Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

old

This sounds like a conspiracy theory:

Some, however, speculate that it was decided by Larry Silverstein and the FDNY to demolish the building after the damage it sustained.

Larry Silverstein, who held a seven-week-old lease on One and Two World Trade Center and who had built World Trade Center 7, claimed in an interview that he, jointly with the New York Fire Department, made the decision to "pull" Seven World Trade Center, also known as the Salomon Building, and which was then the headquarters of the crisis and disaster command center for the mayor of New York City. Although this may refer to the decision to "pull" coverage of the building by firefighters in order to concentrate work on rescue efforts and other less damaged buildings with available water supplies, some claim that it is an obscure definition of "pull" which means to intentionally demolish a building. Details of how this intentional demolition was accomplished vary widely by theory, with some claiming that the explosives were pre-set weeks before the attack on Silverstein's orders.

Well, indications are Silverstein did say it. And somewhere there's a recording of a fireman saying the same thing. You'd better ask a city fireman what "pull" means to them. (Any readers in NYC?) (Firemen do knock buildings down, even ones not actually burning, if they figure it's needed to stop the spread of fire -- that's one of a Chief's powers, at least in Nova Scotia -- and that can be done by cutting the cornerposts, attaching a cable, and "pulling". Obviously that's not the method on a 47-storey steel-frame, but the euphemism may be the same. The questions would then be -- at the least -- if the building was in such dire straits, who went in to plant the explosives; why have all other controlled demolitions taken months to "pull" off; and how come FEMA couldn't find out this was the cause?)

In other matters, here's an interesting letter from a UL guy to a NIST guy about the likelihood of the observed fires collapsing the towers. "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans." (The "Link to Original" is broken =/) Kwantus 17:56, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

---

For the record, approximately five weeks ago I invited staff of Leslie E. Robertson's company (Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P, www.lera.com) to refute the critical statements made in this article of his WTC design. The invitation has been ignored. The text of my email invitation follows.

Greetings,

I am a writer for Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia at http://www.wikipedia.org. I am about to revamp an article in the encyclopedia dealing with the collapse of the World Trade Center. The current version of the article raises questions about your founder's choices in the structural design of the towers. The revised version will futher explore those questions. In the interest of fairness, I invite Lera to comment.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, editable by anyone. Superficially, this would seem to invite great chaos in the formulation of articles and a generally low prestige in academic, journalistic and professional circles. Although there is indeed some chaos in the writing/editing process, the result, in the majority of substantial articles, has been of surprisingly high quality. There have been documented cases of major media and even academic/professional publications using Wikipedia material as reference points, if not as references. In short, Wikipedia matters in general opinion formation today. In raw numbers, use of Wikipedia is on a par with entities like The New York Times On The Web, the online edition of The Wall Street Journal and the entire websites of Harvard University, Columbia University and MIT.

I felt some responsibility to send this email because Wikipedia's influence has risen to the extent that some real damage could be caused to your firm by the critical elements in this article.

You can view the article in question in its current form at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

A bit more than halfway into it, five major criticisms of the WTC's design are listed. I would be especially interested in knowing why you feel (if you do) that these criticisms are incorrect. If you are so kind as to provide me this feedback I will be sure to incorporate your viewpoints in the revised article. If you choose to do so, please communicate with me via the email address shown below. Alternatively, you can use the "Discussion" page for the article itself.

Sincerely,

JDG 19:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inacccuracies and misunderstandings about the 1970's aircraft impact calculations and 9/11 realities have been corrected. There is a big difference between an accidental (low-speed) collision and a deliberate ramming at beyond-Vmax speeds, because the kinetic energy changes on the second power relative to speed. Regards "[email protected]"

Regarding Larry Silverstein

A few additions:

Regarding Silverstein: NY Post -November 7, Page 24 By Sam Smith

Here is a quote: Silverstein spokesman Howard J. Rubenstein stated that "FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] conducted a detailed study and concluded that the collapse was caused by fires ignited by falling debris."

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=999

Why is Larry Silverstein's long detailed quotes about pull-it constantly being reinserted? This is a flimsy statement that no one can construe meaning of except Silverstein himself - they cannot be used in a court of law, they cannot point to any evidence, and the source being used - inn.globalfreepress - is primarily a conspiracy site, not promoting actual science.Bov 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The pull-it remark has gotten much more play than any other aspect of the collapse of Building 7. Someone first learning that there is a controversy surrounding Building 7 will likely first come across the pull-it remark, before learning that B7 was the first-ever case of the total collapse of a steel-framed highrise blamed only on fires, or that the collapse features match controlled demolitions. Will they go on and learn those facts? Maybe not if they land on any of these pages, which all come up first on a google search for 'pull-it', and which don’t discuss the physical features:

http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

http://www.vestigialconscience.com/Pullit.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69d.html

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Sprouts_Lehman.cfm

The pull-it remark figures even more heavily in sites debunking the claims of “conspiracy theorists”:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

http://pullit.info/

Most of these would lead the reader to believe that the pull-it controversy is the only issue about Building 7 highlighted by the “conspiracy theorists”. It’s the only allegation that the State De-partment page raises and attacks in its “Identifying Misinformation” page on the book ‘9/11 Revealed’

Thus the pull-it remark serves as a straw man, allowing conspiracy debunkers to pretend it’s the only disputed issue about the collapse of Building 7.

I suggest that the remark creates a smokescreen that makes it far less likely that people will become aware of the existence of and watch the videos before moving on, concluding that the Building 7 demolition controversy is yet another mirky conspriacy theory.

Bov 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• 7 WTC was not the first time a steel frame building has collapsed from fire alone because it didn't collapse from fire alone. There was substantial damage to the south face of the building, in some areas as deep as 25% of the depth of the building. Many buildings around 1/2 were damaged from falling debris. 7 WTC was not immune. --Durin 13:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

>>There was substantial damage to the south face of the building, in some areas as deep as 25% of the depth of the building.

1) Show me the evidence of this damage. 2) Damage to one face of the building would not cause a symmetrical collapse at near free fall speeds (all columns going out simultaneously) 3) WTC7 was across the street from the other WTC buildings, most of which were only in bits and pieces by the end of the collapse event. In contrast, many photos show WTC7 virtually untouched after the collapses.Bov 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1) There's plenty of evidence in the NST studies. 2) Please provide evidence of your qualifications as a demolitions expert/structural engineer/or other field speciality that gives you basis for your conclusion in (2) above. Reality; the collapse sequence lasted nearly a minute, and was not simultaneous. 3) 7 WTC was not directly across the street from either 1 WTC or 2 WTC. A number of closer buildings suffered considerably more damage from the collapse of 1 & 2. --Durin 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Show me the visual evidence from the NIST study of damage to WTC7 showing bulging walls or huge fires -- there is none. There is one photo of a damaged CORNER that no one had previously seen, but other than that, we don't even know what information led them to conclude that there was damage in the regions they say there was. 2) My qualifications are a degree in architecture, worked previously for the firm now rebuilding the WTC, and possess common sense and a basic understanding of physics. 3) The sequence did not last nearly a minute - It is widely accepted that both towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. 3) Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. Thus, the phrase There was substantial damage to the south face of the building, in some areas as deep as 25% of the depth of the building. has no evidence. At the very least it needs an exact reference to the study it comes from. Bov 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Read :"NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster, Federal building and fire safety investigation of the world trade center disaster, Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse, April 5, 2005"...it is readily available via the internet and all you'll need to view it is Adobe Acrobat. There is a through detailed study of how it collapsed. It has plenty of accompanying images as well.--MONGO 19:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Kevin Ryan:

Kevin Ryan tests water not steel and the company has issued a responce and explained why Kevin Ryan was incorrect By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN Tribune Staff Writer

"Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires. "

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/11/22/local.20041122-sbt-FULL-A1-Area_man_stirs.sto

Also see:

Fire-induced core column shortening detected.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

Regarding the "secondary explosions" "Once movement begins the entire portion of the building above the area of impact falls in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air is pushed through the impact area, fires burning in that area are fed by new oxygen and are pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion. "

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html Italic text

Explanation of removal of 'Aircraft Considerations' rewrite

To the anon user who rewrote the section comparing the 707 with the 767, I apologize for in effect reverting your contribution, normally I would have edited and blended statements but I could not devote that much time to it today. I plan to revisit this article in the next few days and I will then incorporate some of your points in modified form. I felt it best to go back to an earlier version immediately, though, because I believe your leading points are very speculative, particularly your assertion that the WTC design team modeled aircraft at takeoff and landing speeds and considered only them in their assessments of what the Towers might need to stand up against. I have read a number of statements clearly showing that typical cruise speed was also factored into the analysis: indeed, the foremost precedent on engineers' minds was the crash of a large military plane into the Empire State Building some decades before in which the aircraft was not in either takeoff or landing mode... So, your paragraphs are there in the history and I will go back to them when I have time to do some real editing. JDG 00:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm the anon user that posted that comparison to the article. First, I know you didn't comment on the accuracy of my calculations of the kinetic forces at play. I do want to make clear though that I was very careful in my calculations and I am quite certain that my kinetic energy calculations are correct with the 707 at the speeds stated in the FEMA report vs. the speeds lowest suggested speeds of the 767s that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2. I have heard a number of people assert that members of the design team say it was designed to withstand a 707 at cruise speeds. However, to date I have yet to see any cite that confirms this. Thus your assertion is, without a cite, frankly just an uncorroborated opinion. I was careful to cite my original assertion precisely for this reason; it's generated debate in other forums before. Regarding the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building; the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building was indeed a plane lost in fog in downtown Manhattan. An account of this incident is here: http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm. As for it being a "large military plane", the size of a B-25 bomber is nothing to a 707 or 767. Both planes have more than 20 times the fuel capacity and are 10 times the physical size of the B-25. For now, I will leave your additional, uncited, commentary in the article. I beg of you to reputably cite it. If you can't provide a reputable cite that substantiates the claim, then please remove it. Durin

Fair enough. I will search for a good reference. My recollection is based on a TV interview I'm doubtful I can find a transcript of and a New Yorker article I'll probably need to go to a library to track down. Stay tuned. JDG 04:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been a month now. I'm removing your countering argument from the article. If you find supporting, citable references to support your claim, then by all means put it back in. However, without citable references, we have to go with the cited FEMA report which stated the design criteria being a 707 at a relatively low speed. --Durin 19:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this edit, but now we have an internal contradiction: on one hand the text (and accompanying table) says: a case can be made that the design team actually modeled an aircraft with greater kinetic energy than those which struck; but the next paragraph now says The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times the modeled 707 impact. Clearly both can't be true, at least as worded. I propose that the "a case can be made" paragraph and the table need to go, while the factual statements remain -- this isn't the place to advance hypotheses. Jgm 12:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove/reword it. If you don't get to it first, I'll get around to it in a few days/weeks. I've never liked the flavor of this section of the article anyways. --Durin 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll have to cede this for the moment. Haven't been able to get to the library. Please keep this article on your Watch list. JDG 21:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

A few comments on featured article status

• I found the article a little hard to read, probably because the bulk of the article ("1 and 2 World Trade Center") is not divided into subheadings.
• The statement that an "apparently growing minority" does not feel the towers did well under the circumstance should be justified with some data. How many people (with an opinion that other people should care about) are we talking about? I realize it's very unlikely that data can be found on this (I envision monthly polls of structural engineers), but without data it's aggravating to read.
• I immediately labeled as BS the speculation that "a case can be made that the design team actually modeled an aircraft with greater kinetic energy than those which struck" until I read the discussion page. To avert this reaction in other readers, the table might have an extra line with the calculated number of joules (I assume), just to show that someone has done the math to justify this line.
• It is a leap to say that (a) the fact that the Boeing 747's eventual dimensions were known during the WTC planning (b) means that the performance of the towers was not admirable. It might mean at most that the planning was poor, which is still arguable.
• Since this article is about the collapse, I sort of expected a timeline.

Tempshill 22:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree with the above comments and would add a few of my own:
    • I am hesitant to support any article that uses the yin-yang construct (eg. "Some see [one thing]. . . others see [the opposite thing]") which is the weakest possible way to approximate NPOV. Specifically, the unreferenced calling out of the engineer by name is unfair and nearly libelous, IMO. In particular, the paragraph starting "After the aircraft impacts" is simply a mess; the kind of schizophrenic prose that is Wikipedia at its worst, not its best.
    • The word "radical" in the second paragraph is highly questionable; these buildings were, after all, designed in the 1960s and was never characterized as anything other than a solid design until after the attacks; by extension the entire article has a tone of unfair judgements in hindsight. Also, speculation on the content of an unreleased report seems questionable.
    • The section on the conspiracy theory regarding WTC7 just seems out of place and at odds with the factual tone of the rest of the article; in articles with similarly peripheral conspiracy theories (such as Space Shuttle Columbia disaster) the fringe stuff is covered in much less detail, identified explicitly as fringe thinking (with a link to conspiracy theory or moved to a different page altogether. Also, at some level this comes across as original research (that is, it seems to be one editor's analysis of material from the referenced PBS special) rather than anything directly referenceable.
    • The section comparing 707 to 767 is, by the editor's own admission on this talk page, essentially original research as well.
    • The technical description of the collapse sequence of 7 is, in contrast to the parallel description of the towers' collapse sequences, overly technical and difficult to understand. In fact, I'm not convinced that the demise of WTC7 is even within the intended scope of the article, which would seem to be better focused on the towers.
    • Minor nits: the first link in the article yields a pointless redirect; there are a few mis-usages ("their" instead of "there"); the word "Verizon" makes little sense as used; the term "hangman's drop" is, at best, unexplained jargon and at worst gobbledygook. There is no mention of the direct cause of the collapse (ie. impact by airliners) until deep into the article; part of the reason the article is difficult to read is that it does not effectively use news style.

