Talk:7 World Trade Center

---

Proposal for new content based on the latest NIST report

I propose to add details from the final NIST report and the q&a section on NIST's website.

- - - - - - - - - -

After critics on the previous report have been raised during the NIST WTC7 technical briefing on Aug.2008, the revised final report was published in Nov.2008. Different from the previous report assuming the building to descend at an approximately constant speed, does the new report assume an approximately constant acceleration in three phases: (confer NIST q&a page as well as the attached image)

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than free fall, due to buckling of exterior columns in the lower stories.
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall), indicating no support from the structure below.
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, due to increased resistance from the collapsed structure and debris below.

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 that could be observed was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing. For the investigation, the NIST investigators did not look at actual steel samples from WTC 7. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began.

• 
  Downward velocity of north face roofline as WTC7 began to collapse

- - - - - - - - - -

Is it possible to include this information, or are there any reasons why it can/should be excluded? The detailed (and really funny) Youtube investigation is here: WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) (Part II) (Part III) Johninwiki (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that NIST corrected its findings should be related to how NIST used these findings to support its conclusions. It is in this respect that this information becomes relevant to the Seven WTC article. --Cs32en (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Update:Moved the proposal here (WTC7 talk). I also added a new part on how NIST used their findings to support their conclusions.Johninwiki (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the explanation I wrote above conform with the article writing rules of Wikipedia ? I would like to include it in the main article but would like to have acknowledgement from at least one administrator first. Johninwiki (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Way way too much detail and wouldn't belong here anyway. Boil it down significantly and it might fit in Collapse of the World Trade Center but probably not even then. It's really not very meaningful. RxS (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the new version is acceptable - I boiled the explanation down to the most important facts. According to Acroterion(see User_talk:Johninwiki) and Cs32en, the new facts belong here to the 7 WTC article, which is what I believe as well, as they are an update to the existing description. The new findings are significantly different from the previous report, which is why they have to be mentioned. - Johninwiki (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are they significant to this article? RxS (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The current article already contains an explanation of the previous NIST article. However, the page needs to be updated and has to refer to the most recent article published by NIST as well. It is further important to mention why the article has been revised and to state the major changes. Contrary question: Which of the facts I wrote above is not of public interest and why ? - Johninwiki (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This (or any really) article should generally always refer to the latest information sure. Talking about how the understanding of the rates of collapse has changed over time is way too much detail in such a general topic article. Even the varied rates of collapse during the event is too much detail. There's very little public interest in any of this. RxS (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially the varied rates are of great public interest. So far, the NIST commision has kept denying the fact that the building descended in free-fall, which they suprisingly revised in their final paper. From the beginning people have been curious about if the building descended in free-fall speed and if controlled demolition was the cause. These questions still belong to the most interesting topics of WTC7, which can be confirmed by a quick search of wtc7 "free-fall", returning about 35.000 hits. Due to the public interest of this issue in general, even a complete article has been created Collapse of the World Trade Center (you mentioned earlier). The revised explanation of the collapse sequence is therefore a significant detail, which is, I would say, perhaps even more exciting to know than many of the other details. - Johninwiki (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you demonstrate somehow the great public interest? Outside the controlled demolition community that is? Outside that group of people, there has been little if any interest in the rates of collapse and if demolition was the cause. It has always been a fringe theory and continues to be one at the present. I think it's clear that the general public has zero interest in the speed at which the building(s) collapsed. And setting aside the public's interest in this, reliable sources have very little if any interest in the topic. They see no issue here, no debate or controversy, so the material really doesn't belong here. RxS (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You define general public by a subset of poeple visiting this page. However, general public applies to everybody visiting Wikipedia. If these people believe the one or other thing is irrelevant. If the information is interesting to a significant percentage of visitors of this page, interest for the public is justified. Free-fall is futher eligible to be included in the article, as the Collapse of the World Trade Center article already contains a statement about free-fall (cite:crushing the entire tower at near free-fall speed). This information is not only interesting to the "controlled demolition community". It is interesting for basically everyone who read the previous NIST report and wondered why the building should descend at a constant speed, as the video evidence shows the building to accelerate. The actual explanation of WTC7's collapse already lasts over 2.5 pages, yet there is no explanation of how the collapse sequence in the video evidence can be explained. Aside from that, your last statement is very interesting. Could you elaborate on the definition of "reliable sources" ? - Johninwiki (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that I define interest in this topic only to those visiting this page. No matter, my question to you remains unanswered. The definition of reliable sources is covered in some detail here: WP:RS. Such a high degree of detail on the collapse belongs in the article about the collapse, not in this article (which covers a more general topic). RxS (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. to add it to the WTC collapse article would be an option. Along with this, even more parts should be shifted there, to make the WTC7 article consistent with WTC. In WTC, the collapse is described in just two lines, whereas WTC7 still contains the full description. The public interest is, as before, proven by 35.000 hits returned by the google search of wtc7 "free-fall". How else do you want to guarantee an unbiased measurement of the public interest for a given topic ? - Johninwiki (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are a poor indication of notibility. See WP:GHITS. I'm afraid the burden is on you to show notibility at this point. Try bringing it up at the collapse page, though you'll likely get the same objections there. RxS (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain step by step. As you mentioned earlier, Wikipedia should be kept up to date and refer to the newest articles. You already agreed that the page has to be updated to include the citation to the new NIST report. Along with that, it is natural to briefly summarize what is new and why it has been changed. Everybody is interested to know what is new, which is why we have a Newspaper everyday. Next, the new findings in the actual article are significantly different from the previous article, which is why this needs to be mentioned. The previous report was simply based on a false assumption, which obviously questions the result and the conclusion. Taking a look on Wikipedias actual WTC7 article, I also wonder why a whole and very detailed section is dedicated to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building (including photo), which is obviously not the main focus of the WTC7 collapse section. How can the importance of this section be justified by other than the personal interest of certain administators? A search of this particular bulding in google merely returns 2000 hits. You mentioned that my explanation is too detailed. Now lets take a look at the actual WTC7 article again. Cite: "The first visible sign of collapse [...] 8.2 seconds, before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds". This means, the existing explanation already explains the collapse in two steps, however, describing it in three steps would be too much detail according to you. As the complete chapter is called collapse, it is eligible to explain especially this part more detailed - no other part deserves more detail. Moreover is the actual explanation in the article false and not consistent with NIST's new findings. The first visible sign of collapse occured in the penthouse at 1.75 seconds prior to the collapse, not 8.2 seconds, also did the north face descend within 3.65 seconds rather than 7 seconds. I strongly recommend to fix this and update the actual page properly to remove existing flaws. - Johninwiki (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The edits you suggest above are well beyond simply updating some numbers. The collapse section already has too much minutiae as it is and I'd favor cutting it back a little. It's also clear that you're just trying to shoe horn controlled demolition fluff into the article. So no, like I say try the controlled demolition article or something. RxS (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be very careful with your arguments. Those numbers are not published by any "controlled demolition community", but by NIST themselves. There is not ANY reason for not updating them. If your opinion is that updating those numbers creates a link to controlled demolition, then you imply that NIST belongs to the "controlled demolition community". So unless you can prove that NIST belongs to the "controlled demolition community", there is no reason for not updating those numbers. For cutting down the article, you obviously plan to cut back the detailed timing numbers as they are not of interest of "reliable sources" due to new findings of NIST, right ? This proves my initital assumption in a talk with Acroterion (User_talk:Johninwiki) that Wiki administrators act as puppets of the US government. Once you remove those numbers I suggest to add this as example to Internet_censorship#Portal_censorship. - Johninwiki (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was just a matter of updating numbers that'd be fine. However, as I've said, your suggested edits go beyond that. Now that you've gone off the deep end and suggested that I (and others) are government agents this conversation is over. If you repeat that assertion I'll add you here: [1]

