Jump to content

Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Basis of Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

RE: this edit I have discussed this issue with Arthur Rubin and he explained that *his* reason for deleting my addition of one basis for the hypothesis (molten metal in the rubble) was some arithmetic discrepancy between a Steven Jones paper and a "mainstream" newsletter. I judged this as a poor reason to remove the information, but a good reason to point out the discrepancy wherever it might be appropriate to do so. Several other editors have also removed this information, but none have offered a reason.

As they should have opened a discussion on it and have not done so, I figured I would open it here. Dscotese (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You've refused to explain why that more-or-less reliable source is the basis for the hypothesis. We need a source for that assertion. (Whether or not your source is accurate is irrelevant to whether it should be included, and I apologise for bringing up the matter.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point, except that it is a basis, which is what I wrote (though perhaps not the basis, so i agree with you there). But you got me thinking why I singled out that one, and I see that it is because that's the one that I remembered - but that's maybe a little too POV, so I changed it, as you see. If you have suggestions on how to make the references less awkward, that would help. I thought it a good idea to direct readers to the structural engineer article referenced by the Jones paper, but feel free to remove it, if the first reference seems enough. Dscotese (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Why is controlled demolition listed as Conspiracy Theory when all of the official theories are conspiracy theories as well. This is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.41.67 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because not all theories which involve conspiracies are conspiracy theories. In the same way that not all flukes are flukes. --Haemo (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well in this case you should try to change the lead of conspiracy theory.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know ...

the weight of the aircraft and one tower? Would that not be basic information for the article? 100TWdoug (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute at fire and aircraft potentials

The neutrality dispute tag is almost four months old. Is someone going to try to fix it and/or explain why the tag is there?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried cleaning it up but it really doesn't belong. It's a red herring. It circuitously tries to imply that the building should still be standing after being hit by fuel filled airplanes. That's not the case so it's just best to remove it as it adds nothing to the "Collapse of the World Trade Center." --DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You would remove the whole discussion of how the WTC was designed to deal with aircraft impacts and fires from the article on its collapse (which was caused by aircraft impact and fires)?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't do that. Relevant design details are in the sections that accompany the description of the collapse. Putting in a snippet about specific details that weren't relevant to the collapse is undue weight and also WP:SYN as no reliable source has cited any of those design details as contributing to the collapse. It is core to some of the CT theories however so prominent display adds weight or doubt where they should be none. --DHeyward (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is no discussion of whether the buildings were designed to handle aircraft impact and the resulting fires (i.e., the things they in fact showed they were unable to handle) in the section on the actual collapses. Correct me if I'm wrong. Surely this article should answer the basic question of whether the buildings performed as had been expected by its designers. (That's not the same thing as whether they have been cleared of the charge of a flawed design.) I don't really want to talk about whether this issue pulls the article towards or away from CTs. I don't care very much about that. I just think the question is interesting and the reliably sourced answer to the question is informative.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's in the opening paragraph and more detail is in the sources. "it declared the WTC design sound and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders." What your asking to include is not relevant to this topic. Imagine a small 40 year old Peugeot getting in a front end collision with a 50 ton Lorry at 120 mph. The Peugeot is completely destroyed and you want to talk about whether the front bumper was designed to withstand a 5 mph bump and whether it performed as expected. It's not relevant nor would it be discussed in the accident report. The article discusses the relevant aspects of the design as they contributed to both the structure standing for such a long time and what eventually contributed to the collapse. --DHeyward (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, we are talking about whether the total collapse of the structure (not the "bumper") was to be expected. The article can explain, based on those sources, what exactly the "ordinary" (predicted, controllable) forces were and how much they were exceeded. That's all the section does, in fact. It explains that the building had been thought to be able to survive at least a slower moving plane (Robertson), perhaps even a faster moving plane (Skilling), and that what went wrong as far as design goes (and for which the designers could not be held responsible) was that no one really knew what the fires would do to the structure.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And that's pretty much what this other section says. --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This section mentions the hat truss. Along with "The light construction and hollow nature of the structures", which is mentioned in "The fires" it would seem (on your argument) that we can do away with any discussion of the design. But we are not trying to save bytes here. It is natual to have a section that explicitly answers the question, "Were the buildings designed to survive anything like what happened on 9/11?" Even if the content of the section has to be entirely rewritten to say what you are suggesting, namely, "The buildings were not designed to survive impacts and fires like those on 9/11. They not only performed adequately; they performed better than expected," a section on designing for aircraft impact is relevant. I don't think it should say that, of course, but let's agree that a section about it is perfectly in order. If they had collapsed during an earthquake or hurricane, similar reasoning would apply. Did the designers think of that? If they had been hit by a 4 ton meteor, I would be more likely to accept your Peugeot comparison.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The design elements relevant to the collapse is discussed as the article progresses. The relevant design elements are determined by the reliable source. Your question is explicitly and unequivocally answered "it declared the WTC design sound and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders." Earthquake and hurricanes are natural events. Any investigation into a collapse due to earthquake or hurricane would likely include detailed desgin investigations about the assumptions made for those events. This event was extraordinary and it simply wasn't a main investigative lead by the sources for the article. Where the design details were relevant, it was included in the reports and is included in the article. Your belief that they are more relevant than the investigators believe is not a criteria for inclusion. BTW, It wasn't a 4 ton meteor though, it was two 380 ton meteors traveling at 600 mph. It is Original research (WP:SYN) to assert or link individual studies on fire survivability or surviving aircraft collision damage when the reliable sources explicitly says that it was combinations of fire and structural damage that caused the structral failure. The reliable sources reviewed the documents that you cite and proclaimed "the WTC design sound and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders." It is not clear to me how that section's relevance is supported by reliable source. For example, the reliable source says that white paper on the aircraft collision in the 1960's only leads to speculation. The articles "discussion" on this point shouldn't occur as the reliable sources have said that such a discussion is "speculation". A section on how the WTC was designed for aircraft collision might be relevant on the WTC construction article, but as it relates to the 9/11 attacks, the reliable sources have simply said it's not relevant because of "extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders." Implying that it is relevant by creating a section is WP:SYN and Original Research. --DHeyward (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The NIST (subreport 1-1, page 71) says, that NIST found documents that "clearly indicate that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact on the tower." The same report has a section heading "Aircraft Impact" (p. 70). I can't find any reference to that anywhere else in this article. The FEMA report makes even more of this: "The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military or the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliners." Since they are also the only structure to be completely destroyed by such impacts, that's an interesting historical note. It is nowhere else in the article. And it is not even in the Construction of the World Trade Center article. In both cases, the aircraft impact scenario is presented along with the standard concerns (wind, etc.) Once the fact that such impacts were considered, it is necessary to go on to explain the limits of those considerations (as they were made in the early 1960s). Yes, you're right, I missed some zeros on that meteor (I was thinking of the Sean Connery movie).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Everyuone recognized the possibility of an airplane hitting the building since airplanes hitting buildings had happened before. That's not the problem with that section. That section implies that the consideration that an airplane might hit the building and designing it so that it might withstand an attack like 9/11 are related. That is clearly not the case and the reliable sources are very clear that it is not the case. Relating them is original research through a synthesis of material. The NIST report, which is much more detailed than this article explicitily did not explain the limits of the consideration of the airplane impacts scenario becuase it would be "speculation" and it wasn't particularly relevant to the collapse. --DHeyward (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Back to left) That's not what NIST said would be "speculation". The NIST report refused to "speculate" about the content of a particular document that they could not locate. Also, this section didn't actually make the connection to a 9/11-type event. The only sense in which I made that connection was in the sense that we are talking about "getting hit by an airplane" in both cases. But I think we've gotten somewhere: the B-25 incident, as the precedent that got WTC designers thinking about airplane impact, could nicely introduce this section. What we need is a section about the way the design anticipated the unlikely event that (in an extreme form) actually brought the towers down.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of fire and aircraft potentials section

DHeyward has gone ahead and removed the section. Here's what it said:

The WTC towers were designed to survive major fires and fireproofing had been incorporated in the original construction. More was added after a fire in 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished.[3]
"No building code in the United States has specific design requirements for impact of aircraft," writes NIST, "and thus, buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial aircraft."[7]In the 1960's, the WTC's engineers had considered the consequences of aircraft impact but not the fire as little was known about the effects of such a fire and no fireproofing systems were available to counter that type of fire. [8] [9] FEMA described the modeled aircraft as weighing 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h). This was a slower and smaller plane than those involved in the actual impacts of 9/11.[3] The National Institute of Standards and Technology, found it difficult to document how the buildings were designed to anticipate aircraft impact.[10][11]


NIST found a three page White Paper, dated February 3, 1964, summarizing a 21,000-page study of the effects of a Boeing 707 carrying 23,000 US gallons (87 m³) of fuel hitting the buildings at 600 mph (1,000 km/h). The study found that the buildings would not collapse in the event of aircraft impact. But NIST noted that "the effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition of building contents was not considered in the 1964 analysis."[12] Without the original calculations which were used to render such conclusions,[13] NIST said, any further comment would amount to speculation.[14]

I doubt there is consensus for taking all that information out. If this doesn't add to our understanding of (the background of) the collapses, then the whole design section would go on the same argument. Obviously (to me) it's relevant. Like site-cleanup, the investigations, etc. So I suggest a quick poll:

Straw poll (keep or delete)

  • Keep: Much useful information about how the buildings were expected to behave. Very relevant.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The relevant structural information is provided in the account of the collapse. Bringing up CT arguments like the building was fireproofed and designed to withstand airliner impacts, even if done in roundabout ways, doesn't serve the article. It's clear the buildings weren't designed (or expected) to withstand the impact and subsequent fires and the structural details that led to the collapse are covered in their relevant sections. A separate section on tangential items that are not relevant but cloud the real mechanisms is WP:UNDUE. Information about the 1960 design elements of the towers can go in the main World Trade Center article or a construction of the world trade center article. But as the NIST pointed out, the 3 page white paper leads only to specualtion and, like the NIST, we shouldn't comment on it in this article which is dedicated to the facts.--DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Precisely as DHeyward has expressed. The buildings were designed to temporary allow egress of occupants after a low speed impact by a large airliner, the kind of low speed impact that was expected if an airliner was on it's approach and or takeoff speed, not a speed in excess of 500 mph. No buildings could be expected to perform any better than the towers did under the situation that occurred on 9/11. This is besides the point and continued POV pushing by Basboll will be dealt with. We've had enough of tenacious editing on this subject.--MONGO 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully it will be dealt with promptly ANI.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope so as well...We have had enough of tenacious editors who are single purpose accounts here solely to promote their POV's.--MONGO 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The section is relevant because it is discussing the primary cause of the collapse. MONGO's answer is an excellent example of why it should be kept. If MONGO, who has read the article, still gets so many facts wrong then maybe the section should even be expanded. BTW..sections should not be deleted before discussion. Wayne (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I haven't still understood the point of this proposal since:
    1. Obviously the informations cannot be considered "not relevant" with respect to the subject of the article
    2. The implicit suggestion "CT arguments=bad" is pointless, we do not chose the informations according to the POV we want or do not want to be pushed, we insert all possibly relevant things
    3. If you really think that the information has been given in a POV way which "cloud" the reality you can try to adjust it without deleting the section
    4. Yes this article ir about facts and what you are suggetsing to remove is indeed a fact.
    5. As far as I know every change from previously estabilished versions of the article cannot be made without consensus: you first must have consensus and then you can delete. This means that we actually have to keep the section untill consensus is to remove it.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Dheyward here. This section is a red herring. I don't think it can be reworked or reworded to resolve the neutrality problem. --Aude (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that it is completely impossible to give that information about the project of the buildings while being NPOV? Isn't it strange that an true and correct information cannot even in principle be given in a neutral way?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Not at all since the information is already in the article. What relevant information is missing? --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sure that all that information you want to delete is not present elsewhere and it seems to me *obviously* relevant.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Again, what relevant information was deleted? --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    Every single word that you want to delete.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep ... the information is interesting and relevant, it seems to me. In stead of deleting sections, it would be a better practice to present an alternative wording for such a section on the talk page, and discuss first. In friendship, but formally, I hereby warn Dheyward and Aude to adhere to wikipedia policy and to act as constructive and consensus-seeking as possible.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (but improve). See comments below. Jgm (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per MONGO. Jtrainor (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article is "Collapse of the World Trade Center", remember. Please explain why its being fire-proofed is "not relevant" one more time? I honestly don't follow the argument. Nigel Barristoat (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "Per" DHeyward: if NIST looked at this, this article should report it too supplying more sources. Question: Is it so that "a fact" is defined for the purpose of this article as "what NIST have found"? salVNaut (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (to keep separate from poll)

At the Dec 18, 2007 NIST advisory committee meeting about WTC 7, Charles Thornton (a member of the committee); raised questions about "the way that American architects and structural engineers design buildings with spray-on fireproofing. I think you are basically coming out with a conclusion that maybe it does not work." This ties the collapse of the WTC directly to design issues about fireproofing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to answer the (wholly unspeculative) question of whether the WTC designers intended to build a structure that would survive aircraft impact, given the circumstances, strikes me as very odd.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken out of context...a quote that is taken out of context to try and promote a fringe view. If indeed no one thought fireproofing worked in most scenarios, they wouldn't still be fireproofing structures.--MONGO 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It's in exactly the right context. It's part of what we know about the WTC collapses and about how that knowledge is being discussed by experts. I wouldn't put it in the article, mind you. It's just the minutes of a meeting. But it does help us to understand the issues. NIST has already proposed changes to building codes. And Thornton is raising a much more serious possiblity: that 9/11 showed that we have radically rethink the resistance of steel structures to fire.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever...it is peripheral and has little to do with the collapse itself.--MONGO 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think that the quote "try and promote a fringe view" there is no point in discussing tecnicalities like the problem of the "context" with someone having such extremistic positions.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's completely out of conext. That question was about the design practice of using a time rating for fire proofing on individual components vs. looking at the system as whole. At the time fire proofing was done on individual components for a "2 hour rating". What was being questioned was whether each component should be looked at individually or whether the system should be looked at as a whole as is currently done with wind testing and earthquake testing. The question wasn't about whether spray on fire-proofing is effective or not. It certainly didn't tie the WTC collapse to design issues about fireproofing. In fact the system evaluation could easily lead to less fireproofing in certain areas. It's simply a different method that has evolved with technology. None of these recommendations for changes in building codes have ever come back as something that would have prevented the collapse and implying that these changes would have changed the outcome in any way is misleading and disservice to the reader. --DHeyward (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree that this is out of context and a red herring. --Aude (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The larger context of these questions (if you go back about a page in the minutes) is how to design a building for "burnout without collapse", which is to say, how to make sure the building remains standing even if there is no intervention (from sprinklers or fire fighters). These people are trying to figure out what they can learn about what happened to WTC 7 to avoid it happening to other buildings in the future. The mere fact that the structure was damaged and that there were many fires, does not explain (to Thornton) why it collapsed. There may very well, he says, be something wrong with how architects think about fire protection. All I am saying with this is that a section on fire protection design of the WTC is in its place in this article. Red herring?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Complete Red herring. There is no technology that exists that allows burnout without collapse. Those recommendations were explicitly rejected and these sidelights about future building technologies are not relevant to the historical article on the WTC collapse. If we passed building codes requireing anti-gravity floor suspensors and fire-proof jet fuel it would have no relevance to the historical discussion. Reliable sources say the buildings performed beyond what could be expected. Implying anything else is nonsense. Secondly, this section that was removed talked about airplanes which has nothing to do with WTC7. The report you quote is about standalone fires and just the building contents being burned out, not a structure that has its fire-rated compartments and its structure damaged by an airplane and has tons of flammable liquid dumped into it. These are apples and oranges (Twin Towers and WTC7) and this type of misleading red-herrings is another reason why this section should remain deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we agree at least that on page 4 the sentence "Not all buildings are expected to remain standing after burnout" suggests that some buildings are expected to do so. The so-called "frangible" buildings (which cannot sustain burnout) are things like residential homes. They will, as it were, burn "to the ground". But buildings like WTC 7 are good candiates for "the performance objective of burnout without collapse" (page 3). Now Sunder (that's who's fielding the questions, as I recall) does note that "the science has not evolved to the point of designing to meet [this] performance objective". But he's not saying that whether or not WTC 7 could have survived burnout (under ordinary conditions) is a red herring.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"The implicit assumption is that when there is a situation where the sprinklers do not function, there would be burnout of the building contents without collapse" (page 3). Sunder says that the the design of WTC 7 may call that assumption into question but, again, it tells us what the performance objective was. The idea that "There is no technology that exists that allows burnout without collapse" doesn't seem right. A combination of protected structure and compartmentalized floor plans is generally assumed to work.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm coming into this as an outsider to the personalities and possible motivations involved (I made some edits on this article a couple of years ago but have not been following it closely). I don't think this section is particularly well-written, from the puzzling section title to some tortured wording, non sequitir paragraphs and a few statements that just ring oddly (a twenty-*thousand* page study on one particular scenario?). However I can't see where it pushes any particular theory or POV. A section discussing the original design points for the buildings and the factors considered relevant to a major impact or fire seems perfectly appropriate in an article about the collapse of those buildings. My vote above reflects this view. Jgm (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs work. I've never understood the title. My suggestion was: "Fire protection and anticipation of aircraft impact". It might be better just to make that two sections.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I say delete the entire article and start over...the entire article reads the way one would expect it to read if a conspiracy theorist wrote it.--MONGO 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear MONGO, your comment sounds disruptive im my ears. You had better start a new article in your userspace, and don't bother us with proposals to delete this one until you have some better version completed to replace this one. I wish to formally warn you to adhere to the purpose and policy of Wikipedia, in stead of lingering around pushing your POV.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I refuse to enter this breach again. I have listed it at ANI.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: it has been sent on to arbitration enforcement.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fire and aircraft potentials

I looked at the POV-tagged Fire and aircraft potentials section and made some changes in the order of the statements [1] which I think adequately address the POV issue. The problem appeared to me to me to be a to-and-fro between facts apparently supportive of the official reports, and facts which invite further inquiry. By combining the sections on design and assessment, and placing them in what I believe to be a more logical order of development, I think that appearance of POV dispute is resolved. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no POV issue with the section. I'd like to call it something like "Anticipation aircraft impact and fires". Any takers?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't need its own separate section. There are no "facts that invite further inquiry" because the reliable sources have established that no further inquiry on those facts are necessary as they were covered in the report. In fact, saying that it deserves further inquiry without a reliable source that says it deserves further inquiry is the main problem with these articles and the central theme in the CT arguments. This section should be dissolved and the relevant design details included inline to where they are appropriate. Highlighting differences between FEMA and NIST and specifically calling out the memories of designers as somehow significant as a section when this isn't the case in the report is undue weight and synthesis. This is an encyclopedia article, not a separate design report. --DHeyward (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"As with all modern skyscrapers..."