Jgm 03:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm not going into a big defense of the article here. WikiP can take it or leave it as a FAC. I hope it's not just my ego talking, but I would have to say Jgm shouldn't be too high on anyone's list as a judge of good and bad writing. Let's just say I use WikiP as a sort of practice area and have solid credentials as a writer, including a number of awards. The paragraph he calls "simply a mess" and "schizophrenic" is actually, I feel, the best paragraph in the article. It manages to convey what I believe is the crux of the entire debate in a much clearer, concise way than is to be found almost anywhere. No, it is not standard "news style". It's more penetrating and thought provoking than that... The WTC 7 stuff is not mine and I'd prefer it be moved to its own article, but I didn't want to press for it... Gotta go, but I have to comment also on Jgm's statement: "The word "radical" in the second paragraph is highly questionable; these buildings were, after all, designed in the 1960s and was (sic) never characterized as anything other than a solid design until after the attacks". Totally wrong. Les Robertson was known as a leader in the early 60s of a new group of structural engineers proud to be mavericks and even "counter-cultural". Many an old-guard engineer shook his head over the plans for the Towers and there was open animosity between some of them and Robertson. If anyone expresses interest here, I'll back all this up. JDG 04:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Artisitic or professional rivalries aside, physics is physics. The buildings stood for 30 years and withstood one bombing. Details on the animosity you speak of, if documented somewhere, might make an interesting addition to the main article on the towers themselves; as part of this article, and in absence of any specific design criticisms pertinent to the potential for the type of damage that actually occured, it simply looks like scapegoating in hindsight. Congratulations on those awards, BTW. Jgm 05:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do I detect sarcasm about the awards, or perhaps doubt? They were far from Pulitzer Prizes, Jgm old boy, but they do serve to remind me that I know how to write (I'm one of these ppl whose entire self-confidence sometimes goes bon voyage unannounced and for no apparent reason, so it's good to have something outside of the floundering self to grab hold of). I bring them up because they back my dismissal of your criticism of the prose itself, and that leaves your real problem with the article: its questioning of the structural engineering work done on the WTC. I can understand that. I was taken aback when I began getting into heavy reading about this in early `02. Structural/Civil Engineers aren't supposed to be whipping theories around like a bunch of campus philosophers or avante-garde artists. And yet, since the early `60s, those at the top of the field have been doing just that. And these theories don't go into final exam questions or hang on the wall of some boho gallery, they go into tremendous structures wherein we live and work. You wanna be scared and there's no thriller movie on cable tonight? Google the history of Citicorp Center (now CitiGroup) at Lex. and 53rd in Manhattan... My health and prior commitments are keeping me from doing a real piece on these issues for publication. Fate willing, I'll get to it a ways down the road... So no hard feelings I hope, Jgm. But if you have problems with the assertions or tone of an article, focus on that rather than a supposed poor prose quality. Of course, you're right that the prose here is not standard reportage (and, now that I think of it, there's barely a sentence I've written in it that has gone unaltered by others), and many might agree with you that classic "news style" is best for this sort of topic. I happen to feel that a more exploratory style is best. But let's understand we're debating prose type and not prose quality. We could all do with less insults around here and it's more productive anyhoo without the egos flying. JDG

FWIW, I do think you have the makings of an interesting magazine article, as much about the politics and drama in the architecture world as about the WTC. The problem is in trying to make an interesting magazine article into a useful and fair encyclopedia entry. I am aware that the WTC design was controversial at the time of its construction (as much or more for asthetics than function, though); it's the concomitance of these issues with the collapse of the towers -- implying that the designers were somehow negligent -- that is beyond the pale for an encyclopedia article, let alone an FA. But, anyway, my intention was not to debate you, only to help improve the article and the 'pedia using the existing processes (although once the article goes off FAC status I may make a few edits to resolve my own points). You put the article up for FA status, which implies a certain willingness to address the issues raised, and at least two of us have raised such issues. If your response is going to be "take it or leave it, your concerns are not valid because I am an Award-Winning Writer", then we don't have much else to discuss. Jgm 20:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New information

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal:

"The hijacked airplanes that struck the World Trade Center hit with such force that the resulting explosions blew the fireproofing off the steel columns, accelerating heat buildup and weakening the structural core -- contributing to the towers' eventual collapse, according to a report issued Tuesday." [1]

The article should probably be updated to reflect this. →Raul654 03:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

FEMA Report on building 7

"Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of 7 WTC. The study was released in May of 2002. The study specifically concluded:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in 7 WTC and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."[7]" (added emphasis)

It seems self evident to me that if they admitted themselves that the best hypothesis they could come up with had "a low probability of occurrence" then the investigation was not as "extensive" as it needed to be. --Blackcats 23:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been easier, then, to just remove the word "extensive" rather than adding the "dubious" tag without any discussion or attempt to address here; an action which weakens the article rather than improving it. Jgm 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Touche! Next time I shall be more bold. Blackcats 04:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

www.serendipity.li

I've removed the link to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm because the page at that URL is disingenuous at best. That page makes no attempt to compare construction techniques of the various buildings and any studies that were done regarding the structures before/after the fires. Furthermore, later in the page the page attempts to separate damage to the buildings and the resulting fires from each other as joint causal factors. It is blatantly obvious that the WTC towers would have withstood the fires they endured, or the crashes they endured. Trying to separate these causal factors is, in the least, intellectually dishonest. This is not uncommon for conspiracy sites, which is precisely what the above URL is. I do not see how it contributes to the article. If you think it does, then show how. --Durin 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Until a reason is given (This is about the collapse; 7WTC collapsed; why should it be removed and merged into another article?) for a merge, I'm removing the TWO merge statements from this article. --Golbez 13:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm for creating an entire article devoted to the 7WTC collapse. I'll be frank: I consider the material on the possible design flaws of WTC 1 and 2 to be a serious consideration of a serious question with serious ramifications. To have that material followed by a discussion of what is in all probability an empty "urban legend" diminishes the former. The WTC 1 and 2 material is strictly about engineering issues while the 7WTC material is about purported nefarious human plots. These are two separate themes and belong in two separate articles. I'll be back to do the surgery in a few days. If someone posts a real argument for keeping the current arrangement, I'll discuss before doing anything. JDG 04:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Jones paper

I've cleaned up and integrated the newly-added information on the Jones/BYU paper to the existing "conspiracy theory" section; in doing so I've had to broaden the scope of the section beyond just WTC7 (since Jones starts there and moves on to 1&2). Not sure whether this is the right thing but I am loath to have two such sections in the article. Glad to discuss. Jgm 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well youve certainly managed to change Jones into a looney conspiracy dissident, congratulations on that twist! What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory? I find it totally misplaced. --87.72.52.192 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I "twisted" things beyond correcting the horrible grammar and spelling; can you elaborate? Jgm 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

yes i'm not good at spelling and my native language is not english. But can you answer my question: What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory? --87.72.52.192 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For your information this is what I wrote:

Other Hypothesises

In september 2005 physichs ph.d. Steven E. Jones from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, released a paper titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"[2]. In it he goes through the demolition hypothesis, and among many other qestions, he askes why this hypothesis hasn't been investigated at all. This paper is now accepted for publication.

On 22th of september, he presented his conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) "to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology. After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed." --87.72.52.192 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You se, Jgm, because many people associate conspiracy theories with eccentric individuals and faulty reasoning, labelling an argument a conspiracy theory may be an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it, leading some to consider the term pejorative and controversial in application. So when you put Jones paper under the headline "Conspiracy Theorys ..." you will have to convince me that his paper is a conpiracy. Otherwise it should go under a different headline, such as "Critique of the official investigation" or as I wrote "Other Hypothesises" (If there is a spelling mistake, I'll be happy if you help me out). --87.72.52.192 19:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so your concern wasn't with my rewrite but where I put it? OK, I think I agree that heading the section "conspiracy theory" is POV, but it also must be mentioned that such views are out of the mainstream. Take a look at the new section title and intro paragraph and tell me what you think. . . Jgm 19:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, its a better heading, but Jones paper is not presented with the right focus as it is. Youre still putting him into the same group as other dissidents, and this frase "Although the obvious cause of the buildings' destruction -- the result of damage and fire due to the impact of the hijacked jetliners -- is widely accepted, some alternative theories have been proposed, particularly regarding the collapse of WTC 7. Since many of these alternative hypotheses imply collusion and/or coverup on the part of a significant number of parties, they are generally considered fringe or even conspiracy theories." is not especially NPOV to alternative hypothesis, do you think?

I also miss something about this: On 22th of september, he presented his conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) "to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology. After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed."You se, that's a strong OK from the academic society --87.72.52.192 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He is, in my view, right in line with the "other dissidents". In fact the list of key points made by dissidents (already in the article) fits right in with the points made in his paper. NPOV means stating the facts without commentary, not giving all possible theories equal stature -- in this case it is important to frame the information by indicating the fact that the vast majority of experts accept the standard hypothesis. As to the "total agreement" thing, that was the interpretation of a fringe website report of a talk the guy did and therefore not encyclopedic -- now, if an actual academic society came out with a published position on his work, that would be another story. I am open to changes in wording or approach here (and in fact would welcome help from other editors experienced in working controversial issues). . . Jgm 21:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly dont want Jones paper to have as much space as the official explanation, and it never was the issue here. But you've removed the essence of the statement of his paper. And even though his paper is stil listed as a conpiracy theory, as stated in the frase below the heading, you haven't answered my first question: What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory? To have a peer-review, as he did, and find that strong agreement to have another investigation of the WTC incident, among a large number of academics and professors of enginering, mathematics and physicists, is a point worth mentioning. (if it's a fact that vast majorities of experts accept the official explanation, I would like a link to that, cause I've mainly found that there are a lot of it who is still being debated).--87.72.52.192 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jones paper is linked and summarized, there is no need to repeat it in point-py-point detail here. Jgm 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And that is not what I ask for. Why wont you answer my question?--87.72.52.192 14:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What question? Jgm 14:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory?--87.72.52.192 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thought I had answered this via this edit: Since many of these alternative hypotheses imply collusion and/or coverup on the part of a significant number of parties, they are generally considered fringe or even conspiracy theories. Jones' paper implies collusion and/or coverup on the part of a significant number of parties; that's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory. Jgm 16:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So does the official hypothesis. But I don't agree. Jones paper does not implies anything. He just list the facts, and askes questions. You have to be more specific than that, or else every hypothesis regarding 911 could be labeled conspiracy theory. --87.72.52.192 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Jones proposes the ". . . hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives." Of course such a claim implies conspiracy. Jgm 20:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me se if I've understood you correctly: Jones paper is a conspiracy theory because his hypothesis implies collusion and/or cover-up on the part of a significant number of parties. And what then differs his hypothesis from the NIST hypothesis?--87.72.52.192 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow - how do you think the NIST report/hypothesis implies conspiracy/coverup? Jgm 22:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Doesn't both the Jones and the NIST hypothesis base these on the conspiracy of some terrorists, who covered up their plans before acting them out? Or do you think that NIST operates with a hypothesis where nobody conspired and everything was out in the open?--87.72.52.192 08:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuts to Controlled Demolition section

I made some significant cuts to this section, which was becoming as long as the remainder of the article, and which had devolved into a debate without references. There is no reason to try to argue both sides here, simply stating facts is sufficient (there are links to the reports on both sides for those who would like to form their own conclusions). Jgm 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with most of these, reinstated two key items (but condensed them in accordance with your approach), hope you are OK with this. They seem relevant factually, but I have tried to avoid making them appear advocative as well, and kept it brief, as you comment above. FT2 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice one, Jgm, I'm happy now. One tiny change I don't think is very controversial -- the fact they footprinted is not considered implausible (it's well documented). Rather, its the idea they would all have footprinted unaided which theorists consider implausible. I've added 3 words to fix that diff. Hopefully thats that. Nice edits on the other stuff BTW, and I agree with your removal of my term "pancaked", it's better to describe it that way, and the term "squibs" that might be disputed. FT2 03:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps you (or someone) can take a look at the recently-inserted description of the Jones paper as "peer-reviewed". I think the academic world uses this term in a pretty specific way, a vetting of final versions of papers prior to publication. The Jones paper appears to be in a state of almost constant flux and was claimed some time ago to have been accepted for publication, a claim that has since disappeared, not typical attributes of an academically peer-reviewed paper; moreover, I've read and reviewed enough papers to find it difficult to believe that any academic peer review would let major portions of the Jones paper survive as written. I'm willing to discuss here first, but unless someone can cite a particular Journal review or other formal peer-review process that this paper survived, I plan to remove the qualifier "peer reviewed". Jgm 12:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Be bold and remove it. Conspiracy theory enthusiasts have, are, and will continue to try to force various conspiracy theory connected articles on Wikipedia to show their pet theory. We must hold the line, insist on reputable cites, and remove uncited, speculative garbage. --Durin 15:09, 9 December 2005

Agreed with Durin. The statement of the demolition case is done. It's either peer reviewed or not. If it is peer reviewed, we should be able to see who and where by, and if not then remove it or at least reduce it to a "claims to be". Neutrality over all..... FT2 23:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's peer-revieved and approved for publishing at Elsevier, Amsterdam, according to Prof. Jones hinmself on fx BYUNews http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724. The server is down at the moment but the cached version is here http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:-rvGs4qEea4J:newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724+censor+rumors+quelled&hl=en

He states in the article “My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.” --87.72.52.192 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jones claims to believe a lot of things. His peers and superiors at BYU seem to disagree, having released a statement[3] saying in part: Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." As someone else said, we'd need to be able to reference when, where, and by whom this supposed peer-review occurred to be able to present it as fact. Jgm 13:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect your motives jgm :) You write: "Jones claims to believe a lot of things." Why on earth should he lie about that on BYUs own NewsNet? I find it hard to believe that a professor who have been so for the last 20 years, would go and make a false statement like that. He is actually saying that NOW (december 5.) "The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate". To know when, where, and by whom, well isn't that a bit unessescary? --87.72.52.192 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't speculate on Jones' motives. As I wrote above, "peer reviewed" has a particular meaning in academic circles, and, in this case, those who are in a position to judge have explicitly declared that Jones' work has not been peer reviewed. By the way, I suggest you create an account to aid in collaboration. Jgm 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What you are claiming above is not accurate. Two men from Fulton College said they where not not convinced Jones analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues [4]. They said so in november 2005. They NEVER said it had not been peer reviewed.