To you and everyone else, I'm positively absolutely sick and tired of single purpose editors coming through here and accusing long term editors of felonious cover-up of mass murder. If I hear that again I'll send you right to the Discretionary sanctions page of the Arb Com page. Or block you myself. RxS (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating the numbers would be great already :-) This would prove me wrong and I'd apologize for my accusations immediately. My previous conclusion was simply because I didn't had the opinion that you are willing to update even the numbers. You don't need to respond as you ended the conversation already. - Johninwiki (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Proposal added to Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories - Johninwiki (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"are there any reasons why it can/should be excluded?". Yes, this YouTube video is not a reliable source. It should not be used in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - also it was not my intention to include the youtube videos. The only part I want to include is written between the dashed lines above (- - -). I took care to only refer to NIST sources. - Johninwiki (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame that wikipedia is censoring despite the overhelming evidence of tampering and controlled demolition. Until now I thought Wikipedia is free for everyone who can show proof of the things they wrote but its more of an oligarchy of some wikipedia admins?! --Joblack (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read this [2] farther up the page. Acroterion _(talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the hostile behavior expressed in this thread to be quite unsettling, not only unsettling but in violation of at least one community rule. I would like to remind you of this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles and of this essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_vested_contributors

As a relative rookie, I feel extremely intimidated and demotivated by this sort of behavior. To make myself clear, I do not support the outburst of Johninwiki and his threats for skirting his ban, but I also cannot support RxS's status as a potential vested editor. I would like to commend RxS as being "prolific contributor," but would also seek to steer him away from being a vested one. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit Wikipedia as a means to advance a controversial agenda that you feel strongly about, and you'll be just fine. -Jordgette (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center / Seven World Trade Center

I've created a template to clean up the WTC7 / Seven WTC / Salomon Brother Building etc. pp. mess.

