlier. The church hid this information and promoted 'flat earth' for its own reasons. It was infact a conspiracy. Then some independent researchers point out that it was impossible. One named Galileo became particularly famous, but was punished with arrest for speaking out. Today the US gov tells us all kinds of fancy tales about the way the world goes around while punishing independent researchers who point out its impossibility. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. Government goes around "punishing" independent researchers...that's why folks like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery (the producer of loosechange) are actually not free, but have stand-ins pretending to be them (under U.S. governement control of course)...both these guys are actually down in GITMO...yep, they're there along with all the others that have exposed the truth about controlled demolition.--MONGO 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The remark about it looking too neat was my observation and you may ignore that. Not, however, the observations of an expert. Who else are we to trust? And how many demolition experts were asked? Any sources on that? The tv show ('Zembla', by the way) claimed that hardly any were asked, which seems a bit odd, to say the least. As to whether Jowenko is an expert, on this site his company is named as one of a handful, most of which are North Amercan, so it seems to be an internationally respected company. Credibility of the sources is always an issue. DirkvdM 11:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A slightly more detailed retelling of what was told on the show can be read at http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/205173323. And indeed Zembla has managed to cause questions being asked in Dutch parliament before, so maybe that will happen again. Point is, though, that they're not some nutters trying to prove something. Even Dutch parliament take them seriously. They do proper research and actually debunked most of the 'conspiracy theories' (odd term that), including much of what was said in the Loose Change documentary.

One interresting question remains, though. Can I use a Wikipedia in one language as a source for another? The Dutch Wikipedia has much more in-detail and better organised information on this. DirkvdM 11:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe in theory, yes, but: The Dutch version of "9/11 conspiracy theories" may not be the most credible source, except for 9/11 conspiracy theories itself, and casual remarks, even from experts, are not necessarily expert opinions, particularly if they were not aware at the time of the extent of damage to 7 WTC. Non-English sources would likely be held to a higher standard of reliability. Peter Grey 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for WTC1&2 - this guy wasn't familiar with Jones's work I suppose. His argument about explosives blowing up in 300C is irrelevant. Thermite has to be ignited with very hig temperatures (magnesium fuses are used), so fire factor wouldn't be a problem. Keeping explosives in place would be. Well,I've heard there were some strange redecorations in offices of the Towers according to some who worked there... (911 Mysteries movie on Google Video) --SalvNaut 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point he made was that setting the required explosives for such a large building (on all floors!) would have been a major undertaking (I assume he meant that holes would have to be drilled to place them). Doing so would have required months of work and hiding it in such a busy building would have been nigh impossible. Anyway that's not so relevant there. The main thing is that he instantly recognised the collapse of 7WTC as a well done professional job. DirkvdM 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - If you are interested in posibilities please watch 9/11 Mysteries. Some strange drilling and working took place before 9/11. A guy who worked there said he couldn't stand all thos noises (drilling too). --SalvNaut 13:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• "A guy". Who? Quoted where? Anyone else make such claims? Of the thousands of people who worked in WTC 7, was there anyone else who made such a claim? What about the 250,000 people per day that spent time in WTC 1 and 2? Any of them see anything? "A guy" just makes this an extreme fringe statement, and an uncitable one at that. --Durin 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

His name is mentioned there - I am sorry, I don't recall it. There were also other statements from other people. Please, I am providing you with what I've seen on the video - nothing more. You can watch it or move to my talk page and we may discuss it further. --SalvNaut 13:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i did my homework.Guy's name is Scott Forbes, he's a senior database administrator of Fiduciary Trust. It's in the 3rd part of the video, he speaks twice (4min and 21min).--SalvNaut 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• ...and later felt doubt about that statement. Sorry, I'm not impressed. To conclude, instantly, that it was controlled demolition based on a single piece of evidence (video from one angle) is wholly improper from any scientific analytical standpoint. If this 'expert' had reviewed the voluminous evidence that is available and then concluded it was a controlled demolition, that would have some significance. Concluding it was a controlled demolition (and worse, later recanting to a degree) after watching a single video is crackpottery.
• Also, referencing another language Wikipedia is wrong. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources where it says "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source". Also, tertiary sources (which encyclopedias are) should generally be avoided. If the Dutch article on Wikipedia has sources to back up claims (especially secondary sources), then let's see them here. --Durin 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jowenko had doubts about the idea that the charges were set on that same day when he heard there was a fire, not about it being a professional job. I've watched many demolition films (I love them, and I suppose I'm not the only one) and it also caught my eye that the building sagged in the middle first, a distinct feature of controlled demolition (making sure the collapse has the least impact on the surroundings). It looks like it was done too professionally to cover it up. But I'm no expert and any discussions between us about what is plausible are no reliable source. In the Zembla documentary they said that hardly any demolition experts were asked to investigate it. (That in itself is suspicious, by the way.) So they looked one up. How many demolition experts have investigated the evidence? They're the best source for any info here. DirkvdM 13:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by my original statement that anyone who concludes the building was brought down through controlled demolition based on a single piece of evidence, that of video from one angle, is engaging in crackpottery. If that's the best evidence that can be trotted forth to prop up the notion that it was intentionally demolished, then it's uncitable. It's just one person's opinion, and whether he is regarded as an expert or not, the nature of his conclusion is falsely based. Regardless, we're not here to discuss whether the building was intentionally demolished. If you can find reputable sources noting a complex investigation that concludes the possibility of controlled demolition, then use it. Else, it's just a wild guess. --Durin 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