On the 5. of december it is said that the peer-review "has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." [5]. So why cant we mention that the paper - and that's a paper - not a page by the way (why do you keep refering to it as a page??) has been peer-reveiwed - and certainly now is going to get peer-reviewed for one more publishing? --87.72.52.192 07:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the current explaination of Jones' paper is accurate (that is, it doesn't make any unverifiable claims). It's not at all clear to me that the paper posted online is in fact the same paper he says was peer reviewed. I suspect it's not; the paper online doesn't read like a journal submission at all. BYU, at least, thinks he submitted the paper somewhere where it would not recieve enough scrutiny. Therefore, it's prudent to wait so that we can say exactly was peer-reviewed and through what journal. We're not trying to cover anything up here; he and his page remain in the article. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is actually quite amusing, you are both neglecting that the peer-review has now been found appropriate, and that in the first paragraph of the paper it says "In this paper ...". --87.72.52.192 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The commonsense reading of a professor stating his paper has been peer reviewed, and a university saying they are "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review" is quite possibly that:

• The paper has been peer reviewed, but the university, aware of the controversial nature of its findings do not wish to seem to back it. They want to slightly dissociate from it.
• The university, either genuinely, or as a manouver, is claiming "okay it was peer reviewed but it wasn't peer reviewed to the standard we set." This can either be genuine (if it was published by a second-rate source), or faux (because anyone can claim "well the review wasn't good enough so it doesn't count"), or that because of the controversial claims the university wants it to have a higher standard of review than it presently has.
• The professor is mistaken, misled or lying. Given observations above and the styling of his statement, plus the fact such a lie would obviously be found out, a lie seems less likely, but the mistaken belief it is reviewed and passed is not unheard of academically.

It's worth noting that much of his paper is a summary of points from sources that are credible and peer reviewed. For example, his observations on molten metal, the citations on the temperatures reached and inadequacy of jet or diesel as a source, the citation that the report calls this a less-than-adequate explanation itself, and the testimony of explosions or similar at the base of the buildings, and much of the actual paper, is third party sourced and verifiable. FT2 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And? Whats the conclusion? To me its obviously a paper, released on BYU website. Referring to it as a page (as it is done in the article here), is simply incorrect. And it has been peer-reviewed, so why cant we mention it? --87.72.52.192 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (reinserted - why was it removed? --87.72.52.192 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Split

I plan to move all 7WTC detail to a new article soon. Any objections? JDG 07:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree: I don't se why it should be split away from this article. Building Seven was part of WTC, namely the 7th building of the WTC complex.--EyesAllMine 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands is not too long. Maybe it would be better to expand the section in place. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just read Professor Steven E. Jones paper entitled: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" located at : http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm

I assume as he is so well received here, as a reliable source I should perhaps start reading the book of Mormon, due to the fact he also pushes the theory Jesus Christ walked in North America.

Asbestos Coating

I see no coverage in this article of the issue concerning the asbestos coating of the structural steel in the building, which was cancelled after some floor in the 60's, as the environmental problems with asbestos became pressing. The engineer who designed that particular coating system was quoted in the press as saying that if the coating had been in place, he would have expected the buildings to stand. Whether that's self-serving or not, I think it merits coverage. Any reason it's not already there? Was it pulled?
--Baylink 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing these lines again. "and several experts including NIST (2005, pp. 176-177) concluded that such fires would have reached only a small fraction of the high temperatures needed for collapse. "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not..." (Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle, working with NIST: reported by Field, 2005)."

First of all they don't have to do with Building 7. Second NIST did not "conclude that such fires would have reached only a small fraction of the high temperatures needed for collapse", In fact NIST stated "Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires." If you want to add Dr. Frank Gayle comments somewhere else go ahead. ScottS

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"--EyesAllMine 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. As NIST also states "Over 170 areas associated with 21 exterior panels were analyzed, and the results may be found in app E of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. "These 21 panels represent only 3 percent of the panels on the floors involved with the fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors." On the core columns tested they stated "Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of the general conditions in the core." Also see my other post from the South Bend Tribune article from November 22 ScottS67.126.201.177 19:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So the only thing we and NIST knows for certain is that there is no evidence off temperatures beyond 600 degrees celsius, and because of missing material it is not possible to conclude much about the temperature on the basis of the samples. So that is surely why NIST is stating ”At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)--EyesAllMine 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Frank Gayle quote

ScottS removed a quote from Frank Gayle, even though it was cited - saying it was "incorrect." I have restored it and provided a direct link to the article where he is quoted, so there can be no justification for removal now. Blackcats 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I see no supporting claims for this statment "concluded that such fires would have reached only a small fraction of the high temperatures needed for collapse" from Gayles quotes or pp. 176-177 of NIST report, see my previous talk under the Asbestos Coating section, regarding temp claimsScottS 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Removed comments considering they don't support claims. Also see previous talk. I have no problem with added the quotes themselves. Just put them in the right spot, and don't make unsupported claims about them.ScottS 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)The "hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence" seems to be refering the the total diesel hypothesis, NOT the fire/collapse. If you read the FEMA report its states that fire (started by debris) was the likely cause.ScottS 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

All attempts to malign "non-official" theories of the WTC "collapses" as "conspiracy theories" violate NPOV. ALL theories of the WTC are conspiracy theories. To single out and brand certain well-founded scientific criticisms of the official theory with perjorative monikers is yellow journalism at its most obvious. It is an unarguable fact that 9-11 was a conspiracy, it is only a matter WHO exactly, and HOW and WHY. PLease clean this up, and either remove all mentions of "conspiracy theory" or identify the story about 19 hijackers as a "conspiracy". 69.238.209.182 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see no evidence based on fact that would lead me to believe that there was any conspiracy regarding the events of 9/11.--MONGO 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

mongo, you're kidding right? supposdedly osama b laden masterminded a conspiracy of 19 or 20 hijackers, right?

No, I'm not kidding...it is already clear Osama was behind the embassy bombings in Africa, so we are only talking about a difference of locations.--MONGO 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Link to the actual report?

In the article this sentence is missing a link to the actual report an a description of the findings:

"The final report from the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July of 2005 [7]."

--EyesAllMine 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Collapse not studied

Niether the FEMA, nor the NIST, nor the 911 commission studied the collapse of the WTC towers. They all have studied events up to the point when the towers "were poised for collpase", but NOT the collapses themselves. I have removed sentences which claim that the collapses have been "studied by structural engineers" etc. These claims need to be referenced.

69.238.209.182 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the following -

[quote]However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic as the temperature rises.

Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way. This is something of a tautological argument, however, because the lightness and hollowness of the towers were prime factors allowing the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate so far inside in the first place. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts. Debates between engineers have looped along this circular cause-and-effect chain: collapse certainly would not have occurred without the fires, but the fires may not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft— debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings and/or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which themselves would not have been unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers may have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[/quote]

This lacks foundation, no references. It would be much better to enhance phrases like "intense heat" with some actual temperatures, with references. The statement "Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way." is just wrong, sorry. No steel framed building has EVER collapsed from fire, except on 9-11. Please, save the bald-faced assertions for some rag, not Wikipedia.

69.238.209.182 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory article. Those porporting that there was some controlled demolition to the buildings are so much in the minority that it would have required the coverup of hundreds of people to have pulled this thing out. Your dealing with a fantasy on your part.--MONGO 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

zsing, tom harrison, sorry. The FEMA and NIST absolutely do NOT study the collapse itself. The planes, the fires, the heating, the trusses, YES. The collapse, no. Big difference. Please supply references.

And the statement that "any steel of any building would have degraded the same way" is just plain wrong. There are many examples of far worse fires that do not collapse steel buildings. It has NEVER occured outside 9-11. This is wholly improper, and Zsing, you are out of line.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6, in the abstract, says one of their objectives was to determine why and how the WTC collapsed. Later in the report in chapter nine, the sequence of events includes the collapse itself, with extensive detail about how it happened and what caused it. I cannot easily copy and paste because of security restrictions in the document (pdf), but anyone can read it and draw his own conclusion. The NIST did study the collapse itself. Any steel of any comparable building would have responded about the same to the same kind of damage. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why is NIST stating "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.)

So I am missing references for this statement from the article

Structural engineers and architects in the United States and elsewhere have extensively analyzed the collapse, sometimes contentiously, to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault.

Who has "extensively analysed the collapse" ? Sources please. --EyesAllMine 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading NIST NCSTAR 1-6 from NIST and the World Trade Center, it is clear to me that NIST did study the collapse itself in detail. The FAQs about NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster confirm this:

The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the World Trade Center disaster are to determine:

why and how the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft...

The statement on the page, that "Structural engineers and architects in the United States and elsewhere have extensively analyzed the collapse, sometimes contentiously, to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault," is entirely accurate and well supported by citation. I invite everyone to read the report and make up his mind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you find they have met their own objectives then, when in the final report NIST are stating:

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.)

?

And who are the "Structural engineers and architects (...) elsewhere" that have "extensively analyzed the collapse"?

I'm sorry, I've read the reports and I can't find a reference for that statement at all. --EyesAllMine 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm questioning the integrity of your argument. You're asking that we believe the work of pohysics professors and not of structural engineers and metalurlists. I am inclined to believe that you have a political agenda with your arguments, but am willing to admit that this may come across as rude, please don't take it that way.--MONGO 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's amusing actually ... you can't obviously not come up with quotes, so you're asking about my political agenda instead? All I want here is facts. Verifiable facts. I don't know much about pohysics though ;) --EyesAllMine 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I have to say that I find your lack of knowledge of physics to make me wonder why the word of one physics professor from BYU would have somehow pursuaded you that there was some coverup. You want me to spend time providing evidence that 95 percent of the world believes at least overall, compared to the 5 percent of folks that think there was actually some kind of controlled demolition. I don't have to prove substantiated evidence, it is up to you to prove the unsubstantiated and have yet to do so.--MONGO 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While the focus was right up until the collapse, NIST did study the collapse itself to gather data for the probable collapse sequence. If you look elsewhere in other sections you can see that indeed NIST did study the collapse. I would start with chapter 6 p153. This also refutes some of Steven Jones information regarding the sinking of the antenna.

"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." When I have more time I'll go over and read the various new edits to the main article. Best ScottScottS 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I would rest in peace if I could find anything that convinced me that not only NIST but also engineering experts elsewhere studied the collapse extensively. Really. And then we could include their findings to. So what are their findings?

NIST chapter 6, as ScottS kindly pointed to me states again:

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. Cases B and D accomplished this in a manner that was consistent with the principal observables and the governing physics."

And:

"The south side bowed and weakened. The analysis stopped as the initiation of global instability was imminent. (Table 6–10. Comparison of global structural model predictions and observations for WTC 1, Case B. Page 141, NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation)"

Where in chapter six (or in the report) are NIST studying the collapse extensively, from the collaps start til it ends? And who are the experts form "elsewhere"? --EyesAllMine 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out the information that NIST did indeed study the collapse itself. Which was shown. If you want to discuss the results of a simulation within the study I won't stop you. Or what "extensively analyzed" means. Or even "from the collapse start til it ends" But the statement at the top "studied by structural engineers" has been supported within the NIST document. If you would like numerous other examples just read chapter 6. Free free to also look at pages 163-183 with regard to the observations during the collapse. Scott67.126.199.119 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I've also added back the link from 911myths. Disputed topics within the linked page include. Free fall (or almost freefall), debris, and the so called squibs.

:: Well, interestingly, F. R. Greenning has written to Nist, as the latest report is still a draft, and is in this e-mail he states "While I belive NIST has done an excellent job in covering many key areas of the tragic event surrounding the collapse ofthe Twin Towers, I also believe that a number of crucial issues have not been adressed" So I agree with F. R. Greening there. Is it the same Greenning that Steven E. jones is thanking in his paper? (You mentioned F.R. Grenning in your third edit: “If you want an expert from "elsewhere" see Frank Greenings paper on the collapse during the event. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf”, but then you deleted it). Who is he by the way? And what does he do for a living?

I’ve read the chapter six, and NIST are pretty consistent in limiting the research in the timespan between the impact and the collapse.--EyesAllMine 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Free free to read his observations, but I removed it because after re-reading your information I thought you were only looking for a structual engineer. But feel free to read his information. http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html With regards to the report just reread the information I provided or see http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf Chapter 6 see the comments regarding the fall starting on 163. See the large pictures of the collapse with comments 165,166 has some good observations regarding tiltScottS 00:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically the structural response and collapse analysis intended to: (…) Develop and evaluate failure hypotheses, resulting in the probable sequence of structural analyses leading to collapse for each tower. (page 41 of the pdf)

Probable collapse sequence (…) The probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the inititation of the global building collapse. (page 66 of the pdf)

(…) * the collapse then ensued (page 68 of the pdf)

• The change in potential energy (…) Global collapse then ensued. (page 71 of the pdf)

NIST are still pretty consistent in limiting the research to the timespan from impact to inititaion of collapse. Now … could we agree that NIST did not “extensively ” study the collapse? Or could you verify in some way that the actual collapse was studied, with a source?

And if we could determine who mr. Greenning is, and if his paper has been peer-revieved, we could conclude his findings as an researcher from “elsewhere” (we need to know where elsewhere is located - don‘t you agree?). His finding is quite astonishing: He is comming to the conclusion that the Towers would have fallen in spite of the fires. Had there been no fires they would have collapsed, even though he don't come up with an explanstion of why they did withstand the impact for 56 and 100something minutes respectively. And he doesn't mentions building seven.--EyesAllMine 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have established that NIST did study aspects of the actual collapse. You can also read more information from the Popular Mechanics 9/11 article where NIST and ASCE members discuss aspects of the collapse. Or you can read information from http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html. Or here disussing the energy from the collapse http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4 I can continue posting more links if you would like. Establishing how “extensively ” seems to be a strongly opinion based comment. If you want to reincert the paragraph without that claim, honestly I won't stop you. As for Greening I've given a link which shows who he is and his qualifications. http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html He does mention building 7 but doesn't not go into detail. I'm not sure about any peer review. But as I mentioned before I wouldn't use him if you are looking for a structual engineer. Scott ScottS 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have missed the link to the bio of Greenning, and I can see, that it is the same man who made the interesting e-maile to NIST, and even the same Greenning, Steven E. Jones thanks in his paper. We could mention that a PhD Chemist has made analysed the collapse ... but he might be a little to "single" to mention, if you get my point.

as for the latest link, they seem to be repeating the pattern:

"The BPAT was to review the damage caused by these events, collect available data, develop understanding of the performance of each affected building, determine the causes of observed behavior, and reveal the need for any further studies that should be performed. In particular, the team studied the immediate effects of the aircraft impact on each tower, the spread of fire following the crashes, the reduction in structural strength caused by the fire, and the mechanism that led to the collapse of each tower. Additionally, the performance of buildings in the immediate vicinity of the towers was studied to determine the effects of damage from falling debris and fires."