Is is true that all modern skyscrapers are designed to survive aircraft impact? They will, of course, survive the impacts of small enough planes. But are all of them really designed with that possibility in mind? As I understand it (and as NIST explains), the WTC were the first to be specifically designed to this end. Any thoughts?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good question for the reference desk. RxS (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't tried that before. Could you file it? I'll reword the sentence on the safe side for now.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


"No building code in the United States ..."

This sentence seems out of place:

However, "No building code in the United States has specific design requirements for impact of aircraft," writes NIST, "and thus, buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial aircraft."

It would work better at the very beginning of the paragraph. But not in the current version where the fire protection issues are mixed in. (I like the way that reads, however, so I'd prefer not to change it.) Are there objections to just removing this sentence? While it is true, it does not apply to the WTC (as NIST and this article explains), so it's a bit unclear what it's doing here. Ideas?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the sentence up into the first sentence.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of the fire and aircraft impact section

I think it looks pretty good right now. I'm sure much more can be said on the topic, however, so I've added the material to the WTC construction article. In the interest of stability, I would suggest making any expansions over there first, and thinking of the section here as a summary of the section there.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Referencing convention

Wayne's recent edits have used a very sharp way of referencing the NIST report, which makes the text in the editor very tidy, and makes it very easy to locate the correct report and page. His refs say simply:

NCSTAR 1-6, (p lxxi)

I would propose:

NCSTAR 1-6, p. lxxi.

But that's obviously a minor point. The important thing is that it is much easier to read than:

Lew, H.S.; Richard W. Bukowski and Nicholas J. Carino (2006). Design, Construction and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety (pdf). NIST NCSTAR 1-1 Pages 70-71. National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Retrieved on 2007-10-15.

Which has alot of unnecessary information (like the retrieval date) because of the use of a template. What's even worse is the inline citation:

<ref>{{cite web| last =Lew| first =H.S.| authorlink =| coauthors =Richard W. Bukowski and Nicholas J. Carino| title =Design, Construction and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety | work =NIST NCSTAR 1-1 Pages 70-71| publisher =National Institutes of Standards and Technology|date=2006| url =http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf| format =pdf| accessdate = 2007-10-15}}</ref>

We can easily list all that information in the reference list and let the refs take this simple form. What to you think?

WP:SYN

It hasn't been established through a reliable source that any material in "Fire and aircraft impact" is related to collapse in more than just a passing comment in the main narrative. For example, the history of fireproofing or it's thickness was pretty much irrelevant in the analysis. The study of landing aircraft crashing into the WTC lent nothing to the investigation and didn't change any perceptions about the design. It's not that these tidbits aren't true, or reliably sourced. But by including them, the article gives the reader the impression that these facts are relevant to the "Collapse of the World Trade Center". They aren't. And their prominence at the beginning of the article and their separation into a separate section is a WP:SYN violation as well as an Undue Weight concern. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article and therefor it needs to be more informative than if it was published as a fact sheet. As far as aircraft, fireproofing and fires are concerned people have many misconceptions and an ecyclopaedia has a responsibility to include not only what did but also did not cause something to counter this. For example there is confusion over what aircraft was considered (if at all) and there is a belief the fireproofing was inadequate etc. This is born out by the edit war in this article last year where many editors tried to prevent mention of the aircraft detailed in (WTC lead engineer) skillings 1964 white paper because it conflicted with Robertson's memory (a young engineer working on his first highrise who was not involved in the WTC structural calculations) and meant an event that exceeded the 911 impact had possibly been allowed for (and they used the same arguments you just did). The facts are relevant to avoid undue weight given to misinformation such as "an aircraft was not considered" or "the fireproofing failed" etc. The section mentions that NIST found the fireproofing was not a factor in the collapse and made no comment on relevance of the aircraft so the section is informative but nuetral and does not imply anything. Wayne (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be to merge it into the design section, simply saying "Though the WTC towers were designed to survive aircraft impact, engineering knowledge about the effects of events like those of 9/11 was limited at the time." The main article on the construction of the WTC now has all of the information we've got here. BTW, I don't think the beginning of an article is necessarily "prominent". In this case, it's like starting a historical article with a "background" section. It's the lead that is prominent.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be inline with the relevant pieces then, and not a separate section that raises doubt about whether the structure should have withstood the fire or the impact. No reliable source raises any doubt whatsoever. --DHeyward (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific? What do you propose (then we can compare the alternatives)? I would think a sentence saying that "the WTC towers were designed to survive the impact of jetliners" belongs in the design section (since that is also where the link to main article is, with more info). I still don't think section raises any doubts. It simply reports NIST's reflections. I think we take WP:SYN too far when we refuse to make any effort to understand the relevance of particular facts. There is a reason these reflections are in the NIST report. The same reasoning applies to this article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward, in your edit summary you talked about "synthesizing a conclusion". Is it something that you think the section implies? Or is the conclusion explicitly stated somewhere in the section as it stands? We could, for example, add a sentence like "In any case, owing to their extraordinary character, the events of 9/11 have not caused engineers to rethink the way buildings are designed for aircraft impact." I don't have a source for that. But I do think it is true and that a source could be found. That is, one way to fix this may simply be to explicitly deny the implication you think (I don't really) this section suggests.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the conclusion in the section, it's the conclusion even having that elaborate section implies. We have a narrative section where we describe the aircraft hitting the buildings. That's where the previous account of an airplane hitting the building analysis should go. None of the reliable sources question the building design. Having a section that implies there might have been a building design concern is therefore synthesis. The 707 analysis can be one sentence here in a different section. Any section or sentence that implies there might be blame with the design or construction is fringe. It's implying that the fault of the collapse lies away from the terrorists that committed the act and is not mainstream or even a suitable alternate view. No reliable source has maintained such a view.


--DHeyward (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, now. No such implication is made, and, like I say, we can make that explicit if that is a worry. The same would go for the open floor plans. Yes, it has been suggested that a more traditional distribution of the office space could have had an effect on the outcome. (Just as NIST suggested that if the fireproofing had not been knocked off the steel, the buildings might have survived). But that does not mean that the designers, and not the terrorists, are in any way to blame. Of course not. The designers could have, but did not, anticipate a terrorist attack. But the fact that it was terrorists who are to blame is not at all in question. My main argument for keeping this section is that it answers a question that perfectly reasonable people might well ask: had anybody thought of that? They had? Really? Why did they collapse then? And the answer is that the effects of the fires may not have been properly understood (by anyone) at the time. As Robertson points out ... in fact, Robertson's talk is a great indication of the relevance of these questions. He says staight out: we considered the aircraft impacts but did not know enough about the fires.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Then put it inline to the narrative like the example I showed. It doesn't need a separate section. Nor does it need extreme detail which rightfully belongs in the construction article. --DHeyward (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This past discussion may provide some perspective. The version referred to is this one, which looks a lot like what DHeyward is proposing. The problem with it, as I pointed out at the time, is that it is at odds with the facts as NIST tells them (though not as FEMA tells them). I think that's what led to presenting it as a "design issue" rather than a simple fact about the impacts themselves (i.e., that they exceeded design expections. It not really clear that they did, though the designers may have be excused for not getting the modeling right.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But again, highlighting this minutae as if it's a relevant detail that had anything to do with the collapse is WP:SYN. If there was a serious discrepancy that changed the course of the investigation it would have been noted. It didn't. It is not Wikipedia's place to highlight these items as if they were relevant. Find a reliable source that says the difference between FEMA and NIST estimates in their reports of the speed of the 1964 707 impact study was of any relevance to the collapse and we can include it. But it's not so we shouldn't even mention it as if it is controversial (or create the controversy by highlighting it) because it is misleading. It could be a typo, it could be different recollections, etc, etc, but it's not even important enough to correct or point out these minutae discrepancies because they have no bearing on the final result. --DHeyward (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the discrepancy isn't important. If the article could just present the NIST version (the towers were designed to survive the impact of a 707 going 600 mph) then I would happy. I've been working on the assumption that Robertson's lesser scenario had to be mentioned for balance in order to achieve consensus.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
PS I forgot to put in a link to the earlier version in my comment above. It may help to keep in mind that this section has evolved from the second paragraph of this section on the impacts themselves. The question has been how to replace FEMA's account with NIST's. There was some resistance to just doing away with the "lost in fog looking to land" model, as I recall.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Slight difference is that the design was analyzed for the impact, not designed with the impact up front. regardless, it's a small inline narrative sentence. I like my sentence because it conveys the findings of both FEMA and NIST without putting any significance to the figures or details since they aren't noteworthy enough to carry in an article the size of a Wikipedia article. "An aircraft impact event was studied at the time of design but the capability to conduct rigorous simulations impact, the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development." is all that is necessary and belongs in the section noted. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But that is all already in the section. You want to say the same thing but remove all the detail that supports it. Doing that leads to people losing context and promoting wrong ideas. For example those that know what FEMA found in regards to the aircraft study would (and some editors here still do) dismiss what NIST found as truther propaganda. To leave out the detail differences is extremely POV and unbalanced. Wayne (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne is right about the details (though I don't think it would be a POV concern). It is possible to say something true, detailed, and sourced, by giving the specifics of the modelled airplane. The reason to "a 707 going 600 mph" is preferable is that it allows the reader to decide for themselves whether that means "An aircraft impact event like that which occured on 9/11 was studied ...." (which would be OR for us to say). Unfortunately, I think Wayne's also right about why leaving FEMA out is a problem. It is too detailed but it is more likely to remain stable.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to put the facts in their proper context with their proper weight. People who know what minutae differences exist between FEMA and NIST are not coming to Wikipedia for answers. We can put the references to those sources in the "See Also" so the extremely curious can find it. Basically all that needs to be said is that the aircraft study at the time of design lacked the capability to conduct rigorous simulations of impact, the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure. That's the big picture. That's what all the reliable sources are saying in their reports. Focusing an entire section on the various minutae by different agencies that didn't even think it was worthwhile to resolve or address the minutae of discrepancies is exactly why we have WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. By including this stuff and highlighting it in its own section, the article is synthesizing a controversy that simply doesn't exist in the reliable sources. The proper place for this level of construction detail is in the Construction of the World Trade Center. But details about fireproofing materials and their various minutae of installation and the changing specification when the reliable sources clearly say it wsan't an issue in the collapse is WP:SYN. Details and discrepancies about an aircraft simulation in the 1960's during the design phase when the reliable sources clearly say the results of any simulation would be worthless in the context of the actual incident. This is wiki so we can link any reference to the original building design to the Construction of the World Trade Center article. But don't synthesize controversy. If the reader walks away with the impression that there is a major discrepancy between FEMA and NIST or that the fireproofing and impact simulations were significant in any way, the article is incorrect. The current version leaves that impression. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I propose we move the disputed section to the construction article (I've already copied it there, but I think what we've got here now is an improvement. I'll take care of that part.) We then add the following to the design section: "The designers had considered the effects of the impact of a passenger jet, and believed the structures would remain standing in such an event. But they lacked the ability to properly model its effect on the structures, especially the effects of the fires."--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(This discussion continues below)

Cherepanov'

Not reliable in this context. He is a single voice. Refuted many times by every other source. HEre's a start. Cherepanov's analysis is complete garbage. It's never been cited by any scientific papers and it needs to be removed. Wikipedia shouldn't be his first and only citation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a scientific paper. And as Bazant's response shows, is being discussed. It is a standing disagreement in the literature. I'm not saying Cherepanov is right (and I won't even get into what I think of his website!). But the editors of the journal (Bazant is a regional editor) obviously did not think they were wasting their readers' time with it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
PS. Wikipedia doesn't count as a citation in any index I'm aware of. I haven't checked any of the references in this article in the Science Citation Index. Are you suggesting that published, but uncited, work should not be mentioned? (That's a much higher stander than WP:RS has today. It is actually not an altogether bad idea ... if uniformly applied.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course they didn't. It's a pay for play journal. You pay and they publish. It's an awful reference and it's WP:UNDUE to include it here as anything even approaching an alternate scientific view. It needs to be removed. It's a fringe theory. --DHeyward (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that about the journal. If that's true (how do we determine this?) you don't need to invoke WP:UNDUE. WP:RS will do.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've looked into it now. I have no reason to think that the International Journal of Fracture [3] is anything but a well-respected, highly specfialized journal. In the "mechanics" subject category, the Science Citation Index ranks it #69 in terms of impact factor and #16 in terms of total citations. It is published by Springer, which is a prestigious academic publisher. It also counts Bazant among its regional editors. Finally, I have found nothing in its submissions procedure that involves payment. It's not my field, so others may be able to add to this picture. But for now I am very skeptical about DHeyward's claim that "it's a pay for play journal" and would publish "garbage".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
PS. The sentence in question was added after this discussion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Springer has a pay for play option as they are a for profit publication house and have an open source option for a fee. Leaving aside the journals credibility for a moment as the publisher seems to have other crediblie journals, Cherepanov's theory is a "walled garden" theory that is not subscribed to by anyone else. Even his fundamental premise that there is such a thing as a "fracture wave" in solids has only been referenced by him. Accordingly, this single, unsupported source is not subscribed to by any other scientists. It is not referenced in any way. No investigative body has read this paper and invited Cherepanov to speak. I don't know the rules for the Internation Journal of Fracture but I suspect that since this was developed on the theory of Fracture Waves, of which Cherepanov is the only subscriber and therefore the only expert, it was accepted on that basis. Either way, this particular theory has no basis for being in a wikipedia article because it's not a significant viewpoint of the scientific community. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cherepanov's ideas have been mentioned (dismissed) by Bazant both in the conference notes you mention and in the Bazant and Verdure piece. That piece also admittedly dismisses CD in the same terms (which, I think, would be your best argument for not putting it in this section). However, unlike CD, the theory has been published in a relevant scientific journal and, unlike CD, Bazant has taken it seriously enough to respond to it at a conference. We've made progress anyway: we've gone from "garbage in a pay for play journal" to minority view in scientific community. So we're at least back to WP:UNDUE as the relevant policy. I'm going to have a look at the reception of Bazant and Zhou in the engineering literature (I was suprised to discover recently that the paper is not mentioned in the NIST report; please correct me if I'm wrong--I just did a quick search). On that basis we can weigh the two views.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
PS Keep in mind that the IJF paper does not argue for the fracture wave theory (though it does mention it). It simply presents a prima facie argument against the received view. It is that criticism, not the theory of fracture waves, that has been peer-reviewed and is part of the discussion. The section we are talking about does not present fracture waves as a serious alternative to progressive collapse.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to mention bazant and zhou either. The NIST is adequate. Zhou and Bazant's paper are referenced numerous (one paper was referenced 38 times)[4] with overwhelming majority independant of the autor. Cherepanov has been referenced 0 times outside of himself. His is not a minority scientific opionion, it is the opinion of 1 person without any backing of the scientific comunity. The article supposedly compares the two theories (progressive collapse and fracture waves). Since this is the fracture journal and Cherepanov's field is in fracture and no experts have subscribed to his progressive collapse analysis (or his theory of fracture waves either generally or as a mechanism of collapse), I think we can safely dismiss this from the list of minority views. Bazant responded to Cherepanov in the same way that NIST repsonded to the conspiracy theories. It doesn't make them credible, however. There was certainly no need to publish the refuation in a journal since no scientist accepted Cherepanov anyway.--DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
NIST has no theory of progressive collapse. We cannot describe the 16 seconds that followed collapse initiation without Bazant & Zhou. Google is a good start, but its not yet a citation index. The Science Citation Index gives us 13 references to that paper. 1 is Bazant and Verdure and 1 is the Bazant and Zhou's own addendum. Only three or four of the remaining papers actually cite the paper in order to discuss progressive collapse (most recently Seffen). It's simply a very small discussion in the literature, in which Cherepanov figures as one position (how many people in all are even discussing this in the peer-reviewed literature? A dozen? Half a dozen?) I think I've shown that Bazant responded more seriously to Cherepanov than to CD.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
And neither Cherepanov or CD have any place in this article. The reason there is not wider discussion is because NIST/Bazant is encompassing. There are not a lot of peer reviewed papers on Newton's laws anymore either. --DHeyward (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am arguing that Cherepanov deserves a mention specifically on the issue of PC. CD only deserves a mention as a notable CT. And the details of Bazant's collapse hypothesis (the only one on the table) deserve to be explained.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Near Freefall" (again)