About Wikipedia using itself as a source, I'm not sure if that is applicable here because it's the Dutch Wikipedia, which is a different encyclopedia. But it is a tertiary source , which is a bad idea. Note, though, that that page also says primary sources ("a source very close to the situation you are writing about") are unreliable. Such as the US government researching accusations directed at the US government. That would be like asking the Chinese government to investigate human rights in China. I'd say that anyone from the US is also too close to the source to not be biased (which could go either way by the way). The best source would be secondary, such as a UN investigation. Or else by a neutral country (which?). Or an expert form another country, such as Jowenko. And the site I linked to is an indication that his company is held in high esteem internationally. DirkvdM 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This fellow from the Netherlands may think it looks like controlled demolition, but that doesn't mean it is. The building sustained damage, how much is unclear, but many buildings in the area sustained damage. If the building collapsed from damage and fires, how was it supposed to look like when it collapsed? Is a natural collapse going to look any different than one caused by controlled demolition? For what it's worth. The god of thermate (not thermite) is on administrative leave from BYU due to the preposterousness of his jargon...see his article and check out the links for yourselves.--MONGO 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Natural building collapses look like this. Note how when these buildings fall, they don't turn to dust. 'This fellow' is a demolition expert. His opinion is notable. Mongo's opinion is not. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, so some earthquake movements (which are side to side by the way as well as up and down) happened to topple over a few small buildings in some third world countries that don't have sound structural foundations and that is supposed to be how steel frame buildings collapse when they are subject to damage and fires? Thos buildings don't appear to have suffered from fires...but since we're throwing some links around..here's a few for you.[7][8][9]--MONGO 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mongo, those links have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You might as well link to Loose Chan to try and prove your point. And you also show your ignorance of the world by saying Taiwan is 'some third world country'. It certainly isn't! Ha ha. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing readily identified where the buildings images were from, but they don't appear to be very substantial buildings, so they definitely looked third world to me. I can't see that they are steel framed so your comparative analogy is worthless.--MONGO 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have missed the name of the link "Taiwan_six.jpg". Do you mind if I ask whether you have actually been to a 'third-world' country? You many think these buildings are insubstantial, yet they were strong enough to survive an disaster in relatively one piece, whereas the WTC building completely disentrigrated into dust. Do you imagine there is some property of steel which would cause a building to crumble to dust when it begins to fall? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did actually miss the link as I was looking at the images, which have no labels of course, and nothing discussing when, where or what is believed to have caused their collapse...and your point is what then? Where they built with trusses? Are they "skyscrapers"? Are they toppled from earthquakes? You do realize that earthquakes would make buildings behave differently than what controlled demolition would do. Looking at this image of WTC7...I don't see a pile of dust...I see lots of steel and other items besides dust. Do you have any proof that there was any controlled demolition at the WTC site? Patiently, I have waited for proof, but for some odd reason, no one has ever provided any. Maybe the proof is "hidden" since, as you stated above the "US gov tells us all kinds of fancy tales about the way the world goes around while punishing independent researchers who point out its impossibility"...I guess the real truthseekers are all at GITMO by now.--MONGO 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely clear, but it seems the comments by Danny Jowenko were 1) not intended as professional opinions and 2) made without knowledge of the damage to 7 WTC. 7 WTC was undamaged from the North side; the South side, however, had a number of fires and a huge gash across the lowest 10 storeys from debris from 1 WTC. Peter Grey 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its funny then that NIST has been unable to offer an explaination of the collapse. Five years after the collapse is is still an official mystery. That alone is surely unique in the history of structural engineering. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, perhaps, but not suspicious for a structurally-compromised building. In any event, the article (as of 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)) already reflects this. Peter Grey 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the big question is if a building like that could collapse at all just because of a fire. It shouldn't, so if an explanation is not found (or even sought?) then there must be something fishy going on. What that is (and who the fish is, so to say), is a different matter, by the way. I mean, if an (independent) investigation is not done (or allowed) then that could be sloppiness (maybe distraction by the big collapses next door). If it is intentional and the US government is covering something up, then that doesn't mean they set the charges. And if they did, which part of it? Alas, the less people know, the more they are willing to jump to conclusions. But if an acknowledged expert gives an opinion about something few independent experts have given one, then that is worth a mention. Who are we to double guess experts? DirkvdM 09:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a common misconception that the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists. ("I have waited for proof but it never comes..." etc.) For the purposes of this article, it seems to me, the CT POV is very useful in so far at it forces us not to fill in holes in the official story that remain open (or give the appearance that such holes are not there). The CTs, at least in this article, serve mainly as a source of (sometimes intense) skepticism. Together we can easily discipline it, and this will only improve the article. Indeed, it already has. CTs raise some good questions, even if not all of their questions are equally good. More generally, nothing we know about 9/11 would justify punishing the perpetrators (interestingly, as many non-CTers have also pointed out, we also don't have enough evidence to punish Bin Laden, the Taliban, or the Iraqi population.) But that isn't the issue. The question is: is there enough evidence to formally accuse members of the Bush adminstration (not presume their guilt, mind you) and then begin a criminal investigation. It is in the course of this investigation and trial that the proof would turn up and be made public. Alternatively, is there enough evidence to begin an "independent" investigation in the sense of one that takes the Pentagon, the CIA, the Whitehouse, and individuals working for them, as not necessarily trustworthy witnesses to their own activities? My point is this: the proof isn't yet available; according to CT'ers this is because at least some of it is under the jurisdiction of people who ought to be prime suspects. It all depends on the claim being made, of course. But I really don't think "the absence of evidence" (much less "proof") can rightfully be invoked here. IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The conspiract theorists are the ones who are claiming something that is not mainstream, is not official, is not supported by the press, is not supported by the known evidence. Their burden is to refute the majority points, but you expect the majority point to refute the conspiracy theories? CT's raise only eyebrows, not our educational standard and endorsement of further CT nonsense is only going to make this article look like it was written by fools.--MONGO 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I think the whole debunking approach is silly. I don't think the mainstream should refute the claims of CTers (nor should this article). It should acknowledge its lack of answers to some of the questions the CTers raise, that is all. It is the raised eyebrows of CT'ers that should (in some cases) motivate us to bring the official account up to the educational standards we claim to have. This article should provide factual answers where they are available, even when those answers happen to meet CT'ers half way.--Thomas Basboll 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. CTers believe that the overwhelming amount of circumstancial evidence (also in the case of the WTC collapses) renders suspect the apparently total lack of interest, on the part of official investigators, commissioners and mainstream journal[ist]s, in searching for physical evidence for alternative hypotheses. It is this lack of curiosity in the mainstream that concerns them. Not so much the strength of their own convictions.--Thomas Basboll 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they haven't looked into other theories since the evidence doesn't support an investigation in that direction.--MONGO 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That argument might apply in the case of engineers, i.e., in so far as CT'ers are disappointed in their lack of curiosity, since they have a particular, expert basis to evaluate the evidence, which may be considered superior to that of most CT'ers. But it is a different matter with journalists, since they are supposed to ask questions on behalf of their audience, and cannot be expected on the face of it to know more about structural engineering. As it turns out, they have failed to inquire into this to the satisfaction of, at this point, about a third of the American people. Journalists seem simply to have swallowed the official story on the collapses, rather than wondering whether or not it makes sense.--Thomas Basboll 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, I think you sum up the situation very well. I would add that from the point of view of a criminal investigation (not the topic of this article in any way) the demolition evidence is quite weak, and anyone who has experience with the legal system would know that it could be shot down in court very quickly. However, there is other interesting evidence which the brief FBI investigation turned up. They followed the money trail back from the hijackers to Pakistani ISI chief General Ahmad, who wired $100k on Sept 10th. Where was Gen. Ahmad on 9/11/01? 1600 Pennsylvania Av. When Thomas Keen, chair of the 9/11 Commission was asked why his report didn't mention the money trail, he said that such small amounts are unimportant. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You got a fact based news report that summarizes that or did you get it from [10] global research?--MONGO 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind...the facts are in 'cause it's also on prisonplanet.www.prisonplanet.com/cover_up_or_complicity.html]--MONGO 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything is documented on cooperativeresearch.org and everything there is sourced from mainstream newpapers only.Self-Described Seabhcán 10:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any way we can see those mainstream newspaper accounts without having to go through that website? I personally do find the issue interesting, but don't feel like surfing around through that website looking for the specifics of these details you have presented.--MONGO 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, no one is forcing you to educate yourself :-) Self-Described Seabhcán 10:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it...I'm jus a 'merican...let me know when you track down those reliable sources that will meet WP:V--MONGO 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links for you: Saeed released, contacts ISI chief, who visits washington. Chief is removed from office. Here's a key quote from the Times of India "A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan’s ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition." (Times of India, 10/9/2001)Self-Described Seabhcán 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but how does all that tie into U.S. involvement? Where are your direct links...I see a few footnotes, but nothing that can be cited as any real evidence. This guy Mahmud Ahmad doesn't even google to a single relaible source.--MONGO 11:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean General Ahmad, former head of ISI? Here's some google hits (Google News Archive). As for US involvement, besides the fact that the guy who paid for 9/11 was in Washington on 9/11 meeting with the head of the CIA and others? You should read some background on the ISI and CIA connections. They are basically the same organisation. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...ISI and CIA the "same"...that will make for some interesting reading. "The CIA was extremely mistrustful of the ISI under Gen Ahmad"--MONGO 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "should" do "your" own "research", and "quit" trying "to" dismiss "what" I "say" using "quotation" marks, "mongo". Self-Described Seabhcán 13:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(Guardian) This article sums it up nicely.Self-Described Seabhcán 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yawn...you got anything...anything at all, aside from distortions and anti-American baloney to sell. Please tell me you have something based on all the facts, not misleading half truths, and silly innuendos. Okay...I guess not.--MONGO 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a lame put down, Mongo. I know you can do better than that. Go on, call me something insulting, for old-times sake...Self-Described Seabhcán 16:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so there has been no condescention on your part here or in the past. So you're not "guilty" of insults? You want me to dig up past edit summaries of yours and other commentary? You have provided some links and I don't see what they have to do, at all, with helping to make this article better. It's just more far out, poorly covered and partly fictionalized jargon based on POV. I quoted above from a source that clearly stated that, "The CIA was extremely mistrustful of the ISI under Gen Ahmad" but you seemed to have avoided that one. This whole thing about the ISI and CIA being the same is way out there...I mean I could see how one might lump CIA and Mossad together, but even that is a stretch.--MONGO 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you linked doesn't deny what I say at all. And if you do a little reading about Afghanistan and the 1980's you'll understand what I'm talking about with CIA-ISI connections. I also recommend reading about CIA connections to Greek and Turkish security services as a comparison ("The Rape of Greece" is a good book. When a Greek politician complained that the CIA coup was 'a rape of Greek democracy', the CIA director said "you can't rape a whore". Nice guy). On the other hand, Mossad is actually quite independent of the CIA. Mossad take their orders from the Israeli Government. ISI are not under the control of the Pakistani government. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on my education...please do the same.--MONGO 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion has an aura of two opposing sides getting their point through. If there is such a thing going on in reality, then the article might mention it, but for the rest it should just give facts (and experts opinions) as they are, irrespective of whether they support the claims (or lack thereof) of either camp. Ascribing certain claims to 'conspiracy theorists' is nonsense. They should be ascribed to whichever person or organisation made them and at most place them in a certain camp if that suggests bias (in which case it might even be better to ignore them). My point is that Danny Jowenko is an expert who can be assumed to be neutral.