The rest of the article presents a theory, but a theory or a hypothesis is NOT an "extensive study", it is only a hypothese. (I noticed that this article mentions the antenna prolem and takes this as a sign of core collum faillure). That goes for the other link you provided as well.

For clarity: I am having this discussion because I didnt find any verifiable sources or references to the claim in the article stating:

"Structural engineers and architects in the United States and elsewhere have extensively analyzed the collapse, sometimes contentiously, to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault,"

I would be happy if the papragraph could be frased something like this:

"NIST have analyzed the events leading up to the initiation of the collapse to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault,"

If architects and strucural engineers (outside NIST) also have done this, all we need is some verifiable references. --EyesAllMine 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First I realize they discuss the antenna problem. NIST's observations was written at a later time after re-reviewing the information provided from FEMA etc. The articles I linked to mentions observations, calculations, theories and a hypothesis based on studing the collapse of the towers. I have no problem with your wording however I do believe that the points we have brought up should somehow be mentioned. Something regarding our debate. Maybe something about collapse itself. That way the issue can be called attention to. I'll propose something later tonight. BestScottS 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we have come this far :) I agrre with you, that it would be good to include the varios hypothesis. And then I got to say: I've been studying a little more of Greennings work. I must add that it is very interesting material. He has, also hosted on 911myths, an addenddum in which he states "Finally, let me say that although I have not done any calculations for other WTC structures, the collapse of WTC 7 is a problem! I say this mainly because WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft; therefore I admit it is very surprising that this high-rise building should have collapsed without being subject to an aircraft impact." --EyesAllMine 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I don't bite. ;). yes I enjoy reading various hypothesis. I've even shared information with Steven Jones although we disagree. BestScottS 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eyesallmine on this so far - he has quoted specific examples where the authors said themselves that they are describing their positions on what happened up to the point of collapse. Jones mentions some interesting aspects about the report and collapse modelling:

"The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)Bov 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Scott S, the two links you provided are articles which DO NOT study the collapse. Both mention the amount of potential energy in the elevated mass, but then fail to estimate the OTHER important numbers, such as the amount of energy needed to 1) pulverize the concrete 2) shred the steel 3) eject the mass laterally 4) compress the air. Instead, they immediately abandon science and begin resorting to meaningless adjectives like "huge" and so forth.

Also, one of the articles contains a flat out lie, stating "Most certainly," [Kausel] continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire.". The truth is, buildings have endured hotter fires for longer and remained standing. Outside 9-11, no steel framed high-rise has EVER collapsed due to fire.

71.129.72.28 02:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I again removed this -

Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way. This is something of a tautological argument, however, because the lightness and hollowness of the towers were prime factors allowing the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate so far inside in the first place. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts. Debates between engineers have looped along this circular cause-and-effect chain: collapse certainly would not have occurred without the fires, but the fires may not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft— debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings and/or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which themselves would not have been unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers may have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.

Guys, no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire. THere have been far hotter fires, burning for longer periods of time, engulfing far more of the structure. The above paragraph is completely unsupported. Zsinj, stop vandalizing this article please.

To the poster above. Simply read the articles about the observations during the collapse, fall times, tilt,review of video footage during the event etc. Sorry they don't have the information your looking for. If it makes any difference I don't agree with all of their calculations and observations. Other more detailed observations and calculations have since been done since the ones mentioned in the articles. ie. "free fall" times or the sinking of the antenna. With regards to the new edit. I'm not sure you should just single out NIST. Also I believe aspects of the debate should be mentioned. I'm sure more changes will be made over the next few days. ScottScottS 08:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

What is happening? Why do you remove every single edit I made? We have been debating this for a week nearly. Will you please explain? --EyesAllMine 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I do not support the minimizing of facts to help support conspiracy theories.--MONGO 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Same with me, mongo. There is a paragraph in this article which

a) has demostrably false statements

and

b) is not supported by any references at all.

Zsinj and ScottS keep vandalising the article by reverting back to the bogus version. I think we need to dispute this.

69.233.206.191 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The phrases in this article are often absurd claims that have no citations or references but seem to stay only to promote the official version, i.e., claims extending to how 'all' buildings would behave in fires as though the writer is omnicient, especially when no similar buildings have ever collapsed or even been structurally significantly altered by fires. Thus there is a different standard of evidence applied to this page in order to block any questioning of the official story.Bov 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

TomHarrison and Zsinj have left me threatening notes in my inbox. They have accused me of vandalism because I delete paragraphs from this article. The paragraphs I delete are false, they are unsupported. Instead of coming here and explaining themselves, they continue with their underhanded tactics.

I shall continue to delete the paragraphs until they are in a form which complies with Wikipedia policy. It is clear to me that we need an official dispute.

71.129.72.28 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraphs in question are these:

After the airliners hit, it appeared to most ground observers that the buildings had been severely but not fatally damaged. However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic as the temperature rises.

Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way. This is something of a tautological argument, however, because the lightness and hollowness of the towers were prime factors allowing the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate so far inside in the first place. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts. Debates between engineers have looped along this circular cause-and-effect chain: collapse certainly would not have occurred without the fires, but the fires may not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft— debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings and/or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which themselves would not have been unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers may have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.

That seems to me well supported by the references and links in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To MONGO: we are working towards the same goal then: this article should be factual. That is why I simply do not understand the reverts you made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=34733767&oldid=34733608 It makes no sense. Maybe you can explain how the reverts you made is more factual? --EyesAllMine 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom,

What evidence do you have that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way? There is no precedent or reference given in that paragraph that would show that. References and links to things like 'jet fuel' don't support a hypotheses put forth in the paragraph that all steel buildings would behave one way or another. Did someone from NIST or FEMA write the paragraph and reference precedents or specifics from the report? No. They are only referencing facts about materials that don't add up to any particular theory. Only hypotheticals are put forth. Indeed, everyone was horrified that the buildings collapsed at all, so the theory for why they did collapse is the one that needs to be supported with a great deal of analysis and references, not statements that ignore the fact that this has never occurred before in history. Bov 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Everyone was horrified" is rather too strong of a statement. SOME were surprised they collapsed. The reality is the kinetic energy the buildings were designed to withstand was considerably less than what took the morning of 9/11. I.e., there was substantially more damage than the buildings were designed to take. That they stood at all after the impacts is a miracle of engineering. See paragraph immediately following the table comparing 707 and 767 in this article for further explanation. The conclusions for why 1 & 2 collapsed are very strongly supported with a huge amount of analysis. --Durin 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Did someone from NIST or FEMA write the paragraph and reference precedents or specifics from the report?" I think it's an accurate summary of the long and complex report that they did write. "They are only referencing facts about materials that don't add up to any particular theory." Well, they do add up, in the estimation of the engineers at NIST. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"That they stood at all after the impacts is a miracle of engineering" is not supported by precedent, given that no other steel framed building has *ever* collapsed from fires and that although one can say the planes caused the damage added to the fires, that hardly makes it a miracle of engineering -- it makes it closer to a failure of engineering -- given that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet.

From 911research:

"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind." (City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133)

and,

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html Bov 00:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

757's are a lot bigger than 707's...did they also discuss the speed of 400 plus miles per hour...where is that discussion? The support structure in the two towers was in the center of the building. Once these supports became weakened and damaged from the impact and from the fires, they could no longer support the weight of undamaged floors above. This is why the second tower to be hit was the first to collapse...it was hit lower down in it's structure and had more weight above the point of impact, and the weakening of internal support could no longer support the weight above. I spent 8 years fighting forest fires for the National Park service and have also fought structure fires...I also have certification from training at an engine academy. You would be amazed at what can melt in a very short period of time. As far as why other steel buildings haven't collasped like these did...well, not all steel buildings are built the same, and in fact, no other buildings of their size have been built in the same manner as the towers were. Structure fires in major buildings are actually incredibly rare, especially when compared to wood framed houses and structures not using steel and concrete. About 2 years ago, a 12 story building caught fire in Omaha, Nebraska...it was the biggest structure fire in the U.S. that year. The outside of the building was brick and stayed up, though extremely fatigued and crumbling. The entire central structure collasped and the fires took 6 days to put out. The city of Omaha had 5 aerials and 6 support engines on this fire and it still took a full week to get it to stop smoldering. Now, this is a 12 story structure, not 110 stories and had only about 100,000 square feet of useable office space...magnify this by a factore of 10 and you have the WTC fires...that is why they took so long to burn out. This article is not a playground for far fetched fantasies, only for what can be proven as facts. We can certainly say, well, professor of engineering Dr. Who thinks that there was controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean the information is valid, only that it is his opinion. We have every right to refute that opinion, especially if we find that it is unreferenced, or is refuted by alternative opinions.--MONGO 00:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• The 767s that impacted the WTC towers had more than 7 times the kinetic energy than the modeled 707s that the buildings were designed to take. People who think the buildings could not have collapsed from plane impacts like to note the somewhat similar weights of 707s vs. 767s. The reality is the speed was also part of the equation, not just the weight of a 707. Any discussion of what the WTC towers were built to withstand is completly without merit if you do not also include the kinetic energy calculations. I will note, as many others have including NIST, that the towers did not collapse from fire alone, nor did they collapse from the plane impacts alone. As with many such disasters, it was a combination of factors. This is not the appropriate forum to debate these issues. --Durin 01:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

>>People who think the buildings could not have collapsed from plane impacts like to note the somewhat similar weights of 707s vs. 767s. The reality is the speed was also part of the equation, not just the weight of a 707.

Although a 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, its overall size, weight, and fuel capacity are very similar to a 767-200 -- the type of jet that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were.

According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340.

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the 767-200s used on 9-11 were only slightly larger than 707s:

- Max takeoff weights - 328,060 lbs for a Boeing 707-340, 395,000 lbs for a Boeing 767-200. - Cruise speed for a Boeing 707-340 is 607 mph, while for a Boeing 767-200 it is 530 mph. Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. See here. more later Bov 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• READ the article. READ, as I suggested above, the paragraph beneath the comparison of 707 and 767. The towers was not designed to withstand a 707 flying near its maximum speed. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at low speed. Please see the cite noted in the article. It is a fact that the 767s that struck the towers did so with more than 7 times the kinetic energy the buildings were designed for. This debate is over, and has been for a long time. The notion that the buildings were designed to take what the 767s threw at them is utterly false. --Durin 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Did someone from NIST or FEMA write the paragraph and reference precedents or specifics from the report?" I think it's an accurate summary of the long and complex report that they did write.

But it is making inferences beyond the scope of those reports to try to extend the findings to most or all other steel framed buildings. People cannot say on the one hand that there was a unique design here that caused it to fail but then say that all steel frame buildings act this way. Similarly, the NIST and FEMA reports contradict each other at points. I also think that exact phrases or references to exact locations in the reports should be included in any paragraphs that are claiming to summarize the reports. Bov 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the engineers who designed the WTC that claimed it would survive a 707 hit must have been mistaken. What are you getting at? I want proof that someone saw the demolition teams planting the explosives...even when they have lots of time, it takes weeks to strategically place explosives at key locations to ensure a building does collapse. It would have taken a lot more explosives than were used by the rented van in 1993 and that would be pretty hard to get into the building without anyone noticing it...oh, I meant building(s). A shift along several floors of load displacement would have easily caused the bolts and welds to buckle and the building would have collapsed. None of the other buildings that have been mentioned that caught on fire experienced a direct hit froma wide body aircraft at speeds in excess of 400 miles an hour...WTC7 suffered from base destabilization, fire and structural damage from 30 foot steel columns being tossed into it at it's lower floors. Are you going to continue to cite the same website, whose sole purpose appears to be completely POV?--MONGO 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuel for the fire. [6][7] [8] SkeenaR 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And honestly, this doesn't look that hot.(sorry about using graphic image)[9] SkeenaR 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice try...the building in Madrid wasn't hit by a wide body jet at 400 plus miles per hour. Hot doesn't necessarily have to be visible...nor does it necessarily produce a lot of smoke...why not do research from a website that isn't riddled with far out opinion...[10]

C'mon Mongo, it wasn't a 'try'. Despite what you might think because of my edits on the other page including the series you reverted, I am more interested in seeing consensus brought about by ALL available information(and I mean that) including whatever you think is biased. I didn't plaster it on the page. I did notice though that Madrid isn't even mentioned on this page and am interested in whatever people might have to say about that event, including you. I do think you might want to consider why it appears that the person in the picture still has their hair if the fire was hot enough to soften steel. Is that a fair enough question? Can this be easily debunked or do I have to open up a whole section on it? Does anybody else have anything to say about this? SkeenaR 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Information is fine...disinformation isn't. I can't explain why the person has hair still, and clothes too...maybe they didn't get burned? Show me in the article about the Madrid fire where it states that that building was hit by a wide body jet at 400 miles an hour plus and then that would be a fair comparison...but without it, it's just POV, just like the websites you and Bov keep trying to cite.--MONGO 04:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Look where they are standing. They didn't get burned? That's it???? SkeenaR 05:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