We've bee through this a few times. DHeyward has now removed the (admittedly) long and (somewhat) torturous specifics of the collapse times and reduced it to (what I agree is) its essential core, namely, the buildings collapsed at "near free fall". Leaving the specifics in, however, have, I think, had a stabilizing influence. The 9 and 11 seconds figures are somewhat low estimates, as I recall, (more conservative accounts say 12-16 seconds) but it depends on what, exactly, is being measured (the first thing to hit the ground or the fall of the roofline). Any one else have any ideas?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NIST FAQ says 9 and 11. --DHeyward (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, but Bazant (in his refutation of demolition theories) pointed out that those figures cannot be compared with a free-falling object dropped from the tops of the buildings. If that is the touchstone for "free fall" then the collapses probably took about 15 seconds (about six seconds longer than free fall). I'm not disagreeing with you, and if it were up to me alone your version would stand. My concern is that it will be perceived as slanted in the direction of demolition theories and will therefore become a point of contention. Bazant's more detailed analysis does not disagree with the NIST faq. It just elaborates the reasoning behind it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we don;t have to mention free fall speed at all. Just the times is adequate and they support the NIST and Bazant gravity induced collapses. --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems to me to be straightfowardly less informative than the status quo. The fact that the underlying structure provided an insignificant amount of resistance to the fall of the upper sections is one of the most interesting things I've learned from studying the collapses. I would have been greatful to WP if it had told me that straight out when I read it the first time.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Those items are fine. the trap is that we shouldn't be writing from the perspective of refuting or supporting the CT/CD point-of-view. When we talk about the collapse time, it seems we are speaking in code when we add percentage of free fall time.. Then the next piece of code is adding some trivial detail that either supports or rejects another fringe piece. It then becomes bloated with minutae. The fall time isn't controversial unless you are coming from a certain point of view where it has been made a cornerstone. We don't need to feed them or refute them. I'd just as soon ignore the code speak of "free fall" or comparisons to Controlled demolition or discrepancies in the timing of the collapse, etc, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it again. There is also Seffen's recent paper. All in all, I think engineers are looking into the speed of the collapses. They are not doing that just to refuse CDers. I'm going to re-read the Seffen paper and get back to this.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it important for the article to discuss the speed of collapse compared to free fall? Are we trying to tell the reader something important about that? If so, can we please spell out what that important thing is; after all, an encyclopedia should not use vague language which lead the reader to incorrect conclusions. If there is no important thing, why make the comparison? Making vague hints in the hope that the reader becomes more ignorant do not belong in an encyclopedia. The colour of the Moon is comparable to the colour of cheese, hint hint nudge nudge. Weregerbil (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To my mind it's just informative. Before 9/11, I didn't know that the lower part of a building provides virtually no resistance to a dynamic load (i.e., the weight of the building when falling). I'm not an expert, but there would be nothing wrong with saying, "The moon has the colour of cheese because ... " and then something about the surface of the moon and the way light is reflected off it. Surprisingly, the surface of the moon is actually the colour of asphalt, I'm told, but "looks like" cheese at that distance in direct sunlight without an atmosphere, or something. That's the reason to characterise the collapses as "near free fall", just as NIST does.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
PS (more seriously) The moon article says: "The moon appears as a relatively bright object in the sky, in spite of its low albedo. The Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system and reflects only about 7% of the light incident upon it (about the same proportion as is reflected by a lump of coal). Color constancy in the visual system recalibrates the relations between the colours of an object and its surroundings, and since the surrounding sky is comparatively dark the sunlit Moon is perceived as a bright object." That's pretty much like saying, "The towers collapsed at near free fall speeds, despite being undamaged under the impact area. While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resitance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall floor through roughly three floors (12 m) the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began."--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If the purpose of the description is to say "the speed of the collapse shows that a lower part of a building offers so-and-so much resistance to collapse", and that is the intent we want to convey to the reader, can we say that then? With sources of course. So that the reader isn't left guessing as to the purpose of the "free fall" statement. ("Leaves the reader guessing" being what, to me, appears to be poor writing for an encyclopedia.) The word "near" appears subjective; how many percent slower is "near"? If the comparison to free fall, or to Asafa Powell's speed at 100m, or to some other benchmark is made, the relevance of that particular comparison should be explained. Weregerbil (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bazant & Verdure are pretty clear about what "near" means: not twice as long. I've been trying to find a good statement about exactly how little resistance the structure offered. Actually, I'm still trying to understand it. It comes down to that difference between static and dynamic loads. One strategy I considered at one point was to explain to the reader how much more the moving mass "effectively" weighed when it hit the lower section (after falling 12 m) than it did when it was just sitting on top of it. I have a feeling Bazant and Zhou answer that question in their discussion of "overload", but I haven't been able to translate it into lay terms (i.e., I don't really understand it). The calculation of "effective weight", meanwhile, before impact (i.e., without making any assumptions about what is going to absorb the weight) is (surprisingly!) impossible. If something weighs 10 pounds and falls through 10 meters, there is no way (that I've found) of saying how heavy it would "seem" to a scale when it impacts without describing the properties of the scale. If someone could tell us how many times stronger the buildings would have had to be to survive on 9/11 that would also be an nice way of explaining it. I haven't found a statement about that.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Such a calculation exists and is a point of dispute. The buildings columns according to the white paper were overdesigned. Unfortunately the white paper was not found until after Bazant published. The white paper said the columns could support some 6X more dynamic load than Bazant calculated caused the collapse. Wayne (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think what you are looking for is Potential Energy (energy in a falling mass). There is no accepted figure for the WTC. FEMA give 4 x 10^11 Joules while the ASCE give the PE as 3 x 10^12 Joules (10X higher). The weight of the WTC was around 500,000 tons (includes contents and people). Each floor thus weighs around 4,500 tons. The columns were designed so that each intact floor could support 2,000% more. For example Skilling in a 1993 interview discussing a terrorist attack stated that if 50% of the columns were lost, the remainder could still support the entire total weight of the building even if they were all on the same side. Part of the interview can be found here. I'll see if i can find the whole thing. Wayne (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the object has no potential energy (relative to the frame of reference, of course) when it is resting on the ground (or, in this case, when it is resting on top of the column section it will run into. Nor is the structure "absorbing" energy when the system is stable (i.e., before the collapse initiates). My question has been: surely the towers could have been made to buckle simply by putting a sufficiently heavy object on top of it. Bazant seems to be arguing that once that happens, the whole thing will go, two or three floors at a time. Maybe I can put it this way: how many times heavier that usual would the top twenty floors of one tower minimally have to be in order to cause what happened on 9/11. And how many times heavier was the moving section effectively when it hit the undamaged lower section of floors?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question in one sentence: It would need to be 200 times heavier and according to Bazant the moving section was 2 times heavier.
It's not a question of how much heavier but the energy of the collapse. Undamaged columns could support up to 200 times more than the weight of the entire building before collapse would occur. Although considered a RS Bazants paper by itself is not reliable as an answer because it was written and published within 40 hours of Sept 11 and was based on what the author knew of the WTC rather than any evidence such blueprints or damaged steel from the site. The paper also has many obvious mistakes. For example Bazant calculates the energy of the collapse by assuming 100% of the energy of the floors impacted directly on the floors below (including the weight of the pyroclastic flow outside the footprint) and doesn't deduct the energy required to pulverise the material in the first place. Bazant calculated energy equivalent to 2 times the buildings weight initiated the collapse when the construction specifications themselves called for 5 times. The paper also doesn't make a distinction between fire temperature and steel temperature which is a very significant ommission that invalidates his paper on it's own. Tests have shown that subjecting steel beams to 1200 degrees will only raise the steels internal temperature to 360 degrees which is supported by NISTS findings, Bazant on the other hand assumes the fire and steel temperature is the same. The paper is a good starting point but should not be used as a primary source. We know what started the collapse but no one knows why it continued past the damaged section because NIST stopped investigating at that point. There may be no evidence of CD but there is evidence that there was a major structural failure that has not been addressed yet. Wayne (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The layman (or WP reader) is likely to relate mainly to "the bigger they are, the harder they fall". So idea is to explain that every meter the section falls freely (through the collapse zone) it becomes "effectively" heavier, until it becomes unsurprising that the lower section, which was originally designed to support the dead weight of the top section (in any weather), could not "catch" it. I'll read Bazant and Zhou again. I think 2 times sounds low (can you quote the passage in B&Z where they say that?). And the 200 times overload was arguable part of the sales pitch for the design. It may have been inflated. Still thinking. My aim here is write a nice little piece of explanatory prose like that stuff about the colour of the moon.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Two was an estimate on my part. The actual figure Bazant calculated was 6 times but he was using incorrect data. With corrected data the result is 2 times the design code but the WTC was actually way over code so the real overload according to Bazants own equation (assuming the engineers did not lie) is only 1/2. Bazants findings, which he calls "crude order-of-magnitude estimates" are as follows: the total release of gravitational potential energy
P = maximum force applied by the upper part on the lower part
h = height of the initial fall of the upper part = 3.7 m
m = mass of the upper part of North Tower = 58x10 to the 6 kg
g = gravity acceleration.
mg = design load capacity (building code specifications 5X. NOTE: mg for WTC was 20X).
C = 71 GN/m (assumed based on all the buildings columns being identical to those on the impact floor and unbraced. The columns actually increased in strength from top down and all had cross bracing)
Overload = P = 1 + square root (1 + (2Ch/mg) = 31 (or six times the building code requirements)
The overload is actually double this when the floor collapsing first impacts but that lasts a fraction of a second and then the 31 applies. Bazant and Zhou point out that this is approximate because they have no data and are estimating values for the buildings (the paper was written the day after the buildings collapsed). As an explanation of why he doesn't include some data in his calculations Bazant says:"we are not attempting to model the details of the real failure mechanism but seek only to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen". Bazant also says: "Once accurate computer simulations are carried out, various details of the failure mechanism will undoubtedly be found to differ from the simplifying hypotheses made. Errors by a factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising". Building codes require supporting an overload of 5 however it was found that the WTC had been designed with an overload factor of 20. Using 20 instead of 5 in the equation gives an overload of around 9 instead of 31 which means not enough to allow the collapse to continue past the floors with damaged columns. That last sentence is my OR but the rest is from Bazants paper. Wayne (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time following this. Maybe this will help me: What number indicates the force Bazant says the lower section could have survived? And what number indicates the force that Bazant says the top section actually imparted to the lower section?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Bazant is not clear on actual values as he admits it's speculation based on his experience with other buildings. The building code requires columns on a floor to support 5x more than the weight of the entire building and he used this for the WTC. This is all the columns on a floor combined not individual columns so it requires we have no damaged columns and thus is only relevant for the floors beneath the damaged section. Bazant found that the "force the top section actually imparted to the lower section" was 31x more. Assuming the engineers were truthful in that the WTC was actually 20x you have to divide Bazants results by around 3. Any result under 20 means the collapse will slow down and eventually stop. A result over 20 means the collapse continues to the ground but Bazant also gives no explanation of why the core also collapsed. While the building would collapse, a substantial section of the core should have remained behind as the building dropped (some of the core did briefly remain but then collapsed). Wayne (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have to divide Bazant's 31 by 3. It seems to me you just have to multiply his 5 by 4 (to get the 20). So you have the maximum survivable force at 20 (times the building's weight) and the actual force at 31 (times the building's weight). What am I not understanding? --Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
mg = design load capacity (mass x gravity). Bazant assumed mg=5x while it was actually mg=20x. Using this revised figure in the calc: Overload = P = 1 + square root (1 + (2Ch/mg) = 31, reduces the answer to around 9 (because 2Ch is divided by mg). Wayne (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
But doesn't that correct the calculation on both side of the equation? Bazant compares the 31 to the 5, concluding that the impact was 6 times more forceful than the buildings could handle. On the basis of one adjustment in the values, we now bring the 31 down to 9 and the five up to 20, concluding that the impact was only half as forceful as the buildings could handle. Am I right so far? All we've done is made the buildings stronger, but we're making adjustments on both sides of the equations. I'm still not quite getting it. But I'm vaguely grasping that its because, for the purposes of the calculation, the buildings didn't get 4 times stronger but 15 times stronger. Is that right?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of it like dropping a golf ball on a sheet of paper. It hits the paper and slows briefly before tearing through. It then increases speed until it hits the next sheet of paper and the cycle continues through 100 sheets. The average energy is Bazants 31. Now we use stronger paper. The ball still hits the first sheet with the same force but takes a fraction of a second longer to tear through. It has lost some energy so although it still speeds up it hits the next sheet at a slightly lower speed. The cycle still repeats but only until the speed reduces to a point where it no longer has the energy to tear through so it stops. The starting energy (weight, speed etc) is still the same for both but the average reduces for the stronger paper. Bazants equation works out the "golf balls average". The paper has a design load capacity. If the calculated average is higher, then the golf ball will effectively never stop but if the average is lower then it will eventually stop. Wayne (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, according to Bazant, the top section fell 3.7 meters at a time, each time coming out of the buckle ("tear") with a little more energy than it had when it caused the previous buckle ("tear"), but of course less than it had just before it hit this one. It then free-falls another 3.7 meters. The strength of the columns determines how much energy is subtracted in each step. And the distance of the fall determines how much energy is added. So increasing the strength of the columns means both decreasing the average energy produced and increasing the average energy required to bring down the tower completely. I.e., you could increase the strength of the paper or decrease the distance between each sheet in order to stop the golf ball. Is that right? I think something like this explanation needs to go in the section on progressive collapse.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically that is it. It is a lot more complicated as you need to account for the air resistance, floor contents (an empty floor has less resistance than one being used for storage etc), temperature etc etc etc. It may not sound like it makes much difference but even 0.06 of second for each floor (which is what Bazant calculated was the delay) adds up to 5 seconds slower than free fall for the building which is why there is so much debate on the free fall speed. This debate is not a conspiracy theory and is a legitimate question of why the fall speed was what it was and doesn't need CD to explain it. Unfortunately the CD theory can never be debunked because the only evidence that could refute it 100% (the steel) doesn't exist any more. Wayne (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing some of the dynamic forces and failures. If I am following what you are trying to say, it seems to imply that as a bulding fell. it would rapidly reach a terminal velocity basically in the collapse of a single floor. Also, it seems to imply that controlled demolition of a building would never work as blowing the supports of any building would simply have fall a single floor and the it would be supported by the floor above it. Also, it seems that a necessary consequence of design and your explanation, higher building would be more difficult to bring down and an infinitely tall building would be impossible to bring down because as the ratio of the floor to floor space to the height of the building becomes a smaller value, the ratio of the energy of the falling building to the static load rating of the columns approaches 1. This is obviously not the case as buildings are demolished all the time.