Btw, 'conspiracy theory' is an odd term. Of course there was a conspiracy (how else could one organise such a thing?), the question is whether the US government was in on it. I beieve that in the US it is customary to use the term 'conspiracy' specifically for that, but if that is a specific US thing it should not be used here (especially if it is used to make them look like a bunch of nutters, but I'm not sure if the usage in the US implies that). Another reason not to speak of conspiracy theories or theorists and just give the facts, irrespective of what they might mean. DirkvdM 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the article is discussing an event that happened in the U.S., why wouldn;t we use common language that is used in the U.S.? This, of course would be the opposite if we were discussing an article in another country, if indeed they don't use the term conspiracy theory. When Danny Jowenko gets his research published by a reliable third party source, then we can read it and determine if that source is qualifying under policy, namely WP:V.--MONGO 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, Mongo. What is the "reliable third party source" that the current WTC7 section is based on? And just for good order: who are the corresponding first and second parties?--Thomas Basboll 11:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article...you are the one who did most of the rearraigning so the sources were ones you kept. I just looked them over, and if we're going to get into an argument about whether the NIST is a reliable source, then I think we can end the discussion.--MONGO 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. (BTW, I don't recall working on the WTC7 section.) NIST is reliable, we agree. But the section also uses a letter to JOM (presumably not peer-reviewed), and a somewhat poetic description of a "wounded" building from the press. I asked especially because the impressionism of that first description might well be tempered with (wasn't it?) Dan Rather's "looked just like a controlled demolition" (approx.) remark or, more recently, Jowenko's expert assessment in the Dutch press. Now, we could of course insist that Rather first get his views published in a "reliable third party source". But then we've go to clear the journalism and editorializing out of this section as it stands. This would leave us with a very provisional hypothesis. (That's actually the direction I'm leaning in.)--Thomas Basboll 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What hypothesis is that, Thomas? You want to insert the opinion of some fellow from Europe who has never studied the materials or even the site of the suspected demolition and also the comments by Dan Rather that he said it looked like controlled demolition...I don't see what their opinions has to do with building a fact based encyclopedia. Jowneko's expert assessment? Assessments rendered from afar hardly seem expert to me.--MONGO 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jowenko is looking at the same thing Rather looked at (at the same distance from the image on his screen I would imagine). Rather, in turn, is as good a source as whoever said the building had been "wounded" by the fall of the other towers. Since I can get you to agree that neither Rather nor Jowenko belong in the article, I'm trying to establish the standard that would remove also the NYT news service remark and the Barrett et al. letter. This would cut the article back to a tentative hypothesis about fires causing key columns to fail. It could then be augmented with NIST's more recent interest in possible "blasts" (and I take it they are looking for something other than explosives to cause them.) Since absolutely nothing approaching a conclusive explanation has been suggested by anyone (other than CT'ers perhaps, ;-) ) this section should not be filled with speculative detail.--Thomas Basboll 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with trimming details that ae speculative, so long as you don't end up trimming those that don't jive with any bias you may or may not have.--MONGO 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Looked like a controlled demolition" is worthless. If I dress in a brown sack and "look like a potato", that does not make me a potato, and similes have no place in an encyclopedia. Until someone can tell who planted explosives in 270 floors of office tower, the whole theory is just as worthless. --Golbez 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but Jowenko did not use a simile. He said, "This is controlled demolition." That could be a metaphor, of course, (e.g., "Juliet is the sun"). But somehow I don't think that captures his meaning. On the other hand, what is your take on the use of metaphors in an encyclopedia, e.g., the "wounded" building "suffered mightily"?--Thomas Basboll 12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The term was simile, not metaphor, and I was more referring to the Dan Rather quote mostly. Also, Loose Change is chock full of similes, probably ten for every actual cited fact it offers. --Golbez 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

LC is beyond the pale as a source for this article, isn't it?--Thomas Basboll 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

New film / deletion vote

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth. Badagnani 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

New 7 WTC text

Have a look and tell me what you think. It's still a bit rough, I'll polish it if no one else does.--Thomas Basboll 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reducing construction section

I think there is too much detail in the construction section right now. Some of it might be moved to the main World Trade Center article, and a link should be established. As a guide, I imagine that the relevant structural description should not be longer than the impact and fire sections combined. And possibly as short as one of them.--Thomas Basboll 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Citation templates whenever adding references to the article...I spent a lot of time working on them in the recent past, so let's try to keep it uniform. Thanks.--MONGO 08:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Demolition opinions

I would like to add something that I haven't seen yet in all info about 9/11. A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:

1. the WTC collapse goes from top to bottom: no controlled collapse ever has been done like that: explosives are always put at the bottom so the building collapses from its own inertia.
2. Since both towers collapse from top to bottom this means there had to be explosives at all floors, top to bottom, that would have been detonated in order (starting at top working down to bottom). This is not possible because there was a fire on the floors hit; if there were any explosives in the building, they would have just burned. And, more important: every explosive uses a detonator. Those detonators would have exploded way before because they go off at a temperature of 320 degrees celsius; hence no explosives could have used.

The video Loose_Change_(video) shows enlarged puffs of smoke coming out the WTC towers some 30 floors below the collapse and states that this is evidence of explosives. However, as Jowenko concludes, these were bolts and parts of the steel construction popping out because of the enormous strain by the collapse. This collaborates with the remarks made by firemen in the 9/11_(film): "Bolt by bolt started popping out".

His opinion was double checked (as shown in the Zembla documentary) by a team from the TU Delft TU (Technical University) of Delft and they came to the same conclusion based on their calculations.