They were standing at the epicenter of the high speed impact of jumbo jets that created enough heat to collapse the Trade Towers and they still have their hair because 'they didn't get burned'. It's clear to me now. And thanks. SkeenaR 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they were some of the souls that tried to walk down from the floors above and coulnd't get any further down. The floors above were not at the point of impact. It would only take the failure of three to four of the steel columns in the center of the building to give for a complete collapse. The amount of heat needed to complete the fatigue and failure of welds and bolts is rather low...and once only one or two floors gave way, the exterior intergrity was compromised, buckling outward, then the concrete floors above slipped from their supports and the weight of the mass above forced the building to the ground. Websites like the one you're using information from are not peer reviewed...anyone can set up a website and document whatever they want. Be careful not to believe that kind of misinformation...it falls into the realm of the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's and Bigfoot...and if they answer questions with questions, then they are just there to grab attention.--MONGO 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the heat, fire and smoke rises, so I would really have to stretch my imagination to consider that these people walked from upper floors down to the point of impact. And even if it would only take the failure of the parts you describe to cause the collapse, what kind of heat do you consider low? Have you ever even been near a campfire? I see what you mean about people being taken in by fairy tales though. There has to be a better explanation than this. SkeenaR 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I stated above that I fought forest fires and have been through an engine academy and have fought structure and vehicle fires, so I guess that qualifies as approximating a campfire. Anyway, those souls in the image may have made it down from above...fire acts in very strange ways. You have zero education in fire if you believe that "most of the heat, fire and smoke rises"...heat fire and smoke go where oxygen, fuel and wind patterns dictate. I guess 98% of the rest of the world has been duped by some huge federal coverup? Sure, sure.--MONGO 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have forest fire fighting experience. I have seen crazy ass fires go way out of control. I have seen smoke roll down hills, blow sideways, do cool dust devil things, but your explanation still doesn't come close to flying with me because it is obvious from the photographs that "venting was good" in New York City on Sept 11,2001 and hopefully we BOTH know what that means. Sorry, that heat, smoke and fire were rising. SkeenaR 06:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Venting

Notice that the image is showing the smoke blowing east...the impact point with the image of the man is on the north. or south. That's good...as a former strike team leader on the Yellowstone fires of 1988, then we'll agree that fire does weird things and the only explanation I have is they probably came down from one of the floors above. Is it surprising that one out 1,500 people made it to that floor...who knows how they got there, all we know is that is probably as far as they got. I won't speculate anymore, as that is where this is going, but suffice it to say that the combination of the airplane impact and fire weakened the structure enough to cause it to collapse. There was no government coverup, but I may be willing to listen to arguments that the feds knew the event was imminent and failed to act fully...but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual collapse anyway. Again, websites can be built on whatever the webmaster wishes them to be..they are not peer reviewed and they usually answer questions with questions. When they can come up with proof that there was controlled demolition then I want to be the first person to hear it.--MONGO 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it could be considered peer reviewed that there was no government coverup. But Prof. Jones has a paper he wants people to look at too, so I would say as far as these 'official declarations' are concerned, even that is far from settled. But thanks for your time and I appreciate your effort. SkeenaR 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the edits that are questioning the cause of the collapse are consistent with the Wikipedia No Original Research policy. And, wtc7.net isn't really a reliable or reputable source. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F. Also, the edits don't meet Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Thus, they need to be kept out of this article. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? SkeenaR 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to do some original research of my own just to show these guys some pictures. Is that OK Mrs Roboto? SkeenaR 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bottom line; this discussion page on this article is not the place to be hashing out this debate. It's been debated ad nauseum on multiple other forums around the Internet for the last 4+ years. We are discussing an encyclopedia article here, not whether a pet theory is accurate or not. What will be included in the information is factual, verifiable information from reputable sources using a neutral point of view. Anything else will be deleted. You might think this is censorship. It isn't. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not writing a conspiracy site. --Durin 15:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Relax Durin. Me and Mongo are just having a discussion. Did you notice there is some information in the article regarding a controlled demolition theory? If you have some good information for the article, you should put it there. SkeenaR 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you reverted this frase "- The final report from the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July of 2005, but has been twice postponed and is now scheduled to be released in Spring 2006 ..." to this "- The final report from the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July of 2005, is still ongoing ..." stating that this was deliberately misleading. How is it misleading? I find the first much more informative and precise? --EyesAllMine 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The part about it being postponed twice makes it look like they're doing so deliberately, when they are not. Just so you know, WTC collapsed due to the issues I have raised above...there wasn't any controlled demolition as that is completely without any basis in fact...it is purely opinion--MONGO 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if it indicates how the building went down - I think you are a bit speculative there. But having checked NISTs own page stating "NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." I found that the frase, as it is now, is more accurate. So to that I agree :) And thank you for answering my question --EyesAllMine 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The NIST, FEMA and Kean Commission reports do not analyze the collapses, they analyze the events leading up to the collpases. They admit this in writing. This is an article about the collapses, and I'd like to know where everybody thinks the references are coming from, because I sure don't see them.

"Thus it could be said that any steel building would have done the same thing, blah blah, blah" Can anyone site a reference or anything to back that up? Anyone? Please? Tom Harrison? What's the source? Zsinj? Come out with it! Lay that big bad source on us, we're waiting!

69.231.8.216 05:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the above I put the verify tag on the page --EyesAllMine 14:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, I beefed up the collapse section with eye witness testimony of the collapses of the Towers. For many of the quotes, I added a URL linking to the NY Times website where the transcript of the witness' testimony can be viewed.

Prove controlled demolition

"A combination of factors such as impact from aircraft flying at high speed, causing internal structural damage, and the resultant fires from the aviation fuel widely dispersed within the impact zones, ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The destabilization, debris and associated fires resulting from the collapse of the Towers, also severely damaged many of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. The lightness and hollowness of the towers were prime factors allowing the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate so far inside the Towers." Where does this theory comes from? Any sources? And is it okay to remove a verify tag without aplying the sources? --EyesAllMine 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it...I want you to verify that there was controlled demolition...let's see the proof, not just allusions and misrepresentations...cite a group of structural engineers and controlled demolition experts, and find the evidence that there was controlled demolition...who planted explosive devices, where, when, and how...let's hear it.--MONGO 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well ... I think I stop the discussion with you here ... as you are simply to far out --EyesAllMine 14:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you'll stop, as you HAVE no proof...come on, I've seen the speculations and the misrepresentations, so now let's see you provide the proof. By proof, I mean not some private website where the webmaster has control over the information presented and is not peer reviewed for factual accuracy.--MONGO 14:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Speculations or Hypothesis

Hypothesis is the correct and neutral word. Speculation seems to be unfounded, where hypothesis is speculations beeing investigated thoroughly, so you eventually can come up with a theory or even a proven fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theory --EyesAllMine 14:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how it is a controlled-demoliton hypothesis if it does not explain how a controlled demolition might have occured. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lacking sources

There are quite a lot of this article that is lacking proper citation and sources, which is why I put the verify tag on. The examples are many, and som has been pointed out above. We need to show who said what. Is it from the NIST report, the FEMA report, or other sources? --EyesAllMine 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to show evidence that is not from a private website that there was controlled demolition...where is this proof? I am most patient.--MONGO 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you harrassing me?. Please stop. You are reverting EVERY EDIT I make, even when I quote NIST. I'm getting tired of it. I have never stated that I believe in the demolition theory. --EyesAllMine 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if it seems like harassment, as that is not my intention at all. But the article must not use speculations or misrepresentations of evidence to support mere opinions. Using terminology such as has been used here which merely alludes to unsubstantiated theories have to be kept in check. For instance, there is no hypothesis, it is only speculation that there was controlled demolition or that the findings of the NIST and FEMA are incorrect. By speculation we mean that a few speculate that NIST and FEMA are wrong....yet they provide no proof that anything else is possible...if there was a hypothesis, then where is the evidence, aside from opinions, that suggest that FEMA and NIST are incorrect. A hypothesis must have some basis in fact.--MONGO 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And I recognize that other steel frame structures have experienced enormous fires and didn't collapse, but none of the examples I have seen were hit by wide body jets at 500 mph, nor were any of those other fires listed in close proximity to the destabilizing effects of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel that had collapsed adjacent to them.--MONGO 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All I ask for is: We need to show who said what. Is it from the NIST report, the FEMA report, or other sources? A hypothesis is a speculation. It has nothing to do with proofs. And: A hypothesis is a speculation, and then you start looking for material that backs the hypothesis up. I dont know where you have looked the word up, but your definition is not correct. And there are alternative hypothesises by Steven E. Jones, Grenning and others. I'm beginning to suspect that you are the one who are manipulating this article. Why don't you think it should be verifiable? --EyesAllMine 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is opinions, nothing more...do they have proof? I want to see the proof and not their opinions.--MONGO 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you MONGO - but nobody has proven anything yet. Not even NIST. Its all theory and some might even question that, since a theory should at least be supported repeatability. But why do you go on ranting about proof? I can see that you have put one source in the article, and that's what I will concentrate on, the verifiability of this article. Se also: Hypothesis --EyesAllMine 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, go ahead and cite, but if they come from private websites that are controlled by their webmasters and have not been peer reviewed, then it won't stand. Do you really expect anyone with a rational mind to believe that there was a government coverup this massive? Get ahold of some prominent enginners like from Bechtel have these guys chime in [11]...I'd be really interested in seeing what they think about a controlled demolition of the WTC, how much explosives it would have taken, how long it would have taken to plant them, how they would do it with no one noticing...etc., If you don't support this nonsense controlled demolition stuff, then why are you refuting the official Federal government reports?--MONGO 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not discuss with you what I think or not about this. This is not what this is about. I have done proper citation, and its a blatant lie that the Jones paper is not peer-reviewed. Repeating it again and agin won't make it true. --EyesAllMine 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I was reading this section from the link I provided above from Controlled Demolition, Inc...[12]..it states that the J.L. Hudson Department Store is "At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded."...the article goes on to state that, " Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design." and also discusses that they had to torch many steel columns to weaken them and, "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."...now that sounds like a lot of work to implode one building less than half the size of either one of the WTC...and this company is the foremost one in the world in controlled demolition. There is no theory about controlled demolition that will explain how a project this massive would have gone undetected...--MONGO 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, and this article is still lacking sources. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --EyesAllMine 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jones's paper isn't peer reviewed. It's going to be published in a book of alternative theories called "The Hidden History Of 9-11-2001", edited by Paul Zarembka, a professor at SUNY Buffalo. Zarembka is an economist, by the way, not a structural engineer. A visit to Zarembka's homepage reveals a professor with a clear agenda. David Ray Griffin is also represented in the book. It is obvious that the papers are handpicked by Zarembka to express a certain POV. They were not approved by anonymous peer-reviewers. Rhobite 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And Zaremka did not peer-review the paper. As the paper is a call for an investigation, and therefore a political paper, it is being published in a political book. The paper does not contain NEW OUTSTANDING research in physics, engineering or anything like that and does therefore not apply to publication in science or engineering magasines. The peer-review has been done by among others, a physicist and an engineer. And furthermore the paper has been published on the BYU website, where everybody can look at it, and join further peer-reviewing, as is normal practis among scholars. And by the way, neither the NIST report or the FEMA report has been peer-reviewed. But still THIS ARTICLE IS LACKING SOURCES. and by the way -- thank you for correcting my spelling. --EyesAllMine 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• FEMA and NIST reports are not going to be peer reviewed as such; it's not as if they are going to be published in any scientific journal. Apples and oranges, and complaining the oranges are not seasoned with cinnamon. The FEMA and NIST reports have been put together by literally dozens of Ph. D.s other field experts. --Durin 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a group of scholars forming to make a peer-review on the NIST report, so eventually it might be, if the group can overcome the obstacles of being able to get to the evidence and other material which has made the base of the NIST report. A peer-review is always a good thing, no matter how many researchers are working together. But I wasn't the one who brought up the peer-review subject. So lets just get on with the checking of sources. I see a problem in this paragraph:

After the airliners hit, it appeared to most ground observers that the buildings had been severely but not fatally damaged. However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic as the temperature rises.

Which report is this from?

For both the sake of interest and to demonstrate that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question the governments version of events and statements by government agencies I would like to point out a few things about some of these entities and the circumstances that have caused so much scepticism whenever the government opens its mouth. People should not be criticized because they don’t automatically believe everything a proven liar says and take its statements as proof.

It is a fact that the government has repeatedly used false information to build support for initiatives such as the ‘war on terror’ and the war in Iraq. Examples of which there is a seemingly endless supply include but are not limited to Yellow Cake and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This false information was used to help justify actions that resulted in the death or maiming of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.

Corporations like Halliburton, KBR and Bechtel are given billions of dollars in no bid contracts for things that include but are not limited to reconstruction, logistics support and security in Iraq as well as building a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many see it as a conflict of interest when the former CEO of Halliburton sits on Capitol Hill and still collects $1 million a year from them –or- when former vice president of Bechtel Jack Sheehan now sits on the Defence Policy Board that advises the Pentagon.

People Magazine was told that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was from Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex. Some people see this as suspicious.

I’m not saying that everyone should jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon or that conspiracies should be over-represented in this article, just that it is not always prudent to automatically accept everything the government or one of its agencies says as gospel. Also that just because it is possible that someone might not accept the official line, that is no reason to disregard everything they say. It seems to me that it is important they be heard and that it is irresponsible not to question these things judging by the consequences that acting or not acting on false information can lead to. SkeenaR 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The NIST report admits plainly that it DOES NOT analyze the collapses:

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. .." .(NIST, 2005, p. 142)

As to Conspiracy bandwagons, please consider that ALL 9-11 theories are conspiracy theories. It was certainly a conspiracy, it's just a question of who and how.

Skeena raises a valid point. At what point of proven, repeated dishonesty does one permanently abandon a particular source as unreliable?

69.231.8.216 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out the speculative sentence about the "combination" of factors that caused the collapes. There was no citation for it. The NIST report and the 9-11 Commission report also contradict the "combination" statement. NYCJosh

Hi Mongo, 1. Please provide a citation supporting the "combination" hypothesis for collapse you just restored. The 9-11 Commission, the NIST report hypothesize that it may have been the weakened trusses due to fires, not this "combination". 2. You restored the sentence about how much fuel was stored in the tanks at WTC 7. Please provide a source. All we know is what the capacity of the tanks was. If you know how much feul was actually stored, please provide a cite. 3. You deleted "WTC 7 was a 47 story steel-frame skyscraper that stood across the street from the rest of the WTC complex (7 World Trade Center)." I think some basic info about this building is necessary for the average reader, before any analyis of its collapse. I cited the statement with wikipedia entry for wtc 7. No reason to delete crucial context. 4. The decision to abandon a major burning in downtown Manhattan was a serious one. Please provide cite as to what criteria were used or who decided, or else restore my contribution. 5. You deleted "Thus, according to the NIST each of the buildings could indeed fall within its own footprint without there being a controlled demolition." In so doing you removed an important element of the official explanation, which purports to exlain how EACH of the three major buildings fell in their own footprints. That's the point of the entire paragraph. NYCJosh Jan 31.