(convenience break)

The problem is that static analysis is inadequate to describe the failure during a dynamic event such as collapse. There is the physical phenomenon of dynamic snap through where a critical dynamic force is applied to a structure it will buckle. The problem as I see with the analysis of "pancakes" and each successive floor is that it's not clear that strcuture failure will happen floor by floor. A dynamic impact at the 80th floor may weak or buckle the 3rd floor (or any floor) supports because of the existing static load and the critical dynamic load that creates the snap through condition so doing the analysis with 80th floor at 20x static load is irrelevant if the 3rd floor is only 5x. At that moment, the structure above the third floor is now collapsing at free fall. So the trigger is the heated columns losing their strength and suffering elastic deformation, this causes a collapse to start at the upper floors, but subsequent collapses and impacts may happen throughout the structure and it's dynamic. I don't think it's simply a 80,79, 78, etc, collapse. Rather, it could be 80, 3, 55,2,5,6,7,8, etc. or any random sequence. Once the failure goes dynamic, it's practically free fall as it collapses through each weakest link. Bazant's analysis goes in sequence because if it is strong enough that it still collapses in sequence, that means it will fall in any other scenario (there are no "still standing scenarios" if the sequential collapse scenario is satisfied and this is somewhat intuitive). For your analysis to be correct, the 20x load overdesign would have to be throughout the building. I suspect that it might be 20x at the upper floors but not at the lower floors since the structures would need to be unecessarily massive and expensive. That leaves a dynamic snap point weake3st link somewhere between the ground and the impact. Once the top floors go, that weakpoint goes and the collapse progresses. --DHeyward (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting, and very instructive ... it should go in the article. First, it would be useful (using Bazant and Verdure) to say that the progressive collapse failure mode is very similar to controlled demolition. (As DHeyward says, if PC doesn't work, then neither could CD. CD, in one sense, is just an artificially instigated PC.) But I do think we have to go with Bazant's theoretical 80, 79, 78 sequence. If that sequence could be shown to stop, then investigators have some explaining to do (in the ordinary scientific mystery sort of way), and they might discover that DHeyward's sequence could explain what Bazant's could not. That is not where we are today, however. The progressive collapse section can only present Bazant as the received view and peer-reviewed criticism of that view. I'll start drafting something today. And I'll post it to a new section below for discussion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In the sense that both CD and PC use gravity as the collapse mechanism, they are similar. The analysis by Bazant and NIST already show that. My interpretation is just from reading Bazant. I haven't seen the 20x data that was presented earlier but I suspect tht here may be a 20x piece of data that is being misused/misapplied. But it's all completely irrelevant as there doesn't seem to be a reliable source that makes the claim the WTC should still be standing. --DHeyward (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I really want to stress that NIST does not offer an analysis of progressive collapse (again, please correct me if I'm wrong, citing a page ref). We have mainly (perhaps only) primary sources in the engineering literature to base our account of how the buildings collapsed to the ground. One of the reasons for this is that many (perhaps all) of the "popular" accounts are irrelevant because they are based on the FEMA theory. Among the relevant primary sources there is a reliable source (Cherepanov) that "makes the claim that WTC should still be standing" if, that is, PC was the only possible mechanism. (Properly speaking, everyone claims they know why it collapsed, not that it should still be standing.) I'm still looking for an account of the WTC PC collapse in a structural engineering textbook. It can't be long before one comes out. If anyone bumps into one, please let us know.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No, pancake theory is/was not just about floors (columns at these floors) failing in some sequence. It was about floors failing _inside_ WTC, loosing their connection within perimeter and center core columns, pancaking inside the building (primarily) which was supposed to cause the loss of integral stability and to allow complete collapse of the whole structure. NIST did investigated how easily could have floors disconnect from perimeter columns when heated by fire (the famous real word burn-down tests with anti-fire foam applied). This theory is no longer supported by NIST (ref NIST report and NIST FAQ) and by no one else in engineering community, I guess.
On the other hand, the random failure scenario which DHeyward proposed is most close to Cherepanov "fracture wave" where stress travels all way through a structure of a building and results with failures at random points. This theory, however, does not explain dustification of upper, and lower, parts of the building (Bazant theory fits better here with his crush-up, crush-down phrase). Please don't forget that everything: columns snapping, stress traveling along the building, dustification, upper floors contributing their weight to crush zone; everything results with energy dissipation. The question is if all those factors can be reliably accounted for. (Bazant is criticised for not including energy dissapation due to dynamic properties of core structure above and below the crush one) salVNaut (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are no reliable sources that say the bulding should be standing. NIST did finite element analysis up to the point of collapse. I suspect that the reason is it was not necessary to continue beyond that. They did some very detailed calculations of loads and strenghts on the structure and redistribution of the load. In any case it is not necessary to describe it in the this article as all the reliable sources say it collapsed after it went dynamic. There are no reliable sources that claim otherwise. Incidentally, my explanation had no relation to a fracture wave at all. A fracture wave supposedly has complete destruction after the wave front. Mine was more like a hammer and a chisel. Or a crushing of an aluminum can. Also, keep in mind that the building load would not have been evenly distributed at each impact point. Once it went dynamic, I suspect there were leading edge sections that transferred the whole upper load to the impact point. This would cause immediate failure to that point. There is no longer an evenly diustributed load that was the case in the static analysis. OIn any event, none of this belongs in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think your explanation was closer to "fracture wave" beacuse it is based on the assumption that stress caused by collapsing upper part of the building is "passed" down through the structure and result with failure somewhere (aluminium can is a good example, once first kink shows up, why and where other kinks are formed?). In some The things to consider here would be: what is the "passing below" ability of each floor (until it fails); how much energy is lost during this transaction (building structure is more like a sponge (up to some level of stress) rather than an ideal solid).
"...very detailed calculations" which they themself acknowledged had to be tweaked away from real-world test data to obtain the collapse scenario. The were condemned much for not revealing anything about their simulation in the article published in NewCivilEngineer (D. Parker, “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation”, New Civil Engineer, November 1, 2005. Online)
I think that the bottom line here is the statement by NIST: "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". salVNaut (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if we are on the same page about what "fracture wave" is. I once made an experiment that showed, what I think is, a fracture wave. I was once playing subconciously with a plastic rod, of length about 40cm, by bending it one way and another (it was quite flexible). Suddenly, I bent it too much and it snapped... in 5 places at once, leaving me with 2 small pieces in each hand and 4 other pieces flying all around the room. I was wondering with my friends why it happened so. What we've found out that all those pieces were of the same length. We concluded that after reaching a tipping point, the stress was released by forming a fracture wave along the rod, snapping it to pieces at amplitude points. salVNaut (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fracture waves don't belong in the article. But a good description of what happened to the structure after the collapse initiated does belong here. It has to be based on realiable sources, of course. But it also has to be comprehensible to the average reader. We can't just say that the collapses began and then didn't stop. We can't just say that the underlying structure offered no resistance or that the force of the top section was "enormous". We have to explain the sequence Bazant describes. And we have to do that because that's what is currently known about the collapses.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward is correct but has simplified too much. The most efficient way for CD to work is to blow the basement columns and thus make the load exceed the design load capacity that way (each floor that collapses has maximum load) and you now have bottom up demolition. Taller buildings are harder to bring down and if tall enough almost impossible as you suggest but what is now done is to also blow the columns on every 20th floor. You still get a bottom up collapse but it is helped by "mini" collapses which serve to increase the overload as energy from these accumulates. To get a top down collapse like the WTC you still have to blow the basement (the movement at the base reduces resistance for every floor above) but around 2/3 up you take out multiple floors which increases speed (= force) past the design load capacity because of the greater distance traveled. This is dangerous though because you lose control of the debris (it falls from a height rather than being produced at ground level.
The columns from ground to the 66th floors were indeed massive. They were much larger than in higher floors being 5 foot thick and cross braced with 6" thick struts. The size then gradually reduced with height so that, for example, the columns on the impact floor of the south tower were twice as thick as the columns on the impact floor of the north tower. Bazant didn't know this and in his calculations assumed they were the same size for the entire building. In fact NIST didn't know either and based all their calculations on smaller columns (around 2 foot thick) that were free standing (not braced) and also stated that only the 4 corner columns of the 16 core columns were larger when in fact all 16 were the same even larger size. NIST based their calculations on the WTC architectural drawings which did not show column sizes and had a different arrangement of columns than what was actually built. The mistake was not discovered until the original WTC blueprints were found in 2007 although they should have realised considering the number of photos of the construction that exist. This does not support a CD explanation (unfortunately it doesn't dismiss it either) but it does indicate that a proper study of the collapse should be conducted as NIST is flawed. Wayne (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Solution to the WP:SYN dispute?

The discussion has arrived at this proposal of mine:

We move the disputed section to the construction article (and older version is already there). We then add the following to the design section: The designers had considered the effects of the impact of a passenger jet, and believed the structures would remain standing in such an event. But they lacked the ability to properly model its effect on the structures, especially the effects of the fires.

Note the link to the construction article. Please voice your approval or disapproval. I'll implement it in the morning if there is consensus.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • Reject I will approve if that last sentence is dropped or modified. It is OR as NIST specifically said such an assumption is speculation. Perhaps replace the word "but" with "NIST speculates that". Wayne (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Robertson and his "engineer's curiosity"

The NYT Mag article that Wayne's footnote refers to sheds some light on our discussions. At that time (in Sept of 2002), journalists were apparently still looking for a kind of scandal in the design of the tower. According to Glanz and Lipton, the 600 mph impact study was an exageration: "no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed" (I don't know if you all have access, but here's a link [5]). The Port Authority had (it seemed to Glanz and Lipton) simply made it up. They base this assessment mainly on their conversation with Robertson. "'That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later." (Probably the three page "white paper" mentioned in this article?) Robertson's reaction, and the Glanz and Lipton's coverage of the issue, might fittingly go into the "history of the investigations section". In fact, maybe that's a way to put this issue to rest. As a matter of historical fact, there was a controversy about this. I'll read the article again and see if I can put something together.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Port Authority attributed the white paper to Robertson which is what upset him as he didn't know it existed and thought the PA had made it up. NIST printed a copy of the white paper in their report (NCSTAR 1-2 p302) and it specifically states 600mph. The white paper also says the mathmatical calculations alone cover 1,200 pages of the full report. Possibly moving that whole section to "investigations" would be a good idea. Wayne (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "NIST-chapter1" :
    • {{cite web |url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf |title=Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center (chapter 1) |publisher=National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) |date=September 2005}}
    • {{cite book |author=National Construction Safety Team |url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf |format =PDF |title=Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers |publisher=NIST |date=September 2005}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the cite book citation into another instance of the cite web citation (as a report isn't really a book) so this is fixed. Hut 8.5 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy talk

While I can't say what did or did not happen in the collapse of the world trade center towers, what bothers me about this page is the use of the word 'conspiracy'. The government's report on the events of September 11th is in fact itself a conspiracy theory. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a conspiracy as ": the act of conspiring together, 2 a: an agreement among conspirators b: a group of conspirators." The government's claim that the planes were hijacked for the purpose of carrying out multiple attacks in the U.S. fits the definition. The members of the 9/11 Commission were not even witnesses to the actual events they were investigating. Let me restate my objectivity here for those that find it questionable: the word conspiracy should be applied to every kind of speculation that is made on this subject because there is no verifiable proof of a structural failure or of a controlled demolition as all the evidence was removed before a forensic analysis could be carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.50.164 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

An editor who is restricted from editing this page came to my talk page and suggested what appears on its face to be a change that may improve the article. Could somebody who is very familiar with the NIST report consider this and respond?

Hi Jonathan, reading the progressive collapse section just now I noticed a sentence that is likely to be misunderstood as something that is false. "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail," it says. But the reader is likely to think that the mechanism in question is total progressive collapse, which is the section heading but which NIST did not look into in any detail at all. The sentence used to read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it does not address the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers."

If there is any issue about proxy posting, consider that I have adopted this suggestion as my own and am asking if it is reasonable or not. Perhaps the suggested wording works, or maybe better wording needs to be crafted to avoid misunderstanding or ambiguity. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I'm certainly not "very familiar with the NIST report" it isn't correct to say that NIST did not address the subsequent collapse of the towers at all (see NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 146). --Hut 8.5 12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to say IT IS correct that NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers. I quote directly from NIST:
"NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."
And another even more relevant direct quote from NIST:
"NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation."
To imply NIST's mention of the collapse equates to NIST analising the collapse is POV pushing. I suggest the sentence should read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it did not analyze the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers." Wayne (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not very clear what distinction is being made here. If a structure fails, it will collapse under gravity. There's nothing to be gained by studying the specific behaviour once collapse has started. Peter Grey (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If the structure fails, how exactly will it collapse under gravity? Why did it collapse at near fall? Why was the collapse progressive? If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away. It's a major point argued by the community as reason for a new investigation. Wayne (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Structural failure by definition is the state of a structure that ceases to support its own weight. Hence, it falls down. The conspiracy theories are described in a separate article, and they would not simply "go away" since they are based on emotion, not evidence. Case in point: conspiracy theorists pretending there is something astonishing about a compromised structure falling down (as opposed to what? falling sideways?). Peter Grey (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What exactly of your objection is relevant to the request? The issue is SIMPLE, clarity for neutrality. The current version implies NIST analyzed the collapse when NIST themselves claim: "NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers." We are not talking about conspiracy theories. And especially we are not talking about your own personal opinion of the mental state of theorists. Wayne (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You brought it up, giving your own personal opinion about the conspiracy theories. "If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away." No, they wouldn't go away. The conspiracy theories come first; then the conspiracy theorists look for justification - isolated factoids they can present out of context; "suspicious" absence of evidence pointing to a deliberate coverup; lather, rinse, repeat. If they were falsifiable, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. All of that is well supported in the academic literature about conspiracy theory.
I reverted one of your recent series of edits with the summary rv - tendentious. You reverted back with this edit summary: Revert POV pushing made with an offensive edit comment. What exactly is tendentious about relevant, neutral and reliably sourced (from NIST) facts? This is an encyclopedia and they often contain facts I'm content to let those comments stand on their own as evidence of who used an offensive edit summary. Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply to unsigned: I point out that this topic is still under ARBCOM and the ruling applies to extremists from both sides of the fence so please refrain from making allusions to the mental incompetence of anyone who thinks differently to you. I did not give my personal opinion of conspiracy theories. I used debunking conspiracy theories as an example of why the edit needs to be made because you do not understand the engineering concepts involved, my questions were legitimate and had nothing remotely to do with any conspiracy theories. Even people who accept 100% the official theory know that the collapse itself needs to have those points explained. And I correct myself: If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away if the results show progresive collapse was inevitable.
What do you find offensive about my being truthful in my comment? My edit was not tendentious. It was directly from the NIST report, contained no editorial content, contained no opinion, contained no OR, made no claims, made no implications, was completely relevant to the article and did not violate any WP rule or arbitration. Also the same edit was previously in the article for around 12 months before it disappeared, according to the comments, to make the article "more balanced". Again I ask: What exactly is tendentious about my edit? Wayne (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, no, the conspiracy theories wouldn't go away. The conspiracy theories come first; then the conspiracy theorists look for justification - isolated factoids they can present out of context; "suspicious" absence of evidence pointing to a deliberate coverup; lather, rinse, repeat. If they were falsifiable, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. All of that is well supported in the academic literature about conspiracy theory. Please don't insert your own comments within mine - instead, write your reply after my signature. "[P]lease refrain from making allusions to the mental incompetence of anyone who thinks differently to you." Sure, you betcha. Tom Harrison Talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the insertion. Because of the gap I assumed I was replying to someone else who had not signed their post. As for your other point, I can say Cognitive dissonance is well supported in the literature for uncritical supporters of the official theory but I don't think either side supports their own view due to a mental imbalance. I see such claims as a personal attack. I am assuming that your justification of the deletion of relevant and factual material is that "factoids can be presented out of context" by some readers? I would agree if you said the facts were irrelevant or out of context to the article but they are relevant and in context. A factoid is an unverified or fabricated fact which my edit was not. Wayne (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there may be a valid point that The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail. may be poorly worded. When considering the progress of a collapse, the amount of detail that is worthwhile (or even possible) to analyse is much less than the intial failure, and is perhaps less than what a layman might consider in detail to mean. (Though ironically even a simple quantitative estimate is far more detail than is ever considered by conspiracy theorists.) Peter Grey (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that unless a reader goes on to read the references he will assume the whole box of dice was analyzed when it was not. The whole idea of the article is to inform not misinform. Better wording could be: "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it did not analyze the collapse of the towers past the point of initiation." If the reader wants to know why he can get that from reading the next two sentences. Wayne (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Article restructuring

We now have a WikiProject to help organize efforts to improve articles relating to the 9/11 attacks. A current priority is preparing articles that have been selected for Wikipedia Version 0.7 (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_September_11,_2001#Wikipedia_Version_0.7_selections for list of articles). This article is one of the selections. Of all the articles selected, this article needs more attention and cleanup work to bring it up to standards, which are always rising.

I am working on restructuring the article in a way that is more chronological and easy to follow, in effort to improve article quality. Here is what I suggest, including some changes already made, and others to be considered:

  1. The structural design section, which covers design and construction of the buildings.
  2. The events of September 11, 2001 (the collapse mechanism probably should be worked into here).
  3. Initial opinions from engineering experts, quoted in the media, along with preliminary analyzes by Bazant and others.
  4. Then, the formal investigations by FEMA/ASCE and then NIST.
  5. Aftermath section - this is towards the end, which probably makes sense, though it's out of chronological order.
  6. Controlled demolition theories - okay as the last section, since these gained some interest later on

I think the Osama bin Laden remarks section fits oddly and too much out of context. I suggest perhaps omitting in from the article, or possibly trying to rework that section. It could be kept for now, while deciding what to do with it.