The most common response to this is that the WTC was by no means an "ordinary" demolition. Steven Jones, I think, has argued that if thermate was used it would not be set off by the fires (and would have had to be encased anyway to focus their effects on the steel, so it would not simply have burned off). Obviously I don't know if he's right about that. In any case, it looked to me like Jowenko was saying that it was certainly not demolition like he would do it in the light of day. Shady characters involved in a conspiracy to make it look like something other than a demolition might do it differently, I would think.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WTC Building 7 Collapse

In the same Documentary as mentioned above, they took a look at the collapse of WTC Building 7. According to Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, the collapse of that building "definately looks like a controlled blast". He comes to this conclusion because the building collapses from the bottom, a trademark for controlled demolition.

Jowenko can not explain the fact that the building collapsed on the same day, and is surprised it did, because according to him it would take a team of 30 to 40 people to do this in the given timeframe (the building was on fire for 4 hours). However, he leaves out the option it was rigged before that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.18.197 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• See Controlled demolition of 7 WTC? above. This 'expert' made a conclusion based on a single piece of evidence; that of video taken from a single perspective. Even if the person is an expert, such a conclusion is irresponsible, and it is certainly not encyclopedic. --Durin 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there was another part of Zembla documentary and even after Jovenko was shown the damage diagram of WTC7 he sustained his claim that WTC7 was demolished. That's why I sourced his video with other experts claims about it. --SalvNaut 00:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Danish remarks on controlled demolition

The Danish remarks seem to be confined to expert commentary in the days immediately following 9-11. They therefore add nothing to, say, the Romero remarks. The dutch remark, since it is so recent, is very interesting. I would agree with Mongo, however, and say that given the stuff already cited about NIST's response to the CD hypothesis in the case WTC 7, we need to wait for them to respond to Jowenko. Keep in mind that the consensus on this article is, a bit too simply put, that NIST knows best. Compared with their authority (and they don't think it is obviously CD) Jowenko is almost nothing, from the our perspective as WP editors. But I hope engineers like Bazant take an interest in it (he did respond to Cherepanov's ideas.) Only then will we have something to report here.--Thomas Basboll 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not noteworthy?

How can it be that an opinion from structural engineers from Swiss university, who made a study and came to conclusion that WTC7 was demolished, along with opinions from two demolition experts are not noteworthy, at the same time there being no other opinions from experts at all??

I could understand if there were many other opinions but there are not! --SalvNaut 10:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not insist on Youtube videos (and there was one only - have you checked the sources MONGO?) but on the opinion of Swiss structural engineers experts. --SalvNaut 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about their study is noteworthy...how? They have never examined any real evidence from the scene...so they watch a few videos and make a bunch of comments based on their "opinion". I recognize that there are plenty of regular people with no understanding of engineering that think the WTC was imploded, but it is professional suicide when an engineer makes unprofessional statements such as in the links provided...frankly, they must be doing drugs or they are idiots.--MONGO 11:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what buildings are supposed to look like when the collapse either naturally or by demolition, when seen from one angle, and on the assumption that there is a twenty story hole on the other side. But I don't think people who do have an idea what such things would look like are insane to express their opinions about. That opinion generates a hypothesis, which they hope NIST investigates (and which it seems like it's going to make a cautious attempt at least to model). All these guys are saying (when they say the building was "very likely" demolished) is that this is something they would investigate. The public can then demand of NIST, or other state-funded scientists, that they check it out. That's what publicly funded science is (in part) about. But, like I say, until they get something published on this, or NIST takes their hypotheses up, there is nothing to report here. (It's a very small part of the article, you must admit.)--Thomas Basboll 11:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugs/idiots argument does not find its way into my mind MONGO and I don't think it should. An opinion from structural engeneer is exactly what it is. But if it's been decided that only published data goes under WTC7 section, then I'm ok.

Thank you Thomas for those true words, below here, on YouTube as a source - in this case it's nothing more like sourcing TV programme, which is no different than sourcing paper magazine. --SalvNaut 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Beware of unprofessional opinions rendered from afar. Anyone who claims to be a professional in a field of expertise who renders a judgement of a technical situation without ever having directly studied the components of the situation directly, is someone who is not to be equated with as being professional. Firstly, the fact that there is zero proof of controlled demolition, should be their first wake up call on the situation. There simply is no proof of controlled demolition. Secondly, based on the first issue, rendering a judgement based on what something looks like, is hardly a professional way to operate, and is in fact, very unprofessional. Thirdly, everyone has an opinion, but the only ones pushing their opinions are those who are biased into thinking that their opinions matter.--MONGO 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, are you a structural engineer? or demolition expert? If not, why should we agree with your opinions about opinions of structural engineers? and your accusations of them being idiots or on drugs. How would you know what is sufficient to give opinions about falling buildins like WTC7? You think that you know this better than a professor of structural engineering from Switzerland? If you do, please provide us with your background in this field, ok?

You removed the whole section again, ok, but tell me: do you agree with Thomas that YouTube can be used as a source in certain cases or not? --SalvNaut 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Youtube has no oversight in terms of editorial content, so anyone can load virtually any video they want. My opinions are not my opinions, but the evidence submitted by those who directly investigated the event.--MONGO 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But this was a "certain case": this was a video of TV programme that has good reputation. It has nothing to do with YouTube as a source! You should better restore what Thomas has written and read it again - he explained it very well there. --SalvNaut 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And what about the rest?

• You didn't explain why opinion of structural engineer is not noteworthy.
• You keep removing it from 7 World Trade Center, and don't want to discuss it there.
• You keep using this discussion here, which is far from consensus, as a basis for those removals. That other page is much different from this one here, and much more unsourced, unpublished opinion are there under Collapse section, and you still keep removing mine two very well sourced sentences about experts opinions. --SalvNaut 20:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How professional are they when they suggest that something is possible when there is no evidence to support their claim? I am not going to have the exact same discussion about the exact same information that you are trying to insert into the other article...why should I. I don't need a consensus to remove nonsense.--MONGO 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How professional editor are you Mongo to judge experts in their fields?? They surely had some data (WTC7 videos and damage diagrams are widely available on the net) and they must have decided that this is enough to state their opinions loud. What in the world makes you think that you know better than them, what should be spoken by them??? This case has not been discussed because now we have another dutch demolition expert and professor of structural engineering. You have to discuss this Mongo or stop reverting my edits. --SalvNaut 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you will insult me since I insult those that help support your bias. I suppose my calling them idiots is an insult on you since you like their opinions since they help you support your own opinions...right? Stop POV pushing nonsense.--MONGO 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you doing this Mongo - instead of responding to arguments you accuse others of insulting you while nothing of this kind has happend... But... I'll try to understand your feelings. I'll say this: I am sorry that I stated my point in a way which made you feel insulted. My previus post did not mean to insult you, and this one does not, too. I don't feel insulted, neither. Let me rephrase it: It is not professional for an editor to judge experts. His job is to report what they say with NPOV in mind and it has nothing to do with them being correct or wrong. The article 7 World Trade Center already cites unsourced, unpublished, unconfirmed opinions and you keep removing sourced opinions from other experts. I see no other reason for this, but the one that you judge that these experts are OK, and those are not. If I am wrong and there is other reason - please provide me with it. If there is not - then I say it's not professional editing and it's nothing personal (I always assume good WP:FAITH - trust me) SalvNaut 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have all evening to sit here and argue with you about this. I have stated the reasons why the information you present is not notable, but that isn't good enough. When you state "I've seen you doing this"...doing what exactly? I always refute opinions rendered from afar by those who haven't physically examined the known evidence. I find I laughable that they are construed as experts simply because they help you support your POV. Therefore, stop POV pushing.--MONGO 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct - it's not good enough. All you provided me with is that you think that this information is not notable because you decided that those experts must be idiots or on drugs. I'll wait for other editors' opinons and we may continue the discussion then. I remind that all this is about Collapse section under 7 World Trade Center, where the section has different scope than adequate section here.--SalvNaut 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Opinionated Junk Science" & YouTube