I'll look over my revert.--MONGO 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Usama really said this?

"I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only."

Wasn't he supposed to be an engineer or something? How could he then state that a kerosene and office fire would MELT steel? --EyesAllMine 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's family owned a big engineer and construction company, but I am not sure what his training was.--MONGO 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why a kerosene fire won't melt steel? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It cant reach the temperature for the the steel to melt. Jet-fuel kerosene burns at max 1000˚C(1832˚F) in a pure oxygen environment, house fires typically produce temperatures in the 500 - 650˚C range. But structural steel melts at 1538˚C(2800˚F). --EyesAllMine 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the combustion temperature depends on the rate of burning, and the temperature and pressure of the supplied air and fuel. See Firestorm. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In a house or office fire it is called a flashover and reaches about 950˚C. Steel is conducting heat very rapidly, so it's not enough with seconds or minuts of high temperatures to melt steel. You have to take into account that time matters as well as the amount of ice-cold steel. So far I've have not found in any of the reports, statements that would support the phenomen of molten steel. Have you? --EyesAllMine 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Was molten steel observed? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard a lot about molten steel having been observed at the crime scene and the last I heard Professor Jones was requesting a sample for analysis. It is suggested by some that this is indicative of thermite or some other type of explosive charge being used there.

From Jones' paper[13] "We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7."

So apparently yes, molten steel was observed there. For whatever it might be worth, he continues:

"Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 which was never hit by a jet."

SkeenaR 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I say that this Jones character and Ward Churchill come from the same looney bin...ssshhhussshhh...just to let everyone in on a little secret...if the government or others blew the buildings up, then why not let that be the coverup? Wouldn't it be easier to just accuse some infiltrating militants as being the ones who set the charges, instead of flying wide body jets into these structures...oh, that's right, a missle hit the Pentagon, I almost forgot, and oh geez, and the planes were radio-controlled, right...oh, and hey, surely a group of amateurs or better yet, the disorganized U.S. Government would be able to mastermind such a massive coverup, and have the expertise to implode buildings with a total mass 5 times greater than any done before.--MONGO 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If Usama really said what he did, we can conclude that he doesn't have a clue about basic engineering facts and if he is an engineer he is a lousy one. --EyesAllMine 09:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have come to expect now MONGO. No facts, just accusations and insults. Good example for an admin to set for us. What if we all behaved like that? SkeenaR 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from the oral histories

I just removed the following passage from the article. The references to the NY Times are helpful, but this passage is way too long, with too many cherry picked quotes. For example, Kevin Darnowski goes on to say "... we got reports of gas lines that were blown...". If we're to include quotes, this passage needs to shorted drastically (less verbose) and include a more balanced selection of quotes. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Oral Histories Project made available to the NY Times by the City of New York pursuant FOIA, records the testimony of many eye witnesses of the collapses, including numerous NY City firefighters and workers in the Towers. Many witnesses describe multiple explosions and flashes before the collapses. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski, for example, said: “I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down. (Oral History of Kevin Darnowski, 8, transcript avaialble at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html) . Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash, flash, flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. (Oral History of Stephen Gregory, 14-16, transcript for this and other Oral History testimonies avaialble at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). Captain Karin Deshore’s account moved to another standard phenomenon reported for controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building: “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.” (Oral History of Karin Deshore, 15). Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. There was nothing there but rubble, said Pecoraro. We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil.” Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off. (“We Will Not Forget: A Day of Terror,” The Chief Engineer, July, 2002).

Another survivor, Teresa Veliz, describes her experience as follows: “The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run.” (Teresa Veliz: “A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly,” in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy, Doubleday, 2002, pp 9-15.)

Fine KMF, I would be OK with putting all the quotes and citations in one or more footnotes, and in the article stating something like: Many eye witnesses, inlcuidng NYC firefighters, reported seeing and hearing multiple explosions, incluidng flashes from explosion running in rings around the Towers. Some surviviors who worked in the Towers also reported equipment in the Towers destroyed by explosions, while others reported being afraid to escape from the WTC complex because of the explosions they heard and felt all around them. NYCJosh.

But the quotes are still cherry picked... The oral histories included 503 firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs, and you cite five examples. What do we mean by "many" witnesses? I've looked over many of the oral histories and don't see where *many* reported seeing or hearing multiple explosions. Instead it should say *some* ... And by mentioning explosions, it seems like you're trying to imply something. Maybe we should go on to mention about the blown gas lines? How about just saying "When the towers collapsed (which ones?), some eyewitnesses, including NYC firefighters, reported seeing and hearing multiple explosions and blown gas lines." -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand I am accused of being too verbose, on the other hand of not quoting more witnesses and more from each witness. I am glad you also took the trouble of going through some of the transcripts. If one witness reports that he heard from someone else that there may have been blown gas lines, that is hearsay and not eye witness testimony. It certainly does not impeach the testimony I quoted or render what I quoted inaccurate, unfair or taking statements out of context. I would be happy to include any relevant reasonable quote from these people or others that you suggest, particularly if it is generally corroborated by at least a second witness. So if several report multiple explosions, and rings of explosions around each Tower, that's important evidence that goes to the nature of the collapse. NYCJosh

Josh, please timestamp using ~~~~, the second to the last tab at the top of the edit window.--MONGO 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK.--NYCJosh 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing debate among engineers

Articles published in New Civil Engineer:

All this work is just the start Publication date: 01 November 2005: Do engineers really know how tall steel framed buildings will behave in an intense fire? To judge from the views expressed ...

WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation Publication date: 01 November 2005: WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls ...

Calls to reopen Cardington for post 9/11 fire tests rejected Publication date: 27 October 2005: SENIOR CONSTRUCTION professionals this week urged the government to reopen the Cardington large scale fire testing facility for vital post...

Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed Publication date: 22 September 2005: A ROW over the causes of the World Trade Center twin tower collapses on 11 September 2001 broke out between ...

Engineers fear overreaction to WTC report Publication date: 01 August 2005: LEADING US structural engineers warned against an overreaction to the final official report on the 2001 World Trade Center collapses ...

To make a search on http://www.nceplus.co.uk/ all you need to do is create an free account. To get to the articles though one will have to pay. Or look in the archive. --EyesAllMine 11:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The people who disagree with NIST say this:

"We don't believe that NIST has satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of fire proofing was the deciding factor in the collapse," said Arup associate director Dr Barbara Lane.

We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection (NCE 30 June).

NIST is now recommending that all structural elements of tall buildings have the same degree of fire protection.

Firms like Arup have developed international reputations for producing designs which avoid the need for such extensive fire protection. [14]

To the extent that we can mention this without exaggerating a minority viewpoint, we should be sure to accurately characterise the nature of the disagreement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... I agree - but why not quote the article that states some info regarding the debate amongst engineers? :

WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation by Dave Parker

"WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned.

Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.

The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings."

--EyesAllMine 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why would we pay money to read nonsense? If their evidence is so compelling, why isn't it all over the news. If the government was involved in a coverup, the media would be all over this...but they're not because it is a nonsense and falls into the realm of psuedoscience. I keep seeing arguments about the need for heat to melt steel and people keep forgetting that the buildings were hit by wide body jets flying close to maximum speed. WTC 7 was beset by fires and damage from having 30 foot steel beams thrown into it. Numerous other buildings also endured huge fires and major structural damage and for them, it's a shock actually that they remained standing. My job is to revert speculation and violations of NPOV, original research and unsubstantiated opinion and I guess I'll just continue to do so.--MONGO 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy its mentioned, because before the article kind off had an effect on you as if the whole collapse scenario has been explained fully. This is not the case, and the article of cause should reflect that. There are still unanswered qestions, which are being debated, and information and facts which are apparently hard to get hold of and check in a peer-review like fashion. --EyesAllMine 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

YOU and the government and the New York Times say it's nonsense and unsubstantiated pseudoscience so we should just forget about it? I don't think so MONGO. That is some pretty wild speculation. Go ahead and keep original research and violations of NPOV out of the article, thats fine. I will find some relevant and quite possibly compelling NPOV information to add to the article and you can speculate about that. SkeenaR 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are long overdue for a reading of the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV. Rhobite 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no "undue weight" here. The view you are referring to is not represented in the article as truth, and it is not overrepresented here because it is definitely not a tiny minority of people who think that the collapse of the WTC did not transpire the way it is explained in the official story. As a matter of fact I could write a whole article about the phenomenon. Why do you guys sound so desperate? If there can be information in this article that me or EyesAllMine or anyone else at all can add to this article that is relevant, not POV, is not speculation, is not original research, is not repetetive, is not overrepresentive then what exactly is the problem? Is it simply that you don't like it? SkeenaR 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, if the NY Times says it's nonsense, that's the first time I would probably be found in agreement with them on anything...I think the passage should read..."A distinct minority has challenged the findings of mainstream engineers, the U.S. Government and independent researchers, arguing that controlled demolition may have occurred. For more information, please see: 9/11 conspiracy theories" and that is all the article should mention here. Whenever there is a fringe group that is of such a small minority that they are within the realm of psuedoscience, it is policy to make a brief mention and then redirect to a page that discusses the details under a correct page and or article title. All arguments of controlled demolition are indeed conspiracy theories.--MONGO 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting it is a small minority? Are you asking me to prove that it is not? Also, I'll point out again that the official explanation is also a conspiracy theory. And you can learn what pseudoscience is here. SkeenaR 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Skeena...if any of this stuff had any weight, the media would chew it up...but they don't because it doesn't....nothing would make the media happier than to be able to report either bad news or something that would be earthshaking such as this controlled demolition bunk...that is, if it had any real proof and not just a few opinions. Don't buy into it...or UFO's or Bigfoot either.--MONGO 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee..I guess you are right. There is that media we can depend on again. And just to make it clear that anyone who doesn't take Bill O'Reilly's word for it is retarded, a nice association with lizard people from outer space. I'm glad you could so succinctly clear things up again. SkeenaR 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I'm glad I could be of assistance!--MONGO 02:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

>>"Skeena...if any of this stuff had any weight, the media would chew it up . . ." Just like the media 'chewed up' the fake claims of wmds in Iraq exposed by British press? Or just like the media 'chewed up' the NSA wiretapping which the NYT knew about a year ago? The US media is not the savior you imagine it to be. Lately the US media is busy with mining disasters . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.180.197 (talk)

Melting steal, kerosine is not enough, however aluminium will do

Its a fact, a burn of kerosine would not provide enough heat to melt steel.
Some people therfore have claimed that it might have been controled demolition.

There is however another way to get enough heat.
The reaction is more complex however all materials have been in place at the time.

Aluminium normaly does not burn, and we think of it as a harmless material. Aluminium is however highly reactive, altough it's natural oxydation closes itself from more oxydation. Unlike the corosion of iron Aluminium corosion forms a closed surface. That's the reason why it doesn't keep on going oxidyzing, like iron does.

But Aluminium still is potentialy highly reactive.
A thermite reaction is a reaction whem aluminium oxydizes in a fire.
Perhaps you ever had read a modern car burn in which it's aluminium burns at 2500°C (4500°K)
This temperature is enough to melt steel which is done at about 1500°C.
To get a thermite reation all that is required is a good starting temperature. Aperantly some car accidents provide enough starting heat for such reactions. Now imagine an airplanes it goes a bit faster and it is mostly build of aluminium and feuled with kersonine.

The problem with the thermite reaction of aluminium is that it's a special burn. A water sprinkler system will not stop the burn, as aluminium is an highly reactive material. At these temperatures it will use the oxygen of the water to burn.
(thermite reactions burn also under water).


More information about thermite reactions [thermite]

This is insanity. This talk page is not the place to come up with our own pet theories about what happened. Besides, the NIST report does not claim the steel melted (i.e. changed its physical state). The steel bent due to the high temperatures, causing buckling and the eventual collapses. Nobody has claimed that melting occurred, or needed to occur in order for the buildings to collapse. Rhobite 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Amen!--MONGO 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's difficult enough to have relevant information discussed here without becoming even more complicated. SkeenaR 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this place is for the small minded...probably best to put controlled demolition information in this article.--MONGO 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That must be why you are here. :) SkeenaR 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right...expand your horizons and ensure all controlled demolition info is put into the linked article...stop wasting your time on morons like me.--MONGO 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You must really want to argue awfully bad. It's obvious that some of the information is relevant to the article. Go ahead and tell me it's not. But don't worry, I won't waste anymore time on you until you start reverting some perfectly acceptable edits to the article - or unnecesarily start harrasing people again. SkeenaR 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In the News

9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the Hard Questions 1 Feb 2006, Miami Herald 20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11 Jan 31, 2006 DailyKos

Possible Detroit "Super Bowl" Terrorist Attack? 30 Jan 2006, Email message

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax 30 Jan 2006, Yahoo News story Daily Kos (with a rolling forum)

Deseret Morning News reports on Scholars for 9/11 Truth: 28 Jan 2006, Deseret Morning News

Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11 27 January 2006, Daily Kos (with a poll)

The US military's plans for an information war: 27 Jan 2006, BBC news report The PDF file of the plan

An email from Ian Henshall: 26 Jan 2006 report on Oxford Union 911 meeting

Top Russian General Says International Terrorism is a Ruse: 24 Jan 2006

Deseret Morning News reports on upcoming paper by Professor Jones: 10 Nov 2005, Deseret Morning News

SkeenaR 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide these in external links as the manner in which you present them makes it impossible or at least very difficult for us to cross reference the info.--MONGO 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need. You can find linked references to every above example in the Criticism section. Please discuss before you thrash the hell out of the article again. I am going to put the controversial tag up. SkeenaR 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

There is the undue weight clause in Wikipedia's neutral point of view which clearly states that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."...this is a policy that Wikipedia must honor. [15]--MONGO 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with an extremely small or vastly limited minority and you know it. The clause is clearly not applicable here. SkeenaR 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see vandalism and 3R rules. SkeenaR 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My edits are not vandalism, but yours may be due to your violation of the undue weight clause and using private websites which are not peer reviewed...you should see 3RR as well.--MONGO 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

With four or five long paragraphs, this is too much to include here. It more properly belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories. This page should present information about the collapse. A one-paragraph mention of alternative speculations with a link to their main coverage elsewhere is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to make a slight expansion on my version, with a mention of a few notables, but that should be sufficient...fringe information does properly belong in the article mentioned by Tom or in the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article.--MONGO 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One day will not help your case as you have presented it. I am interested in a resolution that fits with proper implementation of Wikipedia policy. Feel free to elaborate in the meantime. SkeenaR 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Tom's and my statements here make the issue clear...the link above to WP:NPOV clearly demostrate that the extreme minority viewpoint does not have to hold the overwhelming concensus hostage. When there is one piece of evidence that supports any findings of contolled demolition, aside from opinions and selective reasoning, then I want to be the first to see it. Until then, this misinformation you keep pushing is going to be in subarticles under proper titles.--MONGO 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed "including 7 WTC" from the buildings destroyed or damaged by debris. Not true, no support.