I don't think the "Other buildings" section is needed here. Right now, it fits oddly in the structure of the article. Also, pretty much all of what's said in that section is said in the main September 11, 2001 attacks article, as well as the main World Trade Center articles. For now, the section can be kept here, while thought is given on what to do with it. --Aude (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see...I say we limit the CD stuff to an absolute minimum. I'll do whatever I can to help get this to FA standards...little else is likely to come forward to revise and or certainly refute the known evidence....so the issue of the collapse itself is pretty much stable and should be much easier to get to FA level than more dynamic articles and issues.--MONGO 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's possible to get to GA and then FA level. I have some free time available in the short term to put effort into the task. --Aude (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial opinions

The initial opinions section is the first task. It's not representative of what structural engineering experts were saying in the aftermath of 9/11. I am in the process of going through Lexis-Nexis and other databases to come up with what the common points and themes were in expert opinions.

What was in the article included quotes that I think are taken out of context, and were more minor points that per undue weight, probably should not be included. I removed some quotes from British architect Bob Halvorson, about "a debate", and "the collapses were well beyond realistic experience." (huh?) I also looked at the New Civil Engineer source, which in turn cites an article published on September 13, 2001. I looked at both the source linked and the September 13 source, and believe the quote included in the Wikipedia article is out of context and not representative. The Wikipedia article talks about the collapse as a "surprise to engineers." No, it was not a surprise. What was a surprise to engineers was that terrorists would fly passenger jets into the buildings. But given the circumstances, the collapse of the buildings was generally not a surprise for most of the experts who are quoted in numerous articles on Lexis-Nexis and other sources.

Based on sources consulted so far, experts were overwhelmingly said that the tremendous heat from the fire caused structural steel elements to loose much strength. Upon heating, the steel experienced deformation which continued until a certain point was reached and the steel fractured. Once that happened, structural failure and collapse was inevitable. Many also noted that after the aircraft impact severed numerous columns, weight of the above structure was redistributed and added stress was placed on the remaining columns. Many also noted that the fireproofing was likely dislodged, allowing the steel structural elements to heat up more rapidly.

I think this section needs to be reworked to give due weight to various points that experts were saying. --Aude (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above, I removed the New Civil Engineers quote, and bit of text saying the "collapse was a surprise to engineers." What was a surprise was what the terrorists did, but given the circumstances, engineers were not so surprised that the buildings couldn't hold up and ended up collapsing. --Aude (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Aude/Sandbox2 - I'll continue to compile sources and information, but this lists so far the expert opinions that were quoted soon after 9/11. It gives an idea of what the common points and initial ideas were. This can help in deciding on due weight and what to include in the article. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Structural design and aircraft impact

I have adjusted the "anticipation of aircraft impact" section to make it follow summary style better, and give more balanced discussion of the various aspects of the WTC design, with the structural design also very important. --Aude (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Much improved...--MONGO 03:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

An editor recently reverted a number of edits with the comment “ revert to last reliable version, namely the last edit I made”. I restored it then two minutes later another editor reverted it back with the comment “ rv - more accurate, less slanted”.
More accurate than what? Less slanted than what? The edits reverted consisted of three grammatical corrections, one correction of a false claim, deletion of one redundant word, deletion of a note from NIST and reversion of a compromise edit as per the talk page. I point out that there is no ownership of this page. If these two editors have a problem with legitimate and uncontroversial edits they need to make the case here rather than tag team reverting. Wayne (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"More accurate and less slanted" than the previous version, the inaccuracy and slant being the promotion and overemphasis of fringe material. Tom Harrison Talk 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm making some adjustments. Including the footnote might work, but the section on aircraft impact and studies needs to be succinct and not go into excess detail. The "progressive collapse" section needs reworking, to make that part of the article well-written and much more clear to the reader. --Aude (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I like the footnote, the way it's written now. It too could be more succinct. --Aude (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How can grammatical corrections and a correction of a false claim be promotion and overemphasis of fringe material? Is it a case of "I don't like it"? I point out that Robertson DID NOT design the WTC and he was not The chief engineer, he designed the sway reduction mechanism only and was one of several chief engineers under Skilling. What is the problem with the note? It is cut and paste from NIST. Wayne (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way Aude, good job so far. Bedtime for me so I'll look at it later. Wayne (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Your lack of knowledge in this subject matter is apparent, so until you do some more studying on the issue, perhaps it would be best if you let experts in matter work on this article so we can make sure it is accurate and doesn't end up becoming some fantasyland hypothesis. As you have stated "I believe Popular mechanics is discredited BS and NIST cheated to get it's results but that does not mean I believe in CD. There has to be some as yet undiscovered factor that caused the towers to fall but then that is OR"...you're obviously here to spred rumors and innuendo related to 9/11 that have no scientific or relaible evidence to back them up. I suggest you cease doing so because others who have have been banned from editing 9/11 related articles.--MONGO 08:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
So you are telling me you are an expert on 9/11 and your opinion trumps NIST? What rumours am I spreading? You make claims but give no examples. You refuse to discuss edits. You even revert grammatical corrections. I find it offensive that I can include material copied from NIST and have you come to talk and claim it has no "scientific or relaible (sic) evidence to back them up" which is an implication it is made up and a blatant attempt by you to discredit my edits without having to prove there is anything wrong with them. The ARBCOM applies to extremists from both sides so your POV pushing for the official theory can get you banned in the same way that someone pushing conspiracy theories can. NPOV must come before your paranoia and perceived "ownership" of the article. Wayne (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine how I am an extremist when I only add information that is from reliable sources like the NIST. There is no room for conspiracy theory ridiculousness when we are working on an article that is not about the conspiracy theories related to how the WTC collapsed and we have reliable sources regarding what happened that we can cite. You're the one that has claimed on his userpage that NIST "cheated to get it's results" and that what was written in the magazine Popular Mechanics is "BS"...so seems your mind is made up that reliable sources aren't reliable.--MONGO 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics, Hearst Publishing, the History Channel and the San Francisco Examiner are owned in whole or in part by the Hearst Corporation, which has a long-standing reputation for inaccurate reporting and warmongering. NIST stopped being a reliably reliable source some time back when its head, a scientist, was replaced by a politician. Some of NIST's information is accurate, as is some of FEMA's, but when those two contradict each other, we much give more credence to the source which is most in disagreement with the Bush regime politicians, as it is more likely to be accurate. Popular Mechanics was thoroughly debunked by David Ray Griffin, and NIST clearly "cheated," for want of a better word, to arrive at its conclusions. Omitting relevant data from the FEMA report while claiming to have found no evidence of controlled demolition is but one example. It's hard to find what you purposefully ignore. Wowest (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I purposely ignore David Ray Griffin, that's for sure. Maybe what really happened was the U.S. Government, led by the most evil U.S. President of all time (George W Bush, of course, yuch, yuch) placed steel eating termites in the towers and other buildings right after he was sworn in (see Executive Decision SETWTC...that's Steel Eating Termites World Trade Center...you may have to file a FOIA request since this was a covert op)... so when the explosive laden passenger jets hit them, they were naturally going to be so weakened they would all collapse. This masterful plan was direly needed since Bush wanted to wage a war in Afghanistan and later Iraq of course, since he had nothing better to do with his time and everything in these two countries before the U.S. invaded was simply too peachy...the roads were all paved in gold and all the women and children danced around singing happy, happy, joy, joy songs about their generous and kind leaders Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.--MONGO 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't, in good faith, assume MONGO edits in good faith. He accuses me of adding conspiracy theory to the article in an attempt to discredit me when I have not added any at all. He misrepresents my user page in a personal attack by implying it says something it does not (see this). He ridicules anyone who doesn't share his beliefs. His edits are not reliable sources as he claims, but deletion of the same reliable sources he then has the temerity to claim support said deletion and the addition of hiw own POV language to strengthen his own view at the expense of accuracy. He claims expertise in the topic in support of his deletions. All together he is in violation of the Arbcom and as much an extremist as any who have been banned for their behaviour. The article cannot be improved as long as this behaviour continues. Wayne (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My edits are supported by the known reliable sources...when you openly state that reliable sources such as those from Popular Mechanics (a magazine that has written thousands of highly regarded pieces, least of which is their engineering analysis of the collapse) as well as saying the NIST "cheated" indicates to me that you must have some other "evidence" to offer other than what is normatively regarded as the factual accord. Please do tell us what you propose happened since you claim that controlled demolition is not something you believe in, yet have openly stated that there is possibly some other explanation other than what is normatively known as the factual accord. I certainly hope you have some reliable references other than your take on what NIST has detailed, since you feel they "cheated".--MONGO 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Here you refer to Tom harrison's edit as "POV pushing, tendentious editing or whatever"...and that was after you had reverted me stating here that I was "POV pushing"...one of the things I had added awhile ago which you removed was the word "adjacent"...in the section regarding the relationship of the North Tower and WTC 7...looking at Google Earth as well as from my own recollections having been to the area dozens of times as well as immediately after ther attacks, the North Tower and WTC 7 were less than 300 feet from each other. Removing the word "adjacent" indicates to me that you are trying to allude that the WTC 7 collapse was distinct from the earlier collapse of the North Tower. In light of the fact that Google Earth shows that the Winter Garden Atrium, which suffered severe damage when the North Tower collapsed, is 150 feet further away from where the North Tower stood than was the distance between the North Tower and WTC 7...I believe, especially since the North Tower was over 1,350 feet high and the debris field extended out more than 500 feet in all directions, that certainly by Manhattan standards, the North Tower and the WTC 7 were "adjacent". Maybe a better way to state it would be to say the obvious...that they were across the street from each other.--MONGO 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Just as an afterthought. You accuse me of removing "adjacent" to further some nefarious claim and say that by "Manhattan standards" they are adjacent. The problem I have is that there is an entire building between WTC1 and WTC7. Saying they are "across the street from each other" by world standards implies someone demolished WTC6 to make this true. Are you sure you are not supporting adjacent to further your own POV? Wayne (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What change to the article are you proposing? Tom Harrison Talk 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how you can discredit Popular Mechanics and the History Channel out of hand without providing hard evidence. Any theory other than the official story is automatically classified as a conspiracy theory so it is up to you to prove why these sources are so unreliable, not just with statements saying they are. Soxwon (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the argument Soxwon before commenting as Popular Mechanics and the History Channel have nothing to do with the edits in dispute and it's also obvious by your comment that you didn't even read the links I provided to refute MONGOs claims before replying. MONGO is using it as misdirection to discredit my edits. I doubt anyone can even find a reason why what I said about PM and NIST should have been brought up at all. I never made any edits involving PM and I also used NIST (copy/paste so not an interpretation) as a source for edits that MONGO reverted on the grounds that they are not supported by NIST. My objection to "adjacent" is that it's use does not comply with the dictionary definition and is used for POV pushing. 300 feet is not adjacent unless we are talking of objects considerably larger such as suburbs or city blocks. The word is not needed or appropriate. If an adjective is needed at all "nearby" is more accurate. As for the other edits....I deleted another POV adjective that implied the WTC was weaker than similar structures that was reverted. I corrected a false statement which was reverted. I changed "the" to "a" for grammar which was reverted. I added what NIST said of Robertsons study to reduce it's undue weight compared to the official WTC study, this edit had actually been in the article for 10 months last year before MONGO deleted it, I just put it back and it was deleted again. It is relevant to note MONGO/Tom harrisons reasons for these deletions and I quote: "revert to last reliable version, namely the last edit I made", "rv - tendentious" and one that was clearly a lie "rv - more accurate, less slanted". Aude was doing good work mediating but both problem editors completely ignored him and started serial reverting. BTW, PM was discredited by reliable sources not for it's factual content but for it's POV pushing manipulation of the facts. NIST themselves in their own report admitted they they altered the computer input to get a result, to the extent (and I use NISTs own words) "it no longer matched the eyewitness and photographic evidence", which in my world is usually called cheating regardless of whether the result was correct or not. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Soxwon was mainly responding to Wowest's comment...though this may not have been evident from the indentation of his response. My restoration to my last edit was indeed based on what was from reliable sources...sources including the NIST report (which you say they "cheated" on) and other engineering literature, but I simply stated that it was to the last reliable edit. Saying I "lie", calling myself and Tom Harrison "POV pushers" and "problem editors" will do little to make this article better. I support the known factual accord and that most certainly doesn't make me an "extremist" either. There is no "balance" between the established facts and fantasies or conjecture in an article dedicated to providing an honest accord of the events based on known and proven reliable sources.--MONGO 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Evidently...in adjusting why you think the Popular Mechanics analysis on the collapse is "BS" you cite an opinion piece in this edit which shows this opinion piece...where somebody named Craig Schlanger starts off saying "It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker." (aka, conspiracy theorist) and goes on to mention names like Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones (radio host) and other conspiracy theorists...Hoffman has made it a mission of his to promote WTC controlled demolition idiocy [6]...and you have done what you can to take wording by NIST out of context in an effort to enhance your clearly stated beliefs that they "cheated".--MONGO 11:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Again I ask what my views on those two publications have to do with the edits. You keep avoiding the issue by making irrelevant claims and as long as you continue to do so then my descriptions of your behaviour are valid. Drop the irrelevant personal attacks and concentrate on the edits. Wayne (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What edits do you want to make? Tom Harrison Talk 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Wayne...you asked, "views on those two publications have to do with the edits"...Just about everything....in what is supposed to be a serious article about the collapse, we don't have room for someone like you who is mainly interested in adding their own take or interpretation of the event, nor in taking NIST and other sources out of context in some effort to NPOV conspiracy theory nonsense into this article. There is no room for nonsense or fantasy when we have reliable and factual references...the same references you have openly stated are either BS or are the results of cheating.--MONGO 05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that my views bar me from making any edits no matter how legitimate? This is not about any theory but about factual NPOV. I made no edits unsupported by RS or based on my "own take or interpretation" and I warn you again about this continuing use of irrelevant claims in personal attacks to discredit my work. I made no edits regarding anything to do with PM and several were grammatical edits, all of which you reverted. One edit in regards to NIST was a copy paste of what they said about Robertsons and Skilling's studies. Robertson's study has no evidence of existence apart from Robertson's own claim he did it yet you want to (and do) give it considerably greater weight than the WTC's engineers own official study which is documented. This appears to be POV pushing on your part as it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Also the original article text detailed exactly what Robertson's study was claimed to be so I added what Skillings study was. This was reverted so that only Robertson's has detail giving it even more weight. My edit reduced both studies to equal weight although it could be argued Skillings should have more. Included in that edit was adding mention that the copies of Skillings report were lost in WTC7 which was also reverted. The article mentions the originals were lost in the Port Authority offices so why can't it also say what happened to the WTC owners copies when the reference does so? Another edit I made was this correction of a false claim. That claim, "In designing the World Trade Centre, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario...", implies that Robertson designed the WTC. He didn't, he designed the sway reduction features. I changed it to the more accurate "Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers who worked on the WTC considered the scenario..." which you reverted. The last edit I made was this adding "it is speculated" to a claim, NIST specifically say in their report "this view amounts to speculation" so it should be included. Aude attempted to mediate and I was accepting of any changes to my edits due to legitimate objections yet you continue to see your "own take or interpretation" as trumping everyone elses edits. Wayne (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the editing history in total since mid January...seems all the things you are arguing that were eliminated are now still in the article...as shown here...so what the heck are you still whining about?--MONGO 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • MONGO: Edits are judged on their individual merits. If an editor declares that he's not objective, then there is cause to review their edits carefully and it somewhat negates assuming good faith, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of constructive input. Wayne: There is a consensus as to what are reliable sources with respect to this topic. Popular Mechanics and NIST are reliable sources. That doesn't mean they're perfect sources, but it does mean that contrary information will have to be backed up by solid evidence. Can we all get back to writing an encyclopedia? Peter Grey (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If an editor openly states that they refute what is believed by the vast majority of engineers and scientists and fail to provide solid, peer reviewed and scientifically credible alternatives, then they are acting on their hunches and that will reflect in their edits. The encyclopedic intergrity of this website is undermined when we give any quarter to those that want to misuse it as a soapbox or advocacy point for conspiracy theories. We have other articles that do discuss the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 related events...this one is supposed to be about the facts and as such, isn't to be misused by those that are overtly advocating the impossible.--MONGO 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Peter Grey: Although I consider the PM article as POV as conspiracy websites (which is backed by RS) I never edited regarding them. I never claimed NIST was not a RS and all my edits are supported by NIST. You are being sucked in by MONGOs disinformation.
Reply to MONGO: If you are refering to me as the one refuting "what is believed by the vast majority of engineers" then you are outright lying as is proved by what I wroteon my user page. Despite requests to cease ignorant, false and irrelevant personal attacks you continue. I'm assuming you are not a moron so you are obviously hoping people will accept your accusations without checking for themselves but it's time to stop before you get reported. I'm getting a little sick of defending myself against such obviously false claims because most editors tend to take your word for it instead of reading for themselves exactly what it was I said. Wayne (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am a moron and a liar and ignorant I suppose...since no one seems to agree that the steel eating termites are one of the possibilities that might have helped facilitate the collapses, then I guess we'll have to stick to reliable sources...and do our best not to take NIST and other accredited sources out of context to suit out mistaken biases. However, what I am wondering is, and what I have tried to get you to explain to myself and others following this, is simply for you to explain how you can use reliable sources when you call them BS (as is the case of the Popular Mechanics article and say that NIST "cheated" to obtain their results? If NIST cheated on even the smallest thing, then why would you support using them as a reference at all? I mean, how can you trust them if you feel they cheated? Are you denying that you have openly stated that you find these reliable sources to be either BS or the results of cheating? Just above you state that the Popular Mechanics article is as "POV as conspiracy websites"...you then say there are reliable sources (RS) to back up this claim...where...where are these reliable sources that say the Popular Mechanics article is as POV as a conspiracy website?--MONGO 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WLRoss, do you think there should be any changes to the article, or are you satisfied with it as it is now? Tom Harrison Talk 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems all by two of my edits are back in the article which is a vindication of sorts although it would be nice to get an apology from MONGO in regards his accusations. The missing two I still feel are important. Although the article now includes my edit that Robertson was one of the chief engineers it still says that he designed the WTC. Technically this is sort of correct as it is qualified by saying he was one of the engineers but the wording still implies he designed substantially more of the WTC than he actually did which gives him undue weight. The other missing edit is what Robertson told NIST about his study which is extremely important in giving it it's due weight in comparison to Skillings study. Wayne (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll look it over, but frankly, this entire article needs an overhaul...it has a CT slant that needs to be eliminated if anyone is ever going to think it is based on facts.--MONGO 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
WLRoss, thanks. I share Mongo's concerns just above. There's always room for improvement, but what reliable sources would you use to support the changes you suggest? Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Easy. Instead of saying "In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers", you can say "Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers who participated in the structural design of the towers" which is factual with no implications. You don't need a reference for this as it's common knowledge and a rearrangement of the current text although the wording is NIST's if anyone gets pedantic. As for the second edit you can use the NIST report as the ref "Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, recalled he "addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity". The National Institute of Standards and Technology was unable to document this reported study as Robertson says he cannot find a copy. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his department, say they have no knowledge of the study". This is I believe a direct quote from NIST and I would not have a problem with it as a note to reduce any implication NIST is supporting any view. It does however serve the function of rightly reducing the weight of this study compared to Skillings which NIST was able to document. It needs to be remembered that the WTC was Robertsons first high rise job after graduation and he had no more expertise in this aspect of design than what he was taught at school. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The first proposal is unacceptable. It says the same thing with less clarity and in poorer style. The second is not even an edit proposal; it's a commentary several degrees removed from the subject matter of the article and is completely irrelevant. Peter Grey (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to how to view your reply. You can argue poor style but arguing clarity is rediculous as my edit is more specific and avoids the current ambiguity. How would you word it? As for the second edit, how can you say it's irrelevant when it's in the NIST report as a qualification of the claim? If irrelevant you also in efect argue that Robertsons claim be deleted entirely, after all it is a single persons undocumented claim, it is impossible to verify the reports prior existence and in it's current form would normally be a violation of WP policy (eg:"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article" NIST does not support the way it is presented without the qualifier). I'm not arguing for deletion but giving it due weight although if you are concerned with irrelevence I guess we can delete Robertsons claim although i prefer to retain it. Wayne (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Peter Grey. That seems unclear, and a bit tendentious if I understand the suggestion correctly. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
What is unclear about removing the implication Robertson designed the towers by himself? For the second edit are you saying we should delete the claim or are you saying NIST themselves are being tendentious in dismissing it? We don't have to use NISTs exact words, we can reword to shorten it. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
These are not good-faith suggestions. The intent is clearly to introduce redundancy and reduce clarity, not improve it. Peter Grey (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Please show good faith and explain what is redundant and how adding NISTs own qualifier reduces clarity. Wayne (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
who participated in the structural design of the towers introduces no new information. Peter Grey (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said it did. It removes a POV implication that Robertson was more involved in design than he actually was which gives him undue weight. Robertson himself said the study he did was "only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity" and NIST was clear that they could not document that it had existed yet the way the article is written his study has more weight than the WTC official study. The presentation here is in clear violation of several WP policies. Please reply to my previous question. Wayne (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no such implication. Peter Grey (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There clearly is such an implication. The sentence is ambiguous, as written. It can easily be read that one engineer was THE (member of a team) whose individual duties were to design the WTC, which is clearly not the case. As we've seen before, MONGO and his ilk will remove even the most minor of grammatical corrections in order to prevent anyone not a member of their cabal from modifying this article, which they claim to WP:OWN. Maybe we need a Wikipedian loyalty oath for anyone working on this article: that you're not a governmental employee, that you're not a Muslim and that you're not a Jew. Wowest (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That's hardly an 'easy' interpretation, but it's fixed, just in case. Peter Grey (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