[Note. This is a rephrasing of a comment that was taken as a personal attack and deleted. I haven't heard about the incident directly, but I am of course sorry it was taken that way.] Mongo recently reverted an edit on the grounds that the material included was available on YouTube and constituted "opinionated junk science" (these two reasons seemed to be related, but may not necessarily have been). But in the case in question, YouTube had not been suggested as a "source"; rather, an apparently pretty respected (I'll stand corrected if this impression turns out wrong) Dutch news program, which happens to be conveniently available on YouTube, has been cited. (Online repositories are not sources; they store both good and bad ones). We can discuss the source, but it's availability on YouTube by itself does not reflect poorly on it. Jowenko's credentials can be easily verified at his company's webpage, as can the relative mainstreaminess of the Zembla programme, which appears to be as fair and balanced as any other news program. Jowenko is pretty confident that the only way you can make a collapsing building look the way WTC looked from that angle, regardless of the damage done to side that is not visible, is by controlled demolition. Moreover, he seemed to think it was a pretty nice job. He offered his expert opinion, he did not pretend to be doing science, nor did the program claim that it was scientific to look a video and conjecture about the most likely collapse mechanism.--Thomas Basboll 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, as noted, it is simply an opinion. Why do you wish to push opinions?--MONGO 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with MONGO on this. The opinion of Jowenko, based on him viewing a video and commenting on what the collapse looked like, isn't notable enough. Per undue weight, we need not mention it here. The vast overwhelming opinion of the structural engineering and controlled demolition communities is that they agree with NIST. Independent expert opinions on the matter have been published in numerous peer reviewed papers in scholarly journals. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending Jowenko's opinion, and I have not suggested it be included. I am objecting to a particular way of a justifying an edit. The proposed justification has two parts (1) that the source is YouTube when it is not and (2) that the content is "opinionated junk science" when it is an expert opinion offered in an apparently serious news documentary. I am not pushing opinions but trying to insist on sustainable editorial criteria.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above - it's not about Jovenko solely and not about section under this article. Jovenko took a close look on this case (there were two TV programmes with him) and his opinion about WTC7, as it's nothing more than an opinion, is notable among other opinions. It's been decided not to put it here, but I'd like to put it under 7 World Trade Center because the scope of the Collapse section is different from the one here.--SalvNaut 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is no more notable for inclusion there than it is here.--MONGO 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But do you see that this has nothing to do with either YouTube or junk science? It has to do with the gap between an expert opinion offered to a journalist (which is perfectly good as far as it goes) and an ongoing investigation by a government agency.--Thomas Basboll 22:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If those two sections WTC7 here and Collapse under 7 World Trade Center have the same scope, then I propose concilatory solution: to copy paste the section from here to there. --SalvNaut 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the WTC7 article either. The problem with Jowenko's opinion is that he had never heard about the collapse of WTC7, but was then shown the video (taken from one, less damaged side of the bldg) and not told when the collapse happened. With selective presentation of video evidence, Jowenko gives some off-the-cuff remarks on how the collapse appeared, initiating from towards the bottom of the building, versus the top for WTC1 and WTC2. Then, he's told this happened on 9/11, and responds by saying "The same day? Are you sure?", "Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be." He is told, "Seven hours after the WTC" Jowenko replies, "Really?" Jowenko is also told, "The building was on fire.", Jowenko replies "They didn't extinguish it?" and told "So, they'd have to do it [plant the explosives] while it was on fire." and Jowenko replies "Yes, that's odd, I agree. I can't explain it." When given more context and explanation of the situation in WTC7, Jowenko seems to back off of the "it looks like controlled demolition". --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the Swiss opinions, one was based on "few existing video photographs than references that the building WTC 7", and the other doesn't say what evidence he bases the opinion. It could be that like Jowenko, these Swiss "experts" were not all that informed about the circumstances of WTC7, the big gashes (some 20 stories tall) and damage inflicted on WTC7, the specifics of how WTC7 was constructed on top of the Con Ed substation, etc. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 23:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't know the whole story - they made a second programme with Jovenko appearance. He said then that it's impossible that WTC1&2 were demolished because of amount of explosives needed and fire temperatures, and he sustained his opinion about WTC7 being demolished. And how it exactly was with those two others? I don't know and no one here does. All we know that the decided to express their opinions for some reason, right? I do not insist to include this if we are not to include opinions at all. --SalvNaut 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think brief quotes in news stories are adequate. It's important to have context to the opinions, and know what evidence they base them from? As for the second program with Jowenko, do you have a link to it? Even if what you say is accurate representation of what Jowenko says, per undue weight, it's a fringe minority opinion among structural engineer and CD experts. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with the WTC7 section as it is now, and I'm ok with the other article after some trims and edits made. As for Jovenko: DirkvdM described it. Search on this talk page for phrase A slightly more detailed retelling of what was told on the show Maybe, there are other Jovenko videos on YouTube.--SalvNaut 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Move of controlled demolition

Again, I am baffled by Mongo's edit summaries. If the passage is nonsense (it is not) then it no more belongs at the bottom of the page than where we had it (are we trying to punish it somehow?). After the painstaking process of winning consensus for exactly that way of putting it, I don't know why we are now going to have to discuss where in the article it should go. But let me suggest right after the building seven section, which also ends with a mention of the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 23:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition Section Title

Googling "controlled demolition conspiracy theory": 35 hits, 15 unique.

Googling "controlled demolition theory": 10,300 hits, 316 unique.

The second term is the proper label. *Sparkhead 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So what...stop POV pushing nonsense.--MONGO 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the term that references the theory, even in MSM sources.[11] You're pushing a title that is rarely used and has zero ghits in MSM. Which is POV? *Sparkhead 15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is not the place to POV push things for which there is zero proof. Google links for Sasquatch don't make him/her a fact.[12].--MONGO 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but they could help prove notability. A "theory" isn't a fact. It's a theory. You seem to be confused regarding the definition. There's no POV bias to the word. "Controlled demolition allegation" has zero ghits. The concept, flawed as it might be, is generally known as the "controlled demolition theory", whether it's being presented as a possibility or being ridiculed as insanity. There's nothing POV about the terminology. Yes, you can revert the change, again, but it's clearly the proper term to use to cover the content. *Sparkhead 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to controlled demolition as a conspiracy theory, [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] to name a few. --Aude (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a conspiracy theory that's most commonly labelled as "controlled demolition theory". Not one of the references you listed uses the explicit term "controlled demolition conspiracy theory". However, two of them do use the term "controlled-demolition theory". Care to point out a reference I missed? The google searches above only further common usage. The text clearly says it is a conspiracy theory, but the title should reflect common usage. *Sparkhead 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This talk page never ceases to amaze me. Arguments about titling of a section? Wow. :) I think the above discussion misses much of the point. Is it theorizing on a conspiracy? Yes. I'm sorry there's negative connotations to the term "conspiracy theory", but its usage here is utterly accurate. It is a conspiracy theory. See the definition of conspiracy theory at m-w.com. See the definition of conspiracy theory at Wiktionary. Also, read the first sentence of Conspiracy theory. I am hard pressed to think of any case in which we could describe the demolition conspiracy theory as anything other than a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory. --Durin 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose changing the title to "Alternative Controlled Demolition Theory"