Template:Sept11/content/WTC7

Display of transcluded template:

• Without parameter {{Sept11/content/WTC7}}: WTC 7

• With "long" as first parameter {{Sept11/content/WTC|long}}: Seven World Trade Center

Should the long version rather read "7 World Trade Center" or should there be "title" version "7 World Trade Center"?  Cs32en  04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New talk page banner?

I propose adding a new talk page banner to the top of this page, reading "This is not the place for you to discuss or suggest yours or anyone else's controlled demolition theories." Jtrainor (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that...--MONGO 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So you even want to prevent people from discussing any info relevant to this article? Nice. Vexorg (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about controlled demolition theories is not relevant to this article. There is a wikipedia article where IMO it is relevant -- the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories -- and any discussion about controlled demolition theories should be taken there (and even there the discussion should be about improving the article while maintaining a NPOV, not a general discussion about controlled demolition theories). 72.251.90.109 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This talk page banner text violates the principle of treating editors equally, independently of what they believe personally. If we want such a banner, it would need to inform all editors that discussions should be related to improving the article.  Cs32en  13:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an even better idea, lock the talk page! 114.146.108.100 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Divide?

Maybe we should divide this article? For example,

• 7 World Trade Center (2001)
• 7 World Trade Center (2006)

--Vanuan (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

'citation needed' resolved - please add

{{editsemiprotected}} in paragraph 'collapse' there is a quotation from the fema report. the needed citation is already in the notes: note number 6. please add it as i am not allowed. 147.122.52.70 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your suggestion!  Cs32en  22:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Melted Steel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why was the steel melted so quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.31.213 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article subject. If you want to propose a change to the article please specify what it is. Hut 8.5 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No one aside from a scientists contacted right after the event, and truthers, say the "steel melted". In fact if you consider that the damage it received was around 10:30AM and then collapse after 5:00. Then, we have a window of about 6 1/2 hours from initiation to collapse. The fire weakened the steel. BillL1978 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)BillL1978

Yeah. No one except NASA, the people working on the ground clearing up, and of course the thermal image photos. "fire weakened the steel". Uh, well, how scientific of you, strange and curious that fire did not weaken the steel of the 15 other blazing skyscrapers that have been blazing infernos for anything from 5 to 24 hours the last four decades then, don't you think? Yeah. right. I Thought not. Go figure.84.215.44.195 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No one died in the collapse

I was delighted to see material I entered years ago remains in the article. What I did not see was a reference to the fact that there was no loss of life associated with the collapse, which sort of gets lost in the details of the files which were lost. Is it in the article somewhere and I missed it? patsw (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in there: "there were not casualties associated with the collapse". Hut 8.5 11:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

More changes needed due to new findings contradicting previous ones

I'd like to suggest making some changes to the article given that some of the facts are wrong and some of the adjectives used are misleading.

In the Collapse section, the quote "As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[4]" is citing an outdated study, with a new one having reached different conclusions. The word 'heavy' here is also misleading and I propose removing such adjectives such as 'heavy' and 'massive' from the article, as it is not based upon fact (the cited study never refers to the damage as heavy or massive).

The new study can be found here, and specifically in regard to damage from debris found in section 4.3.1 on page 46: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

On top of the misleading an inaccurate facts, I'd propose removing all content that references damage from debris, since the final study found it did not contribute to the collapse (chapter 4). The final conclusion was that the collapse was initiated by fire.

The debris theory is again referenced here: "The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers."

No NIST study has ever suggested that the collapse was triggered exclusively by debris, and the final study makes it clear that debris was not the result of the collapse.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.25.98 (talk • contribs) 21:25, November 24, 2009

Nope, nothing inaccurate there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a draft document. Perhaps when it's published.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

nothing innacurate? Are you saying that you feel the word "heavy" as an adjective is justified, despite not being used in the study? Also, I'm curious of why you think "...and/or debris from the collapse..." is justified, when it is false according to the cited source?

And finally, others have already cited the study I linked to. Are you saying it is not a valid citation? If so, are you proposing other sections using it as the only source be removed?

I think the anonymous editor has a point -- the paper refers to heavy debris, but not specifically heavy damage. However, (1) damage certainly occurred, and (2) the WP article doesn't claim that damage was the exclusive cause of the collapse. I have adjusted the first couple of sentences from the section. -Jordgette (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Move (and summarize) collapse section?

I've suggested moving the detailed material on the collapse to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. Talk page section here. I think it would be good for both articles and might make them easier to keep up to date and stable. What do editors working on this article think?--Thomas B (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)