69.231.8.216 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get it

I'm new here at wikipedia. And I have been quite happy up til now. Now I find the behaviour here amazing. Maybe it is because I am new to this but I just don't get it:

Why should the official explanation, that has not yet been peer-reviewed, not be properly citated, so we and other can verify it, while other viewpoints should be both peer-reviewed and citated proper? Shouldn't we keep all viewpoints to the same verifying standards?

Why are MONGO saying "find the citations yourself...stop cluttering the page with this" (how is "stop cluttering" a constructive remark?) when removing the citation needed tags? It is a clear and obvious policy that:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it. WP:V

Is it okay just to delete citation needed tags, without coming up with proper citation? As far as I can read in WP:V I can actually delete every part of this article that hasn't been properly citated, and then anybody who will reinsert that will have to come up with the sources and citation. Why then has MONGO reinserted every part of the article that prior has been deleted because of lack of sources, without aplying a source of citation?

How can SkeenaR be reported for 3RRs when both Tom and MONGO, (who both are personally engaged in this article) has done four reverts together? Is it okay to do that just because you are two admins?

Can anybody explain how all this is ok???? --EyesAllMine 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We did four reverts combined while the other editor did 4 on his/her own. That's the difference...see WP:3RR. The article doesn't need 2 dozen citation requests scattered all over the place...it's ridiculous.--MONGO 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So if you are a group of Three, you could make three reverts each, making nine reverts? Isn't that called gaming? I think it's bad style. And how is this OK?? Is it ok to delete from talk pages because it is critic of yourself? The part you deleted had a lot of relevant information. If I find your actions as an admin is offensive, where do I go with that? --EyesAllMine 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of that was due to my username being tossed around like so much cheese...no one has to tolerate accusations like that...the list was a copy and paste directly off the website and was a copyviolation to do so...that is an immediate deletion, period.--MONGO 11:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's is absolutely no copyright violation. It was the list of people behind, that was shown. Please answer my questions. Oh - and if somebody writes something about me I don't like I just delete it???? I'm getting quite angry now, so I will take a break --EyesAllMine 11:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone starts throwing your username around like mine was, let me know and I'll delete it. It was a copy and paste and that makes it a copyvio...a blockable offense. You can report my actions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and make sure you include this link.--MONGO 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eyesallmine, please note the quote you made above where it says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources". Much of the material on the article comes from FEMA and NIST sources. These are reputable sources. While inline citations certainly would be useful and go towards a complete article such as those frequently found at WP:FAC, please keep in mind the article is evolving. Rather than sprinkle the article with "citation needed", work towards developing the citations and putting them inline. That helps us move forward towards a well constructed article. Without the inline citations, it's pretty safe to bet that a given claim comes from the FEMA and NIST reports. That doesn't mean we should accept the article in its current form of course, but that also does not mean we should liberally sprinkle the article with "citation needed". --Durin 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No ... thats why I started with puting one "lacking sources" tag at the top of the article, as it is done on a lot of articles on Wiki. But it was quickly removed. And I have tried to discuss it here on the talk page, but it is getting ignored. Why shouldnt we make this article great and verifiable? --EyesAllMine 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• There's no reason we shouldn't. Thus, start with the first uncited assertion you find, locate a cite from a reputable source for it, and add it using Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for guidance. Sprinkling the article with "citation needed" doesn't improve the article. --Durin 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For clarification: it wasn't me that put it everywhere, in each sentence. I am refering to the "citation needed"tags that I put in, that has now been removed. Not the sprinkling --EyesAllMine 14:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I am not the one who should add citations. The one who has put it in the article is the one who should properly source it. I could remove every unsubstantiated part of this article according to WP:V. But I'm being polite and will just put the "article lakcking sources" - or whatever tag back on. We need all the help we can get here, so making a notice will hopefully attract it. --EyesAllMine 14:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you were to remove large sections of the text of the article as it as now based on WP:V, you would be operating in a combative as opposed to collaborative manner. We are building an encyclopedia here; let's keep our focus on that. If you find a section of the text that you feel needs a citation to back it up, then by all means go and find the material to back it up. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree or disagree with the assertion. This and every other article on Wikipedia isn't about what we personally believe. It's about what we can verify, whether we happen to like it or not. If you can't find a source, then come here to the talk page and see if maybe someone else can. See the discussion above at "Explanation of removal of 'Aircraft Considerations' rewrite" for an example of a collaborative, as opposed to combative, effort to improve the article. --Durin 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are dictating that I should research and find sources for claims which might not even exist? And then I could not put in the "verify tag" or "citaion needed"? May I remind you that this project is based on volunteering. and then you accuse me of being combatitive! -- this is very amusing. For your information WP:V states "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but do not remove large tracts of Wikipedia without first giving people a chance to provide references to support their inclusion." "If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has been in an article for a long time, delete it or move it to the talk page." "Alternatively, you may tag the article by adding the {{fact}}, {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}} templates.".If you check the history of this article, who has then deleted combatively all kind of efforts of improving the article? --EyesAllMine 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion appears to be de-railing. I did not say you are being combative. I said: "IF you were to remove large sections of the text of the article as it as now based on WP:V, you would be operating in a combative as opposed to collaborative manner". I accused you of nothing. Also note your own citation of WP:V, "removing large tracts...". That's what I was talking about. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm interested in improving the article, and working collaboratively with you to accomplish that. --Durin 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy about that - cause thats what I've wanted all along. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I started asking for citation for a part of the article, which I put higher up on this talk page. No body has responded. --EyesAllMine 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It was I who added many "citation needed" comments. I added them only to assertions that (a) are factual claims that could and should have such citations and (b) are claims for which I have been unable to find citations, despite my effort to do so. I agree with EyesAllMine, it is the resposibility of the one adding the assertion to back it up. In my view, the undocumented assertions should be deleted from the article until such time as they are documented. 69.231.8.216 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It would have been easier to take citation needed as a legitimate request for information if one had not been for The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire. I think these were added to make a point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's one of the most blatant problems. Those fires were diffuse flames (as opposed to a jet burner flame or a pre mixed flame). The strength of structural steel absolutely does NOT drop markedly when exposed to a diffuse flame, which is why no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire (outside 9-11 allegedly).

"The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire is false, and certainly requires a citation if someone wants to pass it off as true. 69.228.47.62 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a constructive debate

This is the policy MONGO is referring to when he deletes and substitutes a big chunk of the article:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

And the viewpoint you support obviously fits the third criteria.--MONGO 12:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the part that has been deleted:

Criticism of FEMA/NIST reports

A group of distinguished experts and scholars that include Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow conclude that FEMA and NIST reports regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings are false and that crucial facts pertaining to the terrorist attacks of Sept 11 have been covered up by senior government officials. This group calls themselves Scholars For 9/11 Truth

Their conclusion is based on the results of extensive scientific and political research. These experts contend that the official version of events on Sept 11, 2001 are one of the greatest hoaxes in history which has led to war and unconstitutional policy and decision making. They also point out that the 9/11 Commission Report is permeated with omissions, distortions, and factual errors including absolutely no mention of Building 7 which was hit by no airplanes and completely collapsed hours after the twin towers were struck.

Here are some of the circumstances involved that these experts and scholars find profoundly disturbing:

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. It has been established by physics research that only controlled demolitions have ever been consistent with the near vacuum speed of fall and almost completely symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. All three buildings fell straight-down into their own footprints while pulverizing the concrete into fine dust.

Recent scientific study of collapse by BYU Professor In September 2005, Professor Steven E. Jones from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University published a paper on a page on the University web site titled Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?; on this site Jones presents a hypothesis for the controlled-demolition of WTC towers 1, 2, and 7, and calls for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. A version of the website information was presented to an audience from BYU and Utah Valley State College on September 22, 2005. The paper will be published in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001" by Elsevier, in spring 2006. Although Professor Jones is not a trained structural engineer, nor does he have training in controlled demolition, he calls for an independent and international investigation by experts in these areas outside of the bodies of NIST and FEMA. He especially focuses on the evidence of the molten metal found at the base of WTC1, 2 and 7.

I don’t see how this fringe? The people behind are indeed well-known professors and politicians etc. There has been reports in the media, and Jones paper is peer-reviewed. Elsevier is a respected academic publisher. And Griffins books has sold in the millions.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents WP:V

Yep - and that we can and have done.

Stating that it has Zero mentioning in the media is not correct: http://www.st911.org/ the organiation it self - here you can see who the people behind it are, and there is a list of peer-reviewed papers as well. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13760721.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm a dutch Television Documentary: Two former Government Ministers have grave doubts about what Americans call "the war on terrorism", Michael Meacher - MP - Former UK Government Minister. "The war on terror is bogus" and Andreas Von Bulow, Former German Secretary Of Defense "The official story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one". http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Steven%20Jones%20Shows%20WTC%20Demolition%20Evidence.wmv Professor Jones in MSNBC http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Professor%20Steven%20Jones%20on%20Utah%20TV%20News.wmv Prof. Jones in UTAH news TV --EyesAllMine 09:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Every link you provided is either from the private websites I mentioned that we don't allow, opinion pieces or, just an report about Jones in the Deseret News...nothing earth shattering about any of them...let me known when it appears as bold headlines "Controlled demolition, not planes brought down the WTC" on the front page of the Washington Post...heck, get ahold of Carl Bernstein or anyone and tell them you now have the proof...--MONGO 11:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Were going ring'round a rosy here. Everybody can check the links for themselves and see that you are ... incorrect. We should mention the critique. Daily herald: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163875/3/ --EyesAllMine 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

where was Steven E. Jones meeting at?--MONGO 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it was in Utah...so I looked up the Salt Lake Tribune for today's headlines and, well, there's no mention of it...[16]...they must be part of the government coverup too.--MONGO 12:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at what Daily Herald and Miami Herald has to say about this group of people:

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may," last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org.

[...]

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present. [17] [18] --EyesAllMine 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Two webbased links do not a "BIG STORY" make...it isn't news, it's fantasy. How many of these others that were listed as supportors of this nonsense were keynote speakers, or even in attendance at this big meeting of experts?--MONGO 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What meeting are you refering to MONGO? And what has a meeting to do with this? --EyesAllMine 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was this seminar you refered to? --EyesAllMine 12:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one...wish I coulda been there...it would have been a gas. "lucy...you have sum esplainin tu do"...nice blog spot...has me convinced...should help him sell his impending book too.--MONGO 12:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Durbin has admonished me for requesting a citaton proving that the jet crashes caused internal structural failure, stating that internal structural failure was obvious. Not so. There is no proof whatsoever that the jet crashes caused any of the 47 steel box columns (the internal support structure) to fail. After the crashes, there is no observable sagging, bending, or misalignment of vertical structural lines at all. 69.231.8.216 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Using just your IP is not helping your case anymore than your constant insertion of cititation all over the place...no one has yet proven that there has been controlled demolition or a government coverup...let's see you prove that.--MONGO 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a small minority, . www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855 Less than two in five (36%) of New Yorkers polled believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) of New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions." Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.

They are discussing whether the U.S. Government knew beforehand of the attacks and whether the government could have done more to prevent them, not about if there was a coverup about controlled demolition or a government conspiracy...get your facts straight.--MONGO 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only inserted "citation needed" where citations are needed. Adding citations would improve the credibility of the article. It's not my fault that the article is riddled with assertions. In my view, there are two choices, support the statements with documentation, or lose them.