Durin (and advocates of Durins views) - If you do not agree with a theory, its not a conspiray theory. Even if the "official story" disregards a theory, its still not a conspiracy theory. Just a theory. You need to make a choice - either you accept the priciples of free speech and scientific thinking, which means you have to take any and all theories equally into account, no matter how much you dislike the theories. OR you do not believe in scientific way of thinking and free speech, and choose to believe in "commonly accepted" views, truths and theories. I say, may the best argument win in the end, when we each make our own judgements, but I dont need YOU or anyone else telling me what theory is "conspiracy" theory and what are just theories. I dont need YOU censoring this media. Now go read some articles on information theory, scientific philosphy, Please. Neutrality not official truths. Finally, I would like to add that according to the NIST Appendix A, the steel columns had gone through something equivalent of controlled demolition charge, even if they dispute the use of thermite. (anon finn)

Interestingly, the whole section includes references to articles from Albequerque Journal, but ignores the likes of BBC reporting (and I quote) "the subsequent explosions". Are these BBC journalists the conspiracy theorists you speak about, Durin? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1537469.stm

Durin - You gonna lose your admin right if you willingly abuse them. You clearly did NOT look into the sources provided before removing my edit. Do you really want to make me have to log in and report you? Now please remove your edit, as I have shown that credible evidence towards alternative theories DOES exist, and I quote the BBC article "Two hijacked passenger airliners plunge into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the subsequent explosions and fires causing the buildings to collapse." Durin wrote, mistakenly "The BBC article you are referring to refers to the explosions of the planes on impact on the WTC, not subsequent explosions that brought the building down."

Admins like you give wikipedia and free speech a bad name, not to mention Neutrality. One more slip, and...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.5.114 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you disagree with the term "conspiracy". The reality is, as I believe has already been discussed on this talk page, that any theory involving the U.S. as a major participant in causing the attacks on 9/11 is by its very definition a conspiracy.
• As to free speech, it's not a matter of free speech. Free speech is not a right at Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Free speech. You do not have a "right" to free speech here.
• I firmly believe in scientific theory, and support additions to articles that are based on verifiability and reliable sources. The reality is that even if the BBC is a reliable source, its reporting of the news within 24 hours has an extremely small likelihood of being a strong secondary source of information regarding primary research into the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings. Thus, it is not a reliable cite to have an article from the BBC to make a claim that the buildings were dropped by explosives, much less one where the explosions of the planes are being misinterpreted as other explosions causing the collapses.
• As to your comment, "One more slip, and...". Whatever grievances you have against me I am certainly welcome to hear. If you feel I have committed grave errors, then by all means please conduct a requests for comment on my actions. Since you may lack experience in how to conduct an RfC, I would be happy to help craft it with you or identify a person who can assist you. Would this suit your needs in solving your grievances against me? If not, how can we address your concerns? What are your concerns, other than the above? What slips do you think I've made?

--Durin 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Durin said: "The reality is, as I believe has already been discussed on this talk page, that any theory involving the U.S. as a major participant in causing the attacks on 9/11 is by its very definition a conspiracy." I was not saying anything about any involvement, only that there were some unexplained explosions happening there. Durin said: "As to free speech, it's not a matter of free speech." I agree - free speech must be earned, like I will demonstrate to you trough use of logic and perseverance. Durin said: "I firmly believe in scientific theory, and support additions to articles that are based on verifiability and reliable sources." And you dont regard BBC journalists writings and on-site interviews as verifiable or reliable sources? Who do you think you are kidding here. You crossed the line right there, IMHO, and now you post that comment? Interesting interpretation of scientific principles, Durin.

• If doing what I have been doing is "cowboy(ing) around with my adminship" then I think I'd prefer to keep cowboying around. I'd also prefer if you reported me, so we can air out all grievances you seem to have about me rather than have be some dark secret you're wanting to keep to yourself. Barring major revelations regarding mistakes I've made, I don't see a basis on which to change what I have been doing. So, I'd prefer you reported me. Would you like help in filing a grievance against me?
• Also, I fail to see how requesting an article be verifiable and based on reliable sources counts as "crossing the line". Would you please elaborate? A BBC article the same day as the attacks is not a reliable source for making a claim of explosions taking down the WTC. No investigation has been made. At Wikipedia, we target secondary sources for information, not primary. Since there was as yet no investigation, the BBC is in effect a primary source in this case; and since they have no qualifications in building demolitions, they are a very weak primary source for this point of information as well. I stand by my statements. --Durin 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire explosion thing is being taken out of context. When hundreds of thousands of ons of steel and concrete collapse, no doubt one is going to be hearing explosions.--MONGO 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo check the provided interview of the BBC journalist - you can see the building collapses AFTER he made that statement. (anon finn)

I did, and these were huge buildings, and there has never been any proof of controlled demolition. Could have been steel poping, elevators falling..who knows, but there is zero evidence it was due to "bombs". The bombs were the airplanes and why on earth use airplanes if one has already planted explosives...only makes the coverup even greater and logisitcally impossible.--MONGO 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was NOT trying to claim there was controlled demolition. I WAS NOT MAKING ANY ALLEGATIONS. Please re-read my edit. I was simply pointing out that several pieces of evidence remain unexplain despite inquiries. And thats what I would like to see written there. --EndurinFreedom 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further, both of these reports were from the day of the 9/11 attacks. The video was from the morning of the attacks, before the last building collapsed. The article was from later that evening. Any such reporting of events to prop up claims of their being explosions is a very weak primary source. The people talking in the video and article have no presented qualifications on explosive physics, building demolitions, or any other related expertise. Yet, there's an attempt here to use them as a qualified source to claim there were explosions. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. There, it says "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources". This article and the video are both primary sources, and weak ones at best. --Durin 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your point, but we are talking about professional journalists and reknown news corporation here. Please consider this: (1) Evidence towards unexplained explosions exist, in form that is verifiable and through sources that are generally though to be reliable (BBC News website and interview footage). (2) Can you (or anyone else) invalidate this evidence, or provide clear explanation as to what these explosions were? (3) If not, can you show that it is NOT even remotely possible that these explosions were related to explosives of some kind? (4) If not, can you, therefore, by use of ARGUMENTATION, EVIDENCE OR LOGIC dismiss the proposition, that it is possible controlled demolitions of some kind by some known or unknown agent MAY have taken place (hypothesis)?--EndurinFreedom 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me but I don't think I've made my point clear about unreliable primary sources. The BBC is not a reliable primary source when reporting on events on the day they happened. A secondary source? Perhaps (but not for the case we are discussing here). It depends. Consider; what if I were a reporter from some notable paper the day Apollo 11 landed on the moon and I declared that the moon was made of cheese. We can not therefore reliably and verifiably state that the moon is made of cheese. The situation here is no different really. We're using a reporter who knows nothing about demolitions, explosives, or the like. The reporter is making statements about the nature of the collapses of the buildings...without any investigation having been conducted. This is, by its very definition, an unreliable source. To then extrapolate that to buttress a theory that the buildings were taken down by explosions is wrong. --Durin 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this stuff is just being presented under the wrong heading. There's still a lot of work to be done in detailing the "physical features of the collapses". Part of that will include what they looked and sounded like, and much of this day-of reporting will be perfectly reliable for that. Instead of making if "evidence for" controlled demolition, present it as "description of" the collapses.--Thomas Basboll 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heresay evidence is inadmissible in what is supposed to be a scientific analysis of the collapse. If someone "thought" they heard "explosions" then that is all that we have...if we start adding infomration from all over the web that has been posted, we end up with anarchy and a distortion of the known facts of the case. Stick to what is fact and not rely on heresay if we expect this article to be reliable.--MONGO 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