South Tower Tilt

One of the more curious aspects of the collapse of the towers is the strong tilt of the top 30 floors (approximately) of the south tower following the initiation of collapse. For illustration, see the photographs here, here, and here. The top portion is said to have tilted to this angle in approximately 2.5 seconds, implying a large amount of angular momentum and shifting of the center of gravity. Intuitively, one might expect this section to continue tilting until it toppled and fell freely to the ground. In reality, it either (1) disintegrated into dust and fragments, as suggested by the photographic evidence, or (2) tilted back to fall down through the lower portion of the building, crushing it uniformly and straight down; as asserted by the NIST. Tilting back would also seem to suggest (counter-intuitively) that the upper portion abruptly stopped following the path of least resistance, and instead descended through the path of greatest resistance; directly down through the building.

I think it would be worthwhile for this article to offer at least a brief explanation of the physics and mathematics of what happened here. If the tilt of the upper portion was arrested as a result of disintegration in mid-air, what caused the disintegration? If it lost its angular momentum (and the lopsided crushing effect of having its center of gravity shifted strongly to one side of the building), what caused that loss of momentum and tilt? Has this aspect of the collapse been structurally modeled to provide a plausible explanation? Curious minds would like to know. The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the rotation and horizontal translation. (Both occur, but are linearly independent.) Is there something specific that needs to be made clearer? Peter Grey (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, a reference to a structural analysis of the effects of the "rotation and horizontal translation", if you want to call it that. I think it would be good to include a summary of the findings of the analysis (assuming that one exists) in Wikipedia as well. There was certainly some shifting of load there (the photos would imply a lot of load being shifted), and since this would appear to be a major feature in the collapse of the south tower, it would be interesting to know how and why it progressed in the seemingly implausible way that it did. If no engineering analysis of this aspect of the collapse exists, then that information would be useful to note in Wikipedia, since it would spare individuals like myself from searching for something which doesn't exist; and perhaps motivate an initiative to have it analyzed. The Original Wildbear (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If it's that hard to find, it will most likely be WP:FRINGE or WP:OR, the fact that no reputable third party has covered it most likely means it doesn't bear mentioning. Wikipedia is not the place to "initiate" things either a la WP:SOAPBOX. Soxwon (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll go a step further. If no engineering analysis of this aspect of the collapse exists, then it should not be in Wikipedia. As Soxwon says, that's called original research and it's not allowed on Wikipedia. If only fringe sources have covered this, then it too should not be in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
What aspect appears implausible? Peter Grey (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The alleged tilt. I haven't checked those particular photos, but photos from different angles frequently show a signfificant pseudo-tilt, and http://911research.wtc7.net has been known to host — shall we say, retourched — photographs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that reliable sources (at least, a presentation at NIST) indicates a tilt. However, the significance of that tilt in the collapse seems questionable, per Soxwon above. <begin WP:OR>It tends to suggest irregular weakening of the building's structural integrity, which is not completely surprising. When the effictive structural integrity becomes inadequate to support the weight of the structure above, that part goes into free fall, and the horizontal velocity becomes essentially constant.<end WP:OR> But we can't include any of this in the article unless a reliable source reports on it, and we shouldn't include it unless a reliable source comments on the significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The first of the three sets of photographs is credited to Amy Sancetta of the Associated Press, and appears in the Washington Post here. The third photo down on this page in 911research also appears on page 2-36 of the FEMA report, here. While the FEMA report includes this photograph, it does not appear to make any attempt to analyze or describe it, other than the photo caption: "Figure 2-32 The top portion of WTC2 falls to the east, then south, as viewed from the northeast." In the NIST NCSTAR 1 final report (17MB)(section 6.14.7, page 152), it states that "the tilt to the east was seen to increase to 20 degrees until dust clouds obscured the view." I'm not finding any further analysis of the tilt in the NIST report. The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: On page 153, table 6-11 in the NIST NCSTAR 1 report, it states "The tilt to the east rose to approximately 25 degrees before dust clouds obscured the view." The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What sort of 'analysis' of the tilt do you think there should be? I don't see what there is to add to "building collapse in progress." Peter Grey (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The analysis of the cause of collapse, and thus the investigation as a whole, is incomplete without this information. The most important unanswered question being, was the total collapse purely gravitational, or were other factors involved? Some of the issues which need to be addressed are as follows: By the NIST's report, the upper section of the building was leaning some 20 to 25 degrees. It acquired this tilt within only a few seconds of the initiation of collapse. A thirty-story section of the building rotating 20 to 25 degrees within several seconds implies that a considerable amount of angular momentum was present, and possibly also a large shifting of the load on the lower portion of the building. The questions then arise, was the load redistributed on the lower portion, and if so, by how much? Was the load shifted enough that an asymmetrical collapse should have been expected, rather than the uniform, straight-down collapse which was observed? What was the angular momentum of the rotating section, and what became of that angular momentum? Where was the fulcrum or center of the rotation? Did much of the leaning section disintegrate in mid-air, or did it all get pulverized against the lower portion of the building and/or the ground? In NIST's NCSTAR 1 report, in table 6-11 on page 153, it states that the (observed) "tilt to the east rose to approximately 25 degrees." It compares that to the simulation, in which it says, "At point of instability, there was tilting to the south and east." How much tilting was indicated by the simulation? Why was it not presented in the report? Providing basic figures such as these would help us to gain a sense of the accuracy of the models, which is needed if the NIST's results are to be taken as authoritative. Having said all of that, I acknowledge that I have not (yet) found authoritative sources answering the questions that I have raised. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are not valid questions, or that answers will not be forthcoming. We should keep our minds open on the issue. The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up on one of the other 9/11 articles and thought it might be helpful here. The 9/11 terrorist attacks have been extremely well-covered by numerous reliable sources. If you're having trouble finding reliable sources about something, that's a good indication that it should not be in Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources should be (relatively) easy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The tilt has been addressed by at least one engineer in support of NIST but I can't remember his name. If I remember correctly he claims the fulcrum of the tilt at it's worst was still within the footprint which prevented the building falling over before the floors beneath collapsed pulling the top section back upright. Why do editors debunk before searching for info? It must be out there as I've read it. Wayne (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Can Arthur Rubin give me a link for retouched 911 WTC photographs please? I've been searching for a while and found several but the captions said they were retouched to show features (ie to show entire height of tower), some that were never intended to be taken seriously (such as the Hungarian tourist one) and I've also found lots of claims that official pictures were retouched but have been unable to find any that say any of the WTC conspiracy pictures were retouched with the exception of the ones that showed the devils face in the smoke but those can hardly be considered related to conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Your question is about horizontal translation, not rotation. For a building with such a large cross-section, a large horizontal movement would be necessary to cause a substantially asymmetric collapse, but there is no evidence of such forces or any plausible mechanism that might have caused them. Peter Grey (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This section is a very good example of what is wrong with WP when it comes to controversial subjects. WTC "editors" dismissing good faith questions. IE: "If it's that hard to find, it will most likely be WP:FRINGE or WP:OR" and "The alleged tilt. http://911research.wtc7.net has been known to host — shall we say, retourched — photographs." An answer like "Wikipedia is not the place to "initiate" things either a la WP:SOAPBOX" is not helpful to anyone. If you can't be bothered to help the guy don't reply to him. It took me under a minute to find dozens of reliable sources addressing the tilt including peer reviewed magazines such as "Mechanical Science and Engineering" and "Journal of Engineering Mechanics" making 99% of the replies in this section irrelevant. One of the more detailed of these RS is Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis By Zdenek P. Bazant and another is the NIST NCSTAR 1 report although it seems no one is familiar with either of these sources.
In reply to The Original Wildbear's original question at the top. The top 19 floors of the south tower tilted 8 degrees to the east and 4 degrees to the south before the building even began to collapse with the final angle, according to NIST, reaching 20 degrees to the east. The top 12 floors of the north tower tilted 8 degrees to the south before the collapse began but the final angle of tilt is disputed as it was obscured by debri. The south tower tilted towards the aircraft impact site while the north titled away from it, this discounts the aircraft being a major factor as both towers tilted towards where the most fire was seen. NIST’s report "does not actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST P82) so does not address the tilt beyond it's existence. NIST themselves said their inquiry was not forensic "that left no stone unturned" but solely a project that used data given them so is useless from an engineering standpoint. For that Bazant is probably best. Basically the tilted sections behaved as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. They fell at least one story in freefall (this was not observed because of dust but is required to validate the math) and impacted the lower sections with a force amplification of 31g. This force was considerably higher than the momentum of the tilt and, as the tilted sections centre of gravity was still within the buildings footprint prevented it from increasing significantly before the tilted sections hit the ground. According to Bazant the tilted sections were still intact at this point (having crushed the lower sections) and pulverised on impact with the ground. I should mention that Bezants calculations are incorrect as he used 71 GN/m for the stiffness of the columns where they were actually 7.1 GN/m so one floor of freefall is no longer enough but I don't think any other engineers have done any calculations with the correct figure so Bazant has to be used as the primary source. I hope this is of some help. Wayne (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What change to the article are you suggesting, and what's the source for it? Tom Harrison Talk 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I never suggested any change. I answered a question put forward by an editor. The fact that The Original Wildbear asked for info and that supposedly informed WTC editors are ignorant about the tilt and tried to debunk it instead of fact checking (despite it being in the literature they should have read) indicates it might need to be in the article though. If you read all my previous post you will see the source is Bazant and NIST. Wayne (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What specifically "might need to be in the article"? Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The tilt is on film - no-one is suggesting it didn't happen. The question was about centre of gravity, and why there is no detailed anaylysis of the horizontal translation "caused" by the tilt, the answer being that there's nothing to analyse because these are independent. Peter Grey (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is nothing to analyse then why did Bazant analyse it? Wayne (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If they study ppl's faith in God does that prove it existed? A study does not give it weight, this is a trivial matter and doesn't deserve inclusion in an article. Soxwon (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Bazant did not analyse tilt as a part of the collapse, he analysed tilt to demonstrate its irrelevance. Peter Grey (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to commment on these two statements:

This section is a very good example of what is wrong with WP when it comes to controversial subjects. WTC "editors" dismissing good faith questions

The fact that The Original Wildbear asked for info

But this isn't the place to ask informational questions. This is for discussing improvements to the article. If someone has an informational question, Wikipedia has a place for that. It's called the Reference Desk. As long as the question can be answered in factual manner (and doesn't require legal or medical advice, personal opinion, etc.), it can be asked there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to ask you to read the posts made in this section. The Original Wildbear wrote, and I quote: "I think it would be worthwhile for this article to offer at least a brief explanation" and then in his next post "I think it would be good to include a summary of the findings of the analysis (assuming that one exists) in Wikipedia....If no engineering analysis of this aspect of the collapse exists, then that information would be useful to note in Wikipedia". I may be alone but I see this as implying The Original Wildbear was suggesting an improvement with the info he requested being what to use in the edit. Wayne (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Controlled demolition (conspiracy) theories