-

• Look, if you dismiss professional journalists as "unreliable sources of evidence" or "hearsay", you might as well dissmiss professional engineers as unreliable sources of evidence. Thats devils logic. Your reasoning is failing there! Originally I was just trying to point out there exists evidence that is not explained by the inquiries, not saying it was controlled demolitions. --EndurinFreedom 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See this page on BBC site "Editorial Guidelines in Full - The BBC's Editorial Values" http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/editorialvalues/truthandaccurac.shtml - So much for your "Hearsay" argument. --EndurinFreedom 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Engineers are trained to examine things such as the collapse of the WTC...reporters simply state what they can reference. Some reporters and others thought they heard explosions...of course they did, and what's that got to do with anything? A number of major news anchors stated it looked controlled demolition...much of this information is already available at the article Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article and would be better suited for inclusion there.--MONGO 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Endurin is right here. A substantial amount of work can be done to flesh out what the collapses were described as looking like on the day they happened. That's simply part of the historical record and relevant. Where else would it go?--Thomas Basboll 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, just because it looks like something, doesn't mean it was that something. We stick to the facts of the case and not exapnd an article that is already 50k even larger to accomodate the opinions of nonspecialists.--MONGO 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If it really is a problem (I'm not sure it is), we can start another main article and include a summary here. In any case, a detailed account of how the collapses were described on the day they happened by people who are experts in describing how stuff looks when it happens (journalists) would be informative and useful. Pliny was not an expert on volcanoes, but his description of Pompeii Vesuvius, 79 AD, is, well, a classic.--Thomas Basboll 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely, feel free to create an article that discusses what it looked like and sounded like if you wish. I thought much of that was already included in the hypothesis article. I can't imagine why we would link to an article that discusses what nonspecialists think something looked like or sounded like from this one, but it's worth a try if you think the concensus of editors will agree with it. We might as well also work on daughter articles that reference all those who "think" they saw bigfoot, or UFO's or Nessie. I suppose what we could do here is keep what we have, a brief mention of the cosnpiracy theories and an appropriate link...or is this now something that is insufficient?--MONGO 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about including whatever reliable accounts we find of what the article's object (the collapse of the WTC) looked like. You would move this[19] off into some inconspicuous corner?--Thomas Basboll 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, if this is now a goal, then I suggest a daughter article, were one could list all those that have been reported as seeing and hearing things about what happened.--MONGO 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To comment your comments - Well, frankly, I do have a problem with the whole concept of labeling hypothesis or theories automatically under "conspiracy theory" label. Thats just not valid way of discussing or reviewing things. On the other hand it is a Disinformation Tactic used to smear opponents, and on the other hand, where it applies, it doesnt belong in this article at all. So this grassy knoll mumbo jumbo belongs in another article, that I agree with. But thats just final comment on the BBC article edit-thing, I have a whole stack of data to edit in here.. I will dig up the NIST appendix analysis that actually supports demolition charge theory. You thought I was going by the BBC article alone, like some kinda tourist? ;) tata --EndurinFreedom 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

NIST demolition charge theory?...that will be something to see. The only discussion NIST has had regarding the controlled demolition issues, is to refute them.--MONGO 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well their report points out that the steel structures molecular matrix did experience changes that were not possible at low temps, even if they dispute that it wasnt due to thermite charges... Not sure if I should edit it in or you guys wanna discuss it first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EndurinFreedom (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

• I really wish people would stop saying controlled demolition - there's nothing "controlled" about a building collapse that takes out two dozen other buildings. Peter Grey 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the conspiracy theorists insist that WTC 1, 2, and 7 all fell within their own footprints. --Durin 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention for demolition hypothesis (con't)

• Heres what this discussion boils down to. There is undeniably evidence which in the wrong context would lead someone to conclude a demolition with out question. The problem is, there is still evidence which suggests a demolition but cannot prove it (just as even NIST states, they cannot PROVE their claim of a gravitational collapse, only demonstraight its possibility via computer modeling). If you are censoring this evidence because it may lead someone to conclude something you don't wish, move to Russia. If evidence exists pertaining to the collapse of the WTC, and it is from a source held in high regard and is pertinant enough, it should be included, period. If you wish this page to only include sources from the NIST report, please rename it accordingly. Edited 21:03, 8 December 2006. Derwin 13:58, 8 December 2006.

The way the title is now, I hope the discussion is simply about whether or not that parenthesis should be there. I normally cite Bazant and Verdure's paper (also the source of the "outsiders" label) to suggest that in the engineering community, controlled demolition = conspiracy theory. B&V say that this hypothesis is pursued by people who are "trying to prove a conspiracy"). I like the fact that this article sticks to the engineering consensus and that it gives a good indication of what "the official line" actually is. With appropriate links to the alternative theories, I don't think this is censorship, it's just a way of organizing information (! - I know that sounds like a commissar's euphemism. ;-) )--Thomas Basboll 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in an edit, for all we know, the terrorists could have placed vans with explosives in the basement near the core columns. The fact that the buildings feel due to a demolition style collapse is very debatable, regardless of how that demolition occurred. We should not label with the word conspiracy unless we are actually discussing a conspiracy theory for how the explosives were placed there. I think that this argument is not about any sort of factual discrepancy, it is an opinion, and labeling the possibility of a demolition as a conspiracy is a far more opinionated statement than labeling the demolition of the building as a possibility (i.e. theory or hypothesis)

Perhaps we should include a reference to the conspiracy theory wiki below this heading. Also, a disclaimer explaining the difference between the evidence that the buildings were demolished and the evidence that there was a conspiracy amongst certain people to do so. If we are working on the definition as is, the entire 9-11 event was a conspiracy, perpetrated (as best we know) by al-Qaeda. Why then is this section the only part labeled as a conspiracy? We need constancy, not opinions attached to select facts. Derwin 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see the title of the full article about the controlled demolition if you wish to see the naming convention for this theory. Secondly, the word conspiracy is NOT implied by the fact that the buildings may have fell due to explosives placed at the base or within the building. It is your judgment that such thinking is a conspiracy. Regardless of the truth of such an assertion, would you not agree that the term "conspiracy" implies "generally accepted as false, although perhaps not disproved?" Derwin 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki page on "conspiracy theory" states "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations." A van full of explosives in the basement requires neither a deceptive plot, a covert alliance, nor a powerful or influential organization. Not to say that the controlled demolition theory does not incite such postulations, but it in itself does NOT imply them. It not be proven that such a demolition requires any sort of conspiracy what so ever. So why then, do we label this hypothesis as a conspiracy. Derwin 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Its like if a scientist did not like the ideas of another scientist, he rewrites the title of his paper to "An unlikely possibility of Gravity" from "A theory of gravity." Please give these ideas the respect they deserve as ideas, not as probable fallacies (that is unless of course you plan to demonstrate to us how they must be fallacies. Derwin 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here (besides continuing the discussion below) is to identify an example of someone who has proposed the controlled demolition hypothesis without suggesting a conspiracy (in the popular sense, i.e., a shadowy and powerful network working inside the official system). Steven Jones seemed at first to be off to a good start ("I don't like to go there," he said as I recall it. "I'm just suggesting a hypothesis to be tested.") But he is clearly a conspiracy theorist (in a non-pejorative sense) now. Also, I can't think of anyone who actually frames CD as even possibly merely a basement bomb. I do, however, essentially agree that the words "conspiracy theory" do a little more than signal a minority view, they also indicate a marginalized one, and, of course, in part contribute to that marginalization.--Thomas Basboll 12:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Claim "Never Disputed By Mainstream Scholars" Is False

In fact dozens and dozens of such "disputing" "scholars" exists. For example professor Steven Jones, american physicist, is notable for claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center during September 11 terrorist attacks may have involved controlled explosive demolition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

I thus propose the removal of the following sentence: "The hypothesis has never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship and its proponents are considered "outsiders".[44] The whole sentence is nonsensical, and quite frankly suggest that a secular view of engineering sciences is valid.