Spartelite wrote: Changed "Controlled demolition conspiracy theories" to "Controlled demolition theories". The concept of controlled demolition is not in itself a conspiracy theory, and should not be labeled as such.
To which Peter Grey replied: if so, show a counter-example
I submit the following:
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, April 08, 2008, 2, 35-40 includes: "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" (pdf) 2008, Volume 2, pp.35-40
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley
"Controlled demolition" is mentioned as a possible explanation for the collapse at least three times in this document.
"The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering."ref The Original Wildbear (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting, but aren't you citing a site involved in pharmaceuticals and bio-chem for an engineering article? Soxwon (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It makes no difference what he is citing as the current section name is grammatically incorrect, or bad English if you don't know what that means. The section in effect says that conspiracy theories are part of conspiracy theories. To include "conspiracy" in the section title is also POV pushing as NIST did not investigate controlled demolition conspiracy theories, they rejected controlled demolition. Wayne (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the document is not publicly available, the claim is unverified. Besides, the pseudo-science is only half of the conspiracy theory - it's also a conjecture of a secret demolition. Peter Grey (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Peter, the site apparently uses scripting which prevents direct linking to articles. To read the article, you first open the link, which takes you to "The Open Civil Engineering Journal" page. Then select Volume 2, year 2008. All of the articles for that volume are then listed. The article of interest is the fifth article down, pp.35-40. The Open Civil Engineering Journal states in its procedures, and I quote: "All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees."ref This is more than can be said for the NIST report, which has not allowed its data or its methods to be fully open to peer review. If anything is pseudo-science, it's the NIST's alleged science; since allowing one's hypothesis to be open for peer review is at the foundation of legitimate scientific principles. The Original Wildbear (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If I can edit on Wikipedia, maybe I've already figured out hyperlinks. Peter Grey (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The usefulness of Bentham has been discussed elsewhere in considerable detail. See Talk:7_World_Trade_Center/Archive_6#Regarding_that_Bentham_article. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Your attacks on NIST undermine your own cause, if you wish to stop quoting pseudo-scienctists like Steven Jones, then maybe you'd get some traction Soxwon (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I make no apologies for criticizing any person or entity which claims to be doing science but which will not allow its methods and data to be peer reviewed. Because it has not allowed independent peer review of its work, to refer to the NIST's methods as "science" is bogus. Steven Jones has invited the NIST to review his findings, and I quote from the Deseret News: "Jones wants NIST to look at new evidence he found in Ground Zero dust samples since leaving BYU. The dust is full of iron-rich spheres and red-gray chips with the chemical signatures of high-tech cutter-charge explosives that he said could explain the collapsed towers. The spheres come from molten metal that Jones said could be caused by cutter charges." Ref, page 2 The USGS has also conducted a particle analysis of the WTC dust and it also found iron-rich spheres. Ref So it doesn't really matter whether or not Jones' findings are accurate; the USGS found (at least in part) the same thing. The NIST gave no accounting of these iron-rich spheres in its NCSTAR 1 final report, despite the implication that a substantial amount of iron was raised to liquification or gassification temperatures, allowing the spheres to form via surface tension from material in the air. The "Bentham Article" commentary provides no references, so I don't see how it can be validated as anything other than one person's opinion. The Original Wildbear (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Why does everyone get a bee in their bonnet about conspiracy theories when the issue in question IS NOT about conspiracy theories? It's a matter of proper grammar. I would also point out that The Original Wildbear's "attack" on NIST undermines nothing because he stated a fact that is public record. To be an attack his claim must be slightly disputed by at least one person which it is not. And just because someone supports a conspiracy theory does not negate their qualifications. Steven Jones is not a "pseudo-scienctists" (sic). If you need to argue against an edit please use a legitimate reason rather than the "oooh it looks like a conspiracy theory" arguement. Wayne (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter of proper grammar. Peter Grey (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? This is not an article on conspiracy theories. The section has links pointing readers to conspiracy theories. NIST reject controlled demolition not controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What? That made no sense. Steven Jones is not a credible source (he was relieved of his professorship at BYU in 2006 for his ridiculous theories). Please come up with something better if you want to stick it in the article. Soxwon (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In my personal opinion (and it's only that, an opinion), the term "conspiracy theory" has been so overused and abused in recent years, that its use on Wikipedia should be deprecated. The major media is hamstrung from investigative reporting, for fear that they be seen as "conspiracy theorists". Scholars are dissuaded from conducting scientific research on open and unanswered questions, for fear of the "conspiracy theorist" label. People of all walks of life are intimidated against openly asking questions. The bulk of the current problem may have began when, in a speech before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, President Bush said, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." Ref Ever since then, "conspiracy theorist" has been the attack weapon of choice by those who support the Bush Administration policies to use against those who question those policies. Most of the ongoing controversy could have been avoided if President Bush had taken a different approach: demand an immediate, full investigation. Testify on what he knew; independently, under oath, and on the record before the American people. Demand that evidence be preserved, and hold accountable anyone who allows evidence to be destroyed. Demand that all research departments of the federal government hold to the highest standards of scientific validity and accountability to the public. Because none of these things were done, a bitter controversy remains. I would like to see Wikipedia play a part in toning the issue down, and giving a fair and balanced voice to all who have something legitimate to say on the issue. To help in this endeavor, it should try to strip out the use of "conspiracy theory" as much as possible. The term is inflammatory; especially when used in reference to intelligent citizens who are making a sincere effort to learn the truth about what is going on in the world around them. The Original Wildbear (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
But you then run into problems with people who are looking for something. If there is nothing to find most will let it be. But there are always those, whether for profit or for some other reason, who will not be satisfied and will continue to search until they eventually manufacture the proof they need that there is a 'conspiracy' afoot and then take these findings and proclaim them tru no matter how mucht they have been disproved. Wikipedia is not your platform to rail against the use of "conspiracy theory" and therefore you need to submit verifiable and non-fringe material if you want to be taken seriously. Soxwon (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"the term 'conspiracy theory' has been so overused and abused in recent years, that its use on Wikipedia should be deprecated" On Wikipedia, that's a reason to use the term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, in a nutshell, if you think that controlled demolition caused the towers to collapse, you are ignorant...that is not, BTW the same thing as saying one is stupid...ignorant simply means uneducated on the issues. A conspiracy is a legal term, implying the involvement of two or more people, generally in a pejorative manner, however, implicating wrongdoing. Natually, only two people couldn't have blown up the buildings, so any conspiracy would have had to involve many more than two people...how many who knows...the more people, the less liklihood something can be kept secret. Furthermore the NIST reports were also based on the research obtained from non-government engineers and specialists, not just federal employees. These specialists are all licensed by various engineering and other entiies, and it is rather implausible to believe that they would willingly risk their licenses as well as professional denouncement by supporting something (in this case, controlled and government sanctioned demolition) for which there was zero evidence. Occam's razor applies....the easiest explantion is usually the right one...the implausibility of a rouge enterprise within the federal system or outside entities pulling off such an orchestrated effort and keeping all silent is zilch. So calling it what it is, non mainstream supersitions regarding the events of 9/11 are routinely stated by almost all major sources as conspiracy theories.[7],[8], [9]--MONGO 18:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Soxwon, please do not lie to push your views- Steven jones..was relieved of his professorship at BYU in 2006 for his ridiculous theories. Jones was put on paid leave pending a review of his work which was dropped by the University despite Jones own request for it to continue. Jones retired. Wayne (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You're mixing up cause and effect, he retired while still on leave b/c of the investigation. If he really wanted it to have continued he would have stayed. He left b/c his credibility was shot (what respectable university is going to support some dingbat promoting crackpot theories?). Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to MONGO, NIST reports were ..based on the research obtained from non-government engineers and specialists is a false claim as NIST did not investigate CD at all but rejected it outright as implausible. Everyone keeps telling The Original Wildbear to submit verifiable and non-fringe material if he wants to be taken seriously but he seems to be the only one doing it ;-) Wayne (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1) There is no reason to think that the NIST rejected demolition "outright", as opposed to seriously considering all possibilities and then rationally concluding that demolition was implausible. 2) There is as yet nothing supporting the idea that there exist controlled demolition theories which are not controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Peter Grey (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth would they research something that has absolutely no credibility and is supported by the same ppl who entertain the notion that the earth is flat? Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(reply to Soxwon) Richard Gage, AIA, and over six hundred architects and engineers promote Gage's controlled demolition theory, which is not a conspiracy theory. He has been quoted, by reliable and verifiable sources, as stating that he is not a conspiracy theorist, and he offers no explanation whatsoever for who planted the explosives. He rejects attempts to draw him into such speculation. He says that he is like a policeman who has just come across a crime scene. He merely draws attention to the fact that a crime has been committed. It is for a later investigation to determine "who done it." Try actually looking at the information on http://www.ae911truth.org/
which is a 9/11 truth site, and not a conspiracy site, by any stretch of the imagination.
(reply to earlier rant by Soxwon) It is documented that Steven Jones was put on administrative leave after he succumbed to baiting and parroted another scholar's opinion that "bankers" were behind the 9/11 events. Such speculation is outside his area of professional expertise, and merely qualifies as an unfounded personal opinion (like the stuff you say). He was usually more careful than that, but that particular comment led to false accusations by the typically defamatory Anti Defamation League that Jones was "anti-semitic" because the word "banker" always really means Dzhooze. It was only following this accusation that Jones was placed on leave pending an investigation of his "increasingly accusatory and speculative" claims. His professional reputation has not suffered at all and neither has the accuracy of his scientific work. Your derogatory comments about him appear to be a BLP violation.
The relevant but mostly unmentioned issues relate, primarily, to the dust cloud. An unknown energy source began dessication and pulverization of the concrete in both towers before they started to collapse. A significant photograph is available on http://www.ae911truth.org/ . Although the notorious Popular Mechanics article claims that the floors pancaked "with pulverizing force," Hearst productions cannot be considered a reliable source for this particular topic, and, scientifically, there is no current explanation, from any source, for the tiny size of the dust particles, which would have required greater energy than that from the combined force of gravity and all available hydrocarbon oxidation. There is mention of the tiny iron spheroids in some governmental reports, but only Steven Jones and a small group of associated scientists have produced any explanation for them or any significant qualitative analysis of the formerly molten metal.
I note that "Hut" has added the term "conspiracy theory" to the heading in the article itself without consensus, but I shall leave it so someone else to correct that. Wowest (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem Wowest is that Gage himself admitted that he is working beyone his ability:

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which ‘collapsed’ on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

They then further damage their own cause by asking for money and selling products. The "list of credible engineers and scientists" is very questionable if you are going by sites like 9/11 truth and AE 9/11 Truch, which I've found would allow ppl to join as "qualified engineer," as long as I'll sign their petition. (heck they even let a Hans Van Willingenburg, a dutch TV guy join as a "building professional." Gage also hasn't done a bit of original work, mostly copies Griffin, Jones, and Hoffman. The controlled demolition theory is a conspiracy theory and shall remain labeled as such. Soxwon (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact that proponents of the idea deny that it is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean anything. If the idea is discussed in reliable sources it is almost always referred to as a conspiracy theory, and so we should continue to refer to it as such. I didn't "add" it, I reverted some new editor who removed it who evidently didn't know this discussion is taking place. Hut 8.5 07:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please cite a "reliable" source that says that the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. Inquiring minds want to know that you are editing in good faith. Wowest (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you bothered to go up to google, type in 9/11 conspiracy controlled demolition, and searched with news and w/scholar you'd find hundreds of reliable sources applying the label. However, common sense would dictate that a crackpot theory would fit the label. Soxwon (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You are falling into the trap of misdirection Wowest. This is not about what conspiracy theories are. It is about a grammatical change to a section name. The section should not be about conspiracy theories but about NIST rejecting CD. The section has a redirect if you are more interested in the conspiracy theories than the mainstream article on the collapse. NIST did not consider/investigate CD conspiracy theories but rejected CD which is an actual demolition technique and is worded that way when NIST mentions it. Do we call all other building CDs CD conspiracies? No, they are CDs so why do we have to use the label inappropriately here? Wayne (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Because for it to have been a CD would have meant a 'conspiracy,' since this particular CD would have had several thousand ppl still in the building. I'm not a contractor but I don't think that is regular procedure. And the acknowledged cause for the collapse isn't CD so to assert CD is what happened would be a minority fringe POV and thus a conspiracy theory. Now can you plz stop being nonsensical. Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. No one claims CD happened. NIST looked at CD as a technique and ruled it out. "for it to have been a CD would have meant a conspiracy, is irrelevant as NIST never investigated any conspiracy theory. As I said, the section should not be about conspiracy theories but about NIST rejecting CD which by extension excludes the conspiracy theories so I can't see your problem. The current title is not grammatical and as such is POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how calling the kettle black is a personal attack, your argument is nonsensical. Your argument might (and that's a huge might) makes sense if it weren't for several problems most notable of which is that it would be a conspiracy regardless of whether or not NIST accepted or rejected. If CD were the case you are faced with several scenarios, yet you can't come up with one that doesn't lead to a conspiracy. Now then, plz let it go. Soxwon (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Explain what your objection actually is; it clearly has nothing to do with actual grammar. Peter Grey (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I gave my objection but it seems we need someone qualified to explain it to you. Wayne (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If by someone qualified you mean a 9/11 Truther than no thnx. Your position doesn't seem to make sense as it centers around the idea that NIST rejecting CD should be the central focus of the passage. What about all the CTs regarding this idea? Should they be cast aside so that you can remove a bothersome label? Soxwon (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Scientific evidence about thermite used.

article : http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm It's a respectable source, which states that it has found unignited nano-thermite inside building remains. This should be added to the article. I intentionally don't place this with the consp. theories, because it's a fact now. Whatever purpose it was, that's something for the consp. theories maybe. Marminnetje (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists have previously managed to publish material in a Bentham Open journal because the journal in question did not have a proper peer review process (see the archives of Talk:7 World Trade Center and Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎), so the source isn't credible. It's still a violation of WP:UNDUE to give the conspiracy theories anything more than minimal weight in this article. Hut 8.5 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No one is going to sort through years of archives of discussion pages to find what you are talking about. You have not shown any evidence that the Bentham Open Journals do not have a proper peer review process, nor do you define what constitutes a proper or improper process. Please either reference a specific page with the discussion or repost the basic evidence for improper review. bov (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If it has Steven Jones in it, it probably isn't that reliable. Soxwon (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 6#Reference to architects, engineers and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories and Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 6#Engineering community again contain extensive discussions of Bentham and the review process or lack thereof. Please read those discussions before reopening it here. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists? Why do you people think you have a right to put libel on these scientists? Source is reliable; it was carried by Raw Story, who is also reliable. In the terminology you folks use here, put up or shut up already. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Raw Story? Reliable? No way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Niels Holger Harrit Associate professor from Department of Chemistry [11], Copenhagen University is interviewed on TV_2_(Denmark) news, Denmark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3oCallmeMads (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Article in danish [12] on the same in Politiken CallmeMads (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source and I cannot read Danish. Anyway, there are plenty of English reliable sources so there's no need to resort to foreign language articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No but YouTube is just a media, the source is TV_2_(Denmark). Just like Wikipedia is a media and thats why the contents should be properly sourced. Just because you can't read Danish doesn't mean that Politiken is not a reliable newspaper :). No matter how little danish you can read the status of Politiken as a newspaer is unchanged. If we had to only use sources from language we understod, we couldn't make many articles here could we? CallmeMads (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
this link is chosen not as a source, but just to show you the links to plenty of reliable sources in Denmark that has written about this: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090412143451291 CallmeMads (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"No but YouTube is just a media, the source is TV2." Irrelevent. Since anyone could have uploaded the video, they could have altered it. This has been discussed numerous times on Wikipedia. Sorry, it doesn't qualify. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is the mainstream peer reviewed article (from 9 scientists finding nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center) not in this Wikipedia entry or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories wikipedia entry? It's not even in the talk pages other than this conversation. What is going on Wikipedia? I have read that 'Wikipedia editors livid over new 'Active Thermitic Material' paper' and that the ruling elite of Wikipedia editors/controllers www.prisonplanet.com/wikipedia-renames-911-controlled-demolition-page-to-a-conspiracy-theory.html Wikipedia renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a “conspiracy theory”]

Here are a couple of links for interest:

Has anyone else seen this video and article? It's kind of weird to think that the conspiracy theorist were right but now they have the scientific evidence to back up the explosion theories.They have found both ignited and non ignited nano-thermite and say there could have been anywhere from 10-100 tons of this in the WTC buildings to bring them down. They concluded it was not the planes that brought the buildings down but these secondary explosives that the govt swore did not exist. I wonder why we have heard nothing about this in the states but it's going all over the other countries...

What other decent news agencies are cerrying this story?

Other articles of interest:

"911blogger"...that speaks for itself...odd...not a SINGLE news media has picked up this truly incredible finding...I mean, not even the BBC...not Reuters, not AP...none of them...Dr. Niels H. Harrit appears to have coauthored the piece with dismissed BYU professor Steven Jones...I can't find this info in any reliable source...[13]...instead, it is only found via CT websites like PrisonPlanetforum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=97287.0;wap2]...man, one would think that some reliable source would want to report this finding! Instead, these guys had to pay 800 bucks I suppose to get their "research" published[14]...beware a priori "scientists"....especially those that have been forced out by their universities (as has Jones) due to their wacky beliefs...it will fun watching this unravel after a proper explanation is provided.--MONGO 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reliable news outlets will be tripping over each other to scoop this story if there is any veracity. Why don't we wait for them to publish it? That's what WP:V requires us to do. Jehochman Talk 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the Danish news Deseret News an American Newspaper has also reported on this. they may not have the circulation of the New york times they are a reliable source. It's interesting that that not a SINGLE News media has picked up this finding MULTIPLE entities have. I would love to see the new york times pick up this item but I don't think we have to wait for them either. Yes it is fun watching Tony0937 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I assure you that anything verifiable would immediately be picked up by major press outlets. If you want news about Podunk, you can use the Podunk Times as a source. If you want a source for events in New York City, you should not be using the Podunk Times. Jehochman Talk 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Deseret News qualifies...and it does report what (as they latter clarify on page two that Jones was "Essentially forced to retire"...wonder why) Jones and his buddies have done with their a priori research...so, as I tried to indicate, maybe this incredible find will soon be validated by non biased, non CT believing scientists that haven't been forced to retire. But here's the real fools gold...just think about it...the only way to cover up the use of thermite is to fly planes into the buildings...sure...that makes so much sense...lets cover up one massive conspiracy with an one that is infinitely more massive. I'm hoping that a real scientific journal will publish Dr. Niels H. Harrit and Jones's paper...now we have hope! Yup...I can see it now...there's the U.S. Government, masters of little...surely if they can coverup the manned mission to the moon, the Easter Island monoliths and Cydonia (region of Mars) they can coverup what really really really happened on 9/11.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you think that was supposed to be funny. I think it is sad. If Bentham is not a a RS you should really take it up with Reliable sources Noticeboard Tony0937 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Bentham not has passed reliable source mustard on the notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a fee based publishing system...the hope is that if an article gets in there, a reputable entity might wish to publish it...one that has credentials to worry about.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Some journals depend on financing through libraries, some depend on direct subsidies. Others depend on advertising. This one is financed by those who publish there, and in this case, the fees have, according to the authors, been paid by their respective institutions. That's why it is called an open journal. Regardless of financing, any journal would be wary to publish anything that would be bogus or easy to refute, because neither libraries not other authors would pay for a journal that publishes bogus research. Please have a look a the CV of the editor-in-chief of the journal, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni. --Cs32en (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This and this entry in Reliable Sources Noticeboard are "inconclusive". The argument that it's not RS because its "a fee based publishing system" does not hold water Whether the upfront payment model corrupts peer review at open-access journals Tony0937 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya.--MONGO 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested--MONGO 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems that one of them was (Bentham is listed) Also what do you mean with the link to grey goo or are you just being tedious Tony0937 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats a start then...but still insufficient and the reasons why should be obvious. Nanotechnology used to develop thermite that would be almost undetectable...okay...but it's preposterous that it was used at the WTC...if the findings are correct there is another explantion than the one you are peddling. It would be more believable if the authors were unblemished...and they aren't. You have failed miserably in convincing me that they have anything worth reporting.--MONGO 05:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

MONGO, rather than arguing with single purpose accounts, why don't you go request some more topic bans over at WP:AE? I've had very good success there. Article talk pages page are not chatrooms, nor a venue for playing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU game. We've explained policy to these folks. If they insist on pushing paid-for-press sources and obscure local papers in order to get their CT content into Wikipedia, I think it's time to end the discussion. Jehochman Talk 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disgusted with not only the garbage being passed off as replies but the incivility and ignorance of the editors. Open access journals are generally not unreliable as it is up to the scientific community to decide, not sources that lack scientific credibility such as this. The case for Bentham is ambigious at worse. If you can't argue against an edit by using common sense and civility then you should not be replying as you only empower truthers by providing evidence that their opinion of WP editors is correct. Yes Jehochman you have had "very good success there". Not surprising considering you rarely have to prove your case to get the result you want. And yes I'm angry, because this section could have been resolved civily very quickly with the exact same results you want but instead you have been disruptive and used it as a personal playground. Wayne (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"I'm disgusted with not only the garbage being passed off as replies but the incivility and ignorance of the editors." Rather than indulging in the same behavior you condemn, it might be more useful to model the behavior you want to see. Tom Harrison Talk 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried that for many months but it just didn't sink in so I felt it was time to a little more honest. In fact I trod very lightly. Instead of critisizing me for trying to get this page back on track (re: WP: policies) people should be reading what they have actually been posting and apologising. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

MONGO has suggested that the authors of the paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal should publish it in another paper, and provided a list of such papers:

Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya.--MONGO 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested--MONGO 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the list of journals and publishers that MONGO refers to, I noticed that it actually includes Bentham Science Publishers. It also links to www.bentham.org, although other links in this section of the list are not working. --Cs32en (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardly surprising. MONGO once reverted a quote I added claiming it was conspiracy theory ridiculousness not supported by scientific or relaible (sic) evidence, he also warned I could be banned if I tried to edit again. I had in fact cut and pasted it directly from the NIST report itself. Even after I pointed this out other editors came in to support him against me. Another instance was his reverting my changing "adjacent" to "nearby" in regards to the proximity of WTC7 to WTC1. My arguement was that adjacent was clearly wrong as WTC6 stood between them and using it implied empty space between the two buildings. He argued that "by Manhattan standards, they were adjacent" and again he got support. This is why editing 911 topics is so difficult. WP needs to be more proactive in controlling all editors of controversial articles. Wayne (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Bentham Open is that it operates more like a vanity press than like a scientific journal. It’s pay-to-publish, and rather than the editor overseeing the “peer review” process, the author basically gets to do so himself. At a cursory glance, it seems like authors pay a membership fee, but look closer: The “membership fee” is not an actual membership fee, but rather a buffer for publishing fees. [15] The editor-in-chief of the article that Jones et. al. published their paper in quit, because she didn’t even know about it and was insulted at having her name attached. (Here, let me google that for you.) — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, the actual paper does not demonstrate the presence of thermite, it only asserts the presence of iron and aluminium ash after the building collapse. Peter Grey (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The paper asserts that unexploded thermitic material has been found in the sample. This assertion may be factually wrong, of course.  Cs32en  01:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Article in www.WorldArchitectureNews.com

I suppose that this article deserves a note (which I may add at some point later if no one else does). salVNaut (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, including it would violate WP:UNDUE, and it's an opinion piece (published in their "Comment" section [16]). Hut 8.5 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's an article that does express the views of its authors, i.e. Gage, Roberts, and Chandler, and thus needs an inline attribution. It is not a comment, although the content management system of the site apparently puts articles, including texts written by the editor of the newspaper, in a section that is somewhat inappropriately named "Comments".
Niki May Young, the editor of World Architecture News, has written about the article that "the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration". [17] The comment from the editor of WAN makes clear that WAN actively approved the publication of the text, and most likely invited the authors to write it.
See also Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#The article in www.WorldArchitectureNews.com.  Cs32en  06:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a comment. The site evidently puts articles that only express personal opinions (including the personal opinios of the editor) as "comments", because they aren't backed by whatever editorial process the site has. The fact that the editor drew attention to the comment does not mean they commissioned it, or that they endorse its contents. The text in question fails WP:RS. Even if it didn't, I fail to see how it could be included in this article because of WP:UNDUE. Hut 8.5 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper article about technical aspects of the collapse

The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute

There isn't anything there that seems useful. The article seems to indicate that those that are doing the refuting are mainstream scientists. It fails to name names and fails to make it clear that the problems in the resultant data aren't that the vast majority of scientists and engineers actually believe that a conspiracy happened to bring down the towers, but that minute details of truly minor consequences and no change to what happened are the main issues that an extreme minority of "specialists" might disagree with regarding the findings of the NIST and other independent entities.--MONGO 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"seems to indicate that those that are doing the refuting are mainstream scientists" - Niels Harrit, for example, is not a fringe scientist, and most of the others have not advocated any fringe science. Jones' research in the field of cold fusion is valid, although early statements by former co-researchers of Jones have been proven wrong. Saying that a scientist is not mainstream only because his or her views on the destruction of the World Trade Center differ from NIST's is a circular argument.  Cs32en  06:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This article exhibits qualities of superior journalism. It is impressively well-researched, technically accurate, and comprehensive. It is fair and balanced — each argument is respectfully presented from both sides, with no obvious intention of bias. It is not condescending or insulting, and it doesn't use pejorative language. It treats its readers respectfully, whomever they might be. It doesn't get too distracted with people or politics, but instead stays focused on the important issue at hand: the science of the WTC building collapses. It presents evidence and arguments without getting mired in prejudices and beliefs. This is a refreshing piece of professional journalism, with qualities which should serve as a model for Wikipedia editors. Wildbear (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree about the bias. The article was written from a single, non-neutral POV. Other than listing NIST's findings, I could not spot a single counterargument or concession, for example questioning how super thermite might have been effectively applied. It also vastly oversells the extent of the dispute in the scientific community (reminding me of those creationist messages to "teach the controversy" with evolution). I think what you mean is that the article has a flat tone and is devoid of the charged language sometimes seen in the writings of both sides, which usually gets stripped quickly here by good editors anyway. But is it me or does it read like the writers have only been exposed to Truther literature? The journalistic tone creates the illusion of objectivity, but you must admit, that article is in no way objective. It is intellectually dishonest and we would never want a WP article written from such a restricted POV. -PorkHeart (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the authors seem to be more sympathetic towards the arguments critical of NIST's findings. However, they actually list a number of arguments that support NIST's conclusions. I'm not sure charged language gets stripped quickly here, the problem starts with the label "conspiracy theories" in the titles of some articles. I wouldn't advocate writing a WP article that follows the perspective of a single newspaper article, yet this article provides some counterweight to the bias of most other texts on this topic that can be found in mainstream media. By the way, how do we actually know what scientists generally think about these issues, with so few reliable sources that have written about the opinion of scientists? Most of these sources (i.e. Bazant and NIST itself) are not independent observers, but have themselves a stake in the outcome of the dispute, and even they do not provide any further information to substantiate their judgment about the opinions of scientists.  Cs32en  08:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There are very few (if any) engineering sources which dispute that the collapse was caused by fire, and the few which have bothered to comment on the validity of controlled demolition theories have dismissed them. I agree with PorkHeart that the article seems to have been written by somebody who read a load of Truther literature and decided to write an article based on it in the hope that it would be controversial. I should also point out that the Santa Barbara Independent is a local "arts and entertainment alternative press". I fail to see how we could possibly use this source in this article. Hut 8.5 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the authors, Jay Levin, is the founder of LA Weekly. While LA Weekly is not a science journal, of course, the author is obviously not a random somebody who happened to take an interest in the issue and felt the need to draw attention to himself. As for having read "Truther literature", Levin is writing a book about the issues, so I assume that he actually read some stuff both from NIST and its critics.  Cs32en  11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's not a scientific journal, it's an "alternative weekly" that "has been the premier source for award-winning coverage of Los Angeles music, arts, film, theater, culture, concerts, [and] events". Hut 8.5 12:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The journal is "alternative" in the sense that it is not being owned by a big corporation. Not being owned by a big corporation does not make a journal "fringe" or disqualify it as a Wikipedia source.  Cs32en  12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
LA Weekly does not have a reputation for journalist accuracy; it's "alternative" in the sense that each article has the POV of the author, which the magazine does not necessarily agree with. I don't think it's fringe, but it's not reliable except with respect to facts; the separation of fact from opinion is often difficult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Because he's writing a book, we can assume he's researching both sides with equal intellectual honesty? I don't think so. The fact that he's taking the time to write a book on alternative theories (which would only appeal to adherents of these theories, because who else would buy this book), and is invested in the idea that there exists this "great debate," means the book almost certainly wouldn't be objective. There is a difference between looking at both sides plus looking at rebuttals to the arguments of both sides, and only looking at one side's argument plus that side's view of the other side's argument. This is how this article reads. Consider these phrases: Tellingly, the critics note that the NIST report....Crucially, NIST denies that....Critical independent professionals pounce on all this....using BYU’s superb electronic microscope lab, then analyzed....Overwhelmingly, the independent professional critics accuse NIST.... (Now, which professionals would those be exactly?) Throughout the article, anyone who doesn't entertain alternative theories is a NIST defender. Anyone who challenges NIST is an independent professional. The article is a thinly veiled attempt to push one and only one POV. -PorkHeart (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
By your logic Popular Mechanics should have been writing a very different book since they were also writing about the same topic and National Geographic surely isn't targeting the right audience (which would only appeal to adherents of these theories, because who else would buy this book or watch the video).
What terms would you like for NIST Supporters and people who agree with NIST, and is the only acceptable term for anyone who challenges NIST "conspiracy theorist"? Jay Levin says “My own position on 9/11 was and remains, show me the facts and let’s see what’s there,” Maybe we all have our own viewpoint and inevitably it shows Tony0937 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge Tony0937's point, although Popular Mechanics and National Geographic are not individuals; in approaching the topic, both organizations put their long-established reputations and businesses on the line. This makes their findings more credible than, say, Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist. (Why do Truthers and creationists feel compelled to identify their expert witnesses with both their profession and their title? No one says "Dr. Carl Sagan, an astronomer.") As for the descriptive terms, how about the vast majority of independent professionals and a small minority of independent professionals? That would be both neutral and accurate. -PorkHeart (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Jay Levin, as the founder of LA Weekly, also has a reputation to lose. So we have one side characterizing all critics of NIST as loony conspiracy theories, and another side characterizing the supporters of the US government's account as defenders of NIST. Which of these two versions is more biased? As for Arthur Rubin's point about separating facts and opinions, I agree, and I wish we would do this more stricty with regard to other sources, too. Physics is the basic scientific discipline for analyzing many aspects of the topic. The various fields of engineering are actually just parts of physics, seen from a scientific perspective. Scientist will tell you physicists generally have more insight into the theoretical foundations of the field, compared to engineers. What's wrong with identifying the profession of someone that one does refer to, after all?
Last but not least: What makes you think that LA Weekly does not have a reputation for accuracy? What are your sources for other journals being more accurate?  Cs32en  22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the LA Weekly is highly accurate in its schedules of local rock clubs and its analysis of art trends. The mechanics of catastrophic high-rise collapse, perhaps not so much. Similarly, I'm sure the good Dr. physicist Jones is highly accurate in his ideas on muon-catalyzed fusion; qualitative dust analysis (which is chemistry, not physics, and certainly not particle physics) is just a bit out of his field. Of course we mustn't forget this invaluable contribution of his to the world of high-energy physics. (Call me crazy, but I think they got those marks from handling super thermite. Or was that nano-thermite? No, thermate.) Let's do the right thing and leave quoting the founder of an alternative street paper to articles on trendy SoCal musical styles. -PorkHeart (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The dust analysis is certainly both physics and chemistry. You need to know about physics to interpret the results of the spectroscopy. As for the his "invaluable contribution", read the conclusion, he doesn't say "Jesus Christ visited America". (The topic isn't really in my field of interest.) I do not support the conclusion: "not supported by big business", therefore "alternative", therefore "not accurate" and, even if maybe not outright "fringe", to be treated as such.  Cs32en  23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Rubin should be disregarded in WP because he isn't controlled by a corporation. He should be disregarded because he is not an authority in the related fields. He should be disregarded due to his intellectual dishonesty alone: NIST states there is no visual evidence for fires close to or in the core of the buildings (the buildings were not see-thru); NIST, some critics allege, could have pumped the statistics fed into the computer in order to achieve a pre-desired outcome (like looking specifically for possible thermite signatures in dust of dubious origin, or citing a single molecule of 1.3 diphenylpropane as "evidence"? No mention of similarities there); the yellow-reddish molten metal clearly seen pouring from one of the buildings (something yellow-reddish is seen coming out of the burning building; its composition cannot be determined from its visual appearance alone, a fact ignored by Rubin); Independent building professionals dismiss the NIST findings and defenders as prejudiced and irrelevant (so the observations of firefighters, who predicted at 2 PM that Building 7 would collapse, were prejudiced and irrelevant, huh?) Rubin is a dilettante in the field who uses intellectually dishonest techniques in his "journalism." WP should not quote such sources. -PorkHeart (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"He should be disregarded because he is not an authority in the related fields." -- Most news journalists are not authorities in the issues they are reporting on. We use these sources because they are independent observers, i.e. they do not have a stake in the outcome of the dispute. I don't think we should dwell on the single issues too much here, as that would digress into a discussion of substance, not sources. (I have not seen any statement that the yellow substance would not have been molten metal, so I don't see how reporting this as "molten metal" would be biased. (Note: You probably meant to write "Levin", not "Rubin".)  Cs32en  00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The "article" is an editorial by an unqualified writer; as is done in much non-journalism, it puts reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Peter Grey (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Reference 7/8: National Construction Safety Team (September 2005) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf is offline. Please fix PDF file link. 78.55.194.88 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed reference 7, and I'll work on the rest if time allows. Others are welcome to help; the references in this article need some work. 78.55.194.88, have you considered getting an account and helping out? Wildbear (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center/Archive_12&oldid=1079507362"