And propose the addition of the following sentence: "Inquiry into alternative hypotheses has been demanded by many scientific experts." -list deleted- Lets see what you have to say --EndurinFreedom 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence way back when. Jones was already on the scene and, I think, he's quite specifically one of the "outsiders" that Bazant and Verdure are referring to. This sentence is not nonsensical in any way I am aware of. It is about the marginalization of the controlled demolition hypothesis, which, whatever side you're on, is a fact. Mainstream engineering simply won't hear of it. The standard that has been applied here is not whether trained scientists and engineers support controlled demolition, but whether the hypothesis passes peer-review. (BTW, I have no illusions about the apolitical nature of peer review, but it's the best filter we've got.) What you need (and what may one day come) is a peer-reviewed article in a mainstream engineering journal proposing CD or seriously criticizing the received view (bascially NIST's). That would falsify the sentence you're referring to.--Thomas Basboll 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok yeah I see it now *forehead slap*. So it is about politics and engineering in North America. How could I misinterpret that! Of course! I mean mix a bunch of rusty nails, soda cans, gyproc and gasoline and it will make thermite, righttt. So that holds. Not sure if the problem is actually the title - perhaps it is a kind of a red flag, misleading? --EndurinFreedom 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the remarkable thing is that it's not just North America. Even here in Denmark the mainstream engineering trade journal did an (uninspired) debunking of controlled demolition (saying nothing new). I search every once in a while, and I haven't found controlled demolition proposed in engineering journals anywhere. It's very much about the politically and scientifically grounded consenus among a group of professionals. Science, perhaps sadly, has never been free of politics. Keep in mind how long it took for scientists to officially to admit that smoking is not really good for you. Or think of Galileo. Or global warming (interesting example because you can use it no matter what side you're on).--Thomas Basboll 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So, in others words, as time goes on, the real facts will become more apparent...ie...that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse? Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been changed very much in well over 100 years...most of his premises have been found to be true. The allegations that the Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax have persisted for almost 40 years, yet there is no proof they have a basis in fact. As far as Pliny the Elder...of course his observations are citable...he was as reliable a reference as we have from that period. Today, we have better witnesses to the scientific understanding of what caused the WTC to collapse than the heresay of some reporters who may have eyewitnessed the event in person or on the tele and are hardly experts in controlled demolition or srtuctural engineering.--MONGO 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just [saying] the idea is marginalized, and you're right that there are both true and false ideas that have been marginalized in the past. Pliny was not a reliable source about the cause of the eruptions but what they looked like. For that we need eyewitnesses and the reporters who talk to them.--Thomas Basboll 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He was as reliable a source to interpret the events of his day as anyone since no one understood volcanology then. Today, we have engineers and specialists that can do a much better job explaining what happened than a untrained eyewitness.--MONGO 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Pliny was an exceptionally reliable source because he was a good writer and was able to accurately describe what he saw. (The fact that "plinian" now denotes a particular kind of eruption testifies to this fact.) We need to find similarly reliable first-hand accounts of an event that engineers subsequently tried to explain. It's just interesting. Would you leave out Herbert Morrison's classis "Oh, the humanity!" coverage of the Hindenburg Disaster [20] on the grounds that he's not trained in airship engineering?--Thomas Basboll 08:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Assumption That Engineers Are Experts Of Controlled Demolitions (Implosions) Is False

It is not taugh in any engineering school, and the businesses maintain that it is a kind of craft, group of skills learned trough practice and experimentation. Please comment (This related to the "Controlled Demolition -part of the article)--EndurinFreedom 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic approach here has been to see the collapses as engineering disasters. The CD hypothesis makes them a crime in an additional way that this article, like NIST, simply hasn't considered. I know there is one CD expert (i.e., someone who knows the craft) who has said that the WTC 7 collapse is obviously a demolition. But there are others (Blanchard at Protec, for example) who say the opposite. But, like I say, neither the official investigations, nor this article, approach the collapses as a possible crime in its own right, which means they were looking for a structural account that could explain how the airplane impacts were sufficient. It's a bit like a death that is so obviously a suicide that murder isn't seriously considered. Since the structural account (they say) was possible to produce, no further explanation was necessary. And the collapses therefore remain the province of engineers. (Do note that the article right now makes it very clear that NIST found no evidence because they weren't really looking for it.)--Thomas Basboll 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Innovative Design

I find the Design Innovations section misleading, and I recommend that it be rewritten.

"The WTC towers were innovative in many ways.... One of the most innovative features is the tube structural system.... The towers also made extensive use of pre-fabricated modules such as perimeter sections and floor trusses and extensively used light-weight materials.... The use of express elevators also decreased the amount of space lost to elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies"...."

This is quite untrue, as the primary structural system of the World Trade Center towers was already in use at the time. Dr. Fazlur R. Khan, principal structural engineer at SOM Chicago, developed the "tube" system for high-rise construction in the early 1960s, and his more innovative variations of the concept appear in other Chicago trophy towers including the John Hancock Center (trussed tube) and shortly thereafter the Sears Tower (bundled tube). The first actual framed-tube building prototype appeared at The Plaza on Dewitt in Chicago, completed in 1965. One Shell Plaza of Houston, erected five years later, employs a tube-in-tube construction similar to the twin towers.

Further, the vertical transportation system was not unique to the World Trade Center towers. Skylobbies were a necessity due to space constraints in other landmark skyscrapers during this same time period, including the John Hancock Center, completed in 1969, and again four years later in the Sears Tower -- which was constructed almost concurrent with the World Trade Center.

Perhaps the few aspects of the superstructure (to my knowledge) that were particularly innovative included the viscoelastic damping units and the composite floor trusses. But to be accurate, these are secondary structural elements; i.e. they comprise the structural subsystem. And according to the NIST report, there was no prima facie evidence that those features directly contributed to the global collapse. On the contrary, I have seen more evidence pointing to the gypsum-based wallboard throughout the core and the hat truss connecting the core with the perimeter columns.

I believe that touting the World Trade Center as so remarkably unique and ahead of its time in these regards is precisely what contributes to the public's mistaken notion that their design was unsafe and untested, and thus inherently flawed. In reality that was far from the case. Supertall buildings in the United States erected during the 1960s and 1970s were primarily based on a tubular system, and most exhibited one form or another of structural expressionism. To be more correct, the World Trade Center towers were current and contemporary with principles of high-rise design of the day.

--Rkrause 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and feel free to make alterations as you see this article may need. The current wording of that section is to be questioned. No doubt, a number of tall buildings in Chicago also used the Tube-in-tube design...I believe one was completed several years before the WTC towers were.--MONGO 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Physical description

I've had a go at describing the collapses a bit more clearly, and added a very good picture of the south tower in mid collapse. I think it can be alot better, and encourage improvements. Feel free to find a way to write that parenthetical "bombs" out of, but keep in mind that many people did say it (in effect) "it sounded like bombs going off". Also, before rejecting the word "explosive", keep in mind that the massive ejection of debris is actually inconsistent with classical controlled demolition, and is in any case a true description.--Thomas Basboll 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)