69.231.8.216 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No Mongo, it's around half of New Yorkers who hold something close to the "government knew in advance and let it happen" view. That's what "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and consciously failed to act," means. That does not mean that many believe the government made it happen, but if half believe something close to "let it happen on purpose", then the "made it happen" view is just a difference in degree (the difference between a policeman shooting a person and the policeman not saying anything while he sees someone else sneaking up to kill the person--both require an intention to have injury occur on the part of the policeman) and it cannot be an extremely small minority of New Yorkers who hold the let it happen view. The point is, this view is not like the flat earth society. Wikipedia should present the facts as they become available not try to chose a winning view. There is a significant minority of the population, several researchers and experts, and some credible evidence for these views. Abe

Okay Abe, with the vast majority of New Yorkers being strongly Democrat, it isn't surprising that their "opinion" (emphasis on opinion, by the way) is biased against an incident that happened during the tenure of a Republican President. What's that go to do with proving contolled demolition happened? Also, timestamp your posts, Abe, with ~~~~, it's the button second to last at the top of the edit window "Your signature with timestamp".--MONGO 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The deleted sections will probably have to be reinstated in the article as the undue weight clause is clearly not applicable here. As well, proper citation is needed in the rest of the article, a lot of which is non-compliant with Wikipedia Policy and should be removed. SkeenaR 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO: "two webbased links" as you call it are two articles in mainstream newspapers namely Miami Herald and Daily Herald, and is just two out many as listed above which also includes two television interviews. These people are not fringe. --EyesAllMine 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The undue weight clause is not applicable. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth is apparently down at the moment, so the list is of people is here:

• Victoria Ashley (AM) Architecture and physiological psychology, 911research.wtc7.net
• Robert M. Bowman (FM) Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
• Len Bracken (AM) Credentialed Journalist Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"
• Clare Brandabur (FM) Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
• Jordan Brewster (AM) Conspiracies
• Fred Burks (AM) Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries. www.wanttoknow.info/911information
• Frank Carmen (AM) Physics Ph.D., BYU
• Danielle Celeste (SA) Psychchology, History and Politics, Propaganda and its dissemination
• Erik Champenois (SA) Student, BYU
• Harriet Cianci (FM) Tunxis Community College, CT
• Muhammad Columbo (AM) Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience
• Lloyd DeMause (FM) Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
• Eric Douglas (AM) New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
• Jeffrey Farrer (FM) Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
• James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T
• Alex Floum (AM) Attorney
• Marcus Ford (FM) Humanities, NAU
• Robert Fritzius (AM) Electrical Engineering, Radar and telecommunications
• David Gabbard (FM) Curriculum & Instruction College of Education East Carolina University
• Daniele Ganser (FM) Historian, Basel University, Switzerland
• Michael Gass (AM) Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician
• Daniel D. German (SM) Student scholar, UNC
• Kenyon Gibson (AM) Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)
• Gordon Ginn (AM) Motives behind attack
• Rich Hellner (AM) Air Traffic Controller, Air Route Traffic Control Center
• Jesse Hemingway (AM) Author of "Friendly Fire on Holy Grounds"
• Eric Hermanson (AM) Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect
• Eric Hufschmid (AM) Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"
• Greg Lemon (AM) Animation, Simulation, Special Effects
• Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM) Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
• Andrew Johnson (FM) Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering
• Steven Jones (FM) Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
• Nathan Jones (SA) Student, Snow College, UT
• Peter Kirsh (AM) Forensic pathologist
• Greg Lopreato (AM) Senior Research Scientist
• Wayne Madsen (AM) Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist, a former communications security analyst with NSA and a former intelligence officer in the USMC and a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
• David Masdon (AM) Electrical Engineering
• Richard McGinn (FM) Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
• Scott Meredith (AM) Theoretical Linguistics, High technology 21 years
• Aidan Monaghan (AM) Electronics engineering, www.explosive911analysis.com
• Peter Meyer (AM) Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)
• John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM) Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues
• Nicholas Newton (AM) Astrophysics, Simulation Models
• Ralph Omholt (AM) Technical writer
• Matthew Orr (FM) Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
• Don Paul (AM) Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)
• Benjamin Pritchard (AM) Software Engineer 911TruthEmergence.com
• Diana Ralph (FM) Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
• Rick Rajter (SA) Materials Science and Engineering Emerging and Fundamental Science
• Joseph Raso (FM) Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, State-sponsored terrorism
• Daniel Rees (SA)
• Morgan Reynolds (FM) Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
• Karen Rice (FM) Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
• Annie Robbins (SA) Artist
• Kevin Ryan (AM) Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
• Nila Sagedevan (AM) Airline pilot
• Jimmy Smith (AM) Communications Engineering
• Leonard Spencer (AM) Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li
• Morgan Stack (FM) Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
• Glenn Stanish (AM) Airline Pilot, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Allied Pilots Association (APA)
• Harry Stottle (AM) Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.
• Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM) President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
• Andreas Von Buelow (FM) Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
• Lon Waters (FM) High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
• Edgar Williams (AM) Statistics, Computer Science, Database Management
• Carl Weis (FM) Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
• Jack White (AM) Photoanalyst
• Jonathan Wilson (SM) Criminology, University of Winnipeg
• Judy Wood (FM) Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University
• Ian Woods (FM) Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka 911inquiry.org)
• Brad (AM) RF Engineering, 911review.org

As I stated futher down, I've gotten permision by e-mail to quote from the website. --EyesAllMine 11:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And this group is not the only scholars criticizing the NIST report. Dr. Frank Geening states in his conlusion "Clearly, if NIST’s computer model is essentially correct, the Twin Towers collapsed (or fell over!) at ridiculously small downward displacements and tilt angles, and were inherently unstable as soon as they were struck by aircraft. This raises serious questions about the design and construction of the Twin Towers. However, a more reasonable assessment would be that NIST’s computer model is highly inaccurate, and therefore of no value in explaining the demise of the Twin Towers." [19]

So what? You're still linking from the 9/11 article you continuously cite...it isn't mainstream and isn't in the mainstream press...the website you promote is not an authoritative source of unbiased information, and argues other items that deal with the anti war on terror, especially an anti iraq war basis...trying to link a government coverup with a Republican war effort. As I said, when it appears in bold headlines on the front page "Controlled demolition, not planes were the cause of the collapse of the WTC" in the mainstream press then it may be citable. What part of veracity of information do you miss? You have the other articles in which you can put this nonsense...it won't be in here until they prove controlled demolition and that is altogether different than stating that it COULD have happened...UFO's are also not impossible, nor is Bigfoot...this is not the National Enquirer.--MONGO 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO try to follow the links. Frank Greening has posted his paper on 911myth, a site dedicated to debunk the critique of the official explanations. --EyesAllMine 12:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Miami Herald is not mainstream? Griffin, Buelov, Bovman and Jones are not a significant minority?? Listen MONGO - it seems to me you are pushing your own POV agenda here. And you seem to be stern on your opinions. What do we do now? --EyesAllMine 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...submit them all for psych evaluations...that would be a good start.--MONGO 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is Bovman? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a joke Tom? It is Robert M. Bowman, former head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD. Oh yeah and ,

• President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
• Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
• recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
• the George F. Kennan Peace Prize
• the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace
• The Society of American Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice)
• the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters
• the Republic Aviation Airpower Award

as well as numerous other awards. He is one of the country's foremost authorities on national security.[20] SkeenaR 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There you go again...always ready to whip out that website...I looked him up...he was head under Ford and Carter of the early "Star wars" stuff...and a decorated verteran...but not a structural engineer...seems to be heavily involved in the United Catholic Church...what exactly is that I wonder...does he have the proof of controlled demolition...as I said, get ahold of the Washington Post and especially the chief of investigative journalism Carl Bernstein...this is breaking news.--MONGO 10:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I guess, an example from the Washington Post or the esteemed Carl Bernstein is hardly imperative in this debate. And the particular website that the information came from is irrelevant as long as it is accurate, unless of course you implement POV in your argument. Perhaps I will give people the example from the Washington Times(wow! high profile mainstream news!) about the first term Bush team member(wow! former Bush team member!) who is expressing "serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept 11". SkeenaR 10:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I guess, I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that controlled demolition was the cause of the WTC collapse...I guess it's going to be a long wait...as I said, when it appears in the mainstream media or a reliable scientific journal that controlled demolition and not planes brought down the WTC, then we can all assume that the government lied to us...until then, I guess I better be patient.--MONGO 10:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've found it's important to watch your step around here with all the bizarre allegations flying around. The next thing you know, someone will accuse you of religious bigotry. SkeenaR 10:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Man you're not kidding...there sure are a lot of Bizarre allegations flying around...wonder where they came from...it must be straight from the Bush administration...yeah, that's right...it's a coverup for sure...I'm calling the psychic hotline to confirm.--MONGO 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, this is supposed to be a constructive debate. SkeenaR 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention? Nothings proven. SkeenaR 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh...whattaya mean...I thought you had proven the contolled demolition stuff...I even gave you the links to Carl Bernstein and the post...better call them and I mean fast before someone else gets credit for breaking the news.--MONGO 11:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, this is supposed to be constructive. Sarcasm and pointlesness isn't. SkeenaR 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay...do you have any proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 11:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats your proof? And of what? We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the undue weight clause is not applicable. SkeenaR 11:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't...do they have proof that there was controlled demolition? How many of these people listed are experts in controlled demolition? How many of them winessed explosives being planted? Saw documents discussing or orders issuing the controlled demolition? Does even a singel person from this list have anything that would prove controlled demolition? Let me when you find the smoking gun...I'd be most interested in being the first person on earth to know...--MONGO 11:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the clause. You know where it is. By the wording of that clause, that is the single most undisputed thing about this article. I invite everyone else to read it too. We have all heard enough about Carl Bernstein for one night. Thanks. SkeenaR 11:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no reason to get the news out that you're hiding from the world...just go ahead and keep the proof of controlled demolition to yourself and cheat the world of the truth. We have all heard enough about a list of names that appear mostly just in blogs...I checked a number of them out...can't seem to find hardly a one that has a background in controlled demolition and not a singel one of them has any proof of it...so stop wasting everybodys time.--MONGO 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of wasting anybody's time Mongo. When people read the clause everybody is going to know who that was. SkeenaR 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

At last...proof is at hand...yes, folks, that's right...this list of names from blogs with no proof that controlled demolition happened are here to refute the investigations of thousands of investigators, academics, scholars and the common sense of the people of the world with their proof of controlled demolition...let freedom reign! I feel so, ah, enlightened.--MONGO 12:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't seem you have been paying attention. There is no proof for the official theory. But you are happy to paste the hell out of the website with your links and delete anything you find offensive. Please, just read, READ the clause. SkeenaR 12:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you know what,,,this is a distinguished list...and none of them have uterior political motivations...I thinkj I know who has the most proof of controlled demolition...it must be "Erik Champenois (SA) Student, BYU" I mean, with those credentials...he must have the answers we all seek....yeah, I know, there's a couple of people of note...but not really becuause hardly a one of them has published a singel shred of evidence that proves controlled demolition...the list is meaningless and most of these people only show up on blogs in conspiracy theory websites...I can't even find out many of their credentials...the list is a waste of our time, as is the arguement of controlled demolition.--MONGO 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ulterior political motivations? That belongs in the conspiracy theory page. You only specifically mention one person from the extensive list of scholars and experts. Please don't pick and choose like that. Again, there is no proof...and the list is a piece of the evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the undue weight clause is not applicable. SkeenaR 12:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I mention one...and none of them are controlled demolition experts...not one...I can pick apart every single one of these people as not have an ounce of proof that controlled demolition happened...not a one of them can prove it and that is the point. There are tens of thousands of investigators, researchers, academics and scholars that would stand in line to support the U.S. Government's investigations and findings. Compared to the list of non notables you mention, they have no weight and your complete lack of proof has no weight here. Even the structural engineers at BYU, Jones' own university don't back up his jargon...either you sadly believe this nonsese or you're here purely for disruption, but I can see that there is no real reason to continue this argument with you any longer. Nothing you have to sell will be a part of this article.--MONGO 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have a clue what we are talking about. Not a clue. The government reports are being criticized. It is claimed that they may be completely bogus actually. This is by a significant minority. A significant minority of scholars and experts. The undue weight clause is not applicable. Repeat if necessary. SkeenaR 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; Actually I just misread it as "Bovman" rather than "Bowman," couldn't find Bovman, and thought maybe it was someone new. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Copywrite violations

Do not copy and paste html from websites...they are easily spotted...Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations and I refer to this edit:[21] and it is a copy and paste from: [22]...this is a blocakble offense and in egregious circumstances, bannable. If this is performed one more time I will block that person on sight.--MONGO 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this copy-violation you are talking about. Do you say that I or anybody could be blocked for listing the people behind Sholars for 9/11 truth? Even here on a talk page? I can see it is a problem in the article itselves if it is big chunks of material without references, but this? --EyesAllMine 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Read about our copywrite situation...if someone copies and pastes from a private website without permission, Wikipedia can be found liable if it isn't removed promptly. Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations provides some helpful tips on spotting html text copywrite violations. Besides, there is no need to list them here, a link is more than suffcient.--MONGO 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a legitimate concern and definitely one worth paying attention to, but just because something is copy and paste doesn't automatically classify it as a violation, a sentence consisting of four or five words for example. Like I said, I am going to be rock solid on this by coming to understand the policy, holding off on lists and such for now and watching for other possible violations. That list was only a small piece of the article, not even a sentence and not even reproduced in an article. You might say that it doesn't matter if it's in an article or discussion, it's still a violation, but I don't believe that reproducing a mere list of names qualifies. But I'll find out. SkeenaR 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Scolars for 9/11 Thruth, and have permission for Wikipedia to qoute from the site, e.g. the whole list of "who we are". --EyesAllMine 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You must post the email...without it it is a copywrite problem...see the links I have provided for further information. Regardless, they offer only pseudoscience and opinion, not hard facts that relate to an actual coverup. Misinformation and misquoting evidence, failure to provide a fully factual accord. They talk about what may have happened, not what did happen. Vitually all the folks you cite need to be contacted for comment. Explain why the entire structural engineering staff at BYU has refuted Jones's theory...the same college Jones teaches at...the man is just trying to push his politics and bias and to peddle his book....that is all.--MONGO 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO ... take it easy. Even if I posted the e-mail you'd state it was fake. Here it is:

Dear Prof. Jones.

I am living in Denmark, and I am a contributor to the English Wikipedia, under the name of EyesAllMine. I would like to quote from the S911T website, and would be happy to know if some of the information (e.g. the "who we are" list) could be distributed without violation of copyrights.

Best regards

Xxxxxx.

Hi, Xxxxxx,

I see no problem quoting from the information there. Note that the site is frequently updated…

Best wishes, and thanks for your support,

Steven J

But you (and everybody else) can easily write yourself to Scholars for 9/11 truth and get the same answer from them.

We should simply include the facts, and facts are that NIST is being criticized. We dont need to prove anything. We can go on and on, but Buelov, Bovmann, Jones, Griffin and others are notable people. --EyesAllMine 20:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice. SkeenaR 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That is permission to CITE, not permission to COPY...besides, Wikipedia wants people to write articles, not just copy them from another source for the most part...you can cite anything you want so long as it can be cross referenced with other factual sources. You don't need permission to cite another source of course, so long as it is attributed...and we already said that these websies you want to cite from are not reliable witness...they are based on hypothesis and that is why they belong in other articles, not here.--MONGO 11:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And i CITED it ... I've never claimed to have written the list myself --EyesAllMine 11:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, we are not writing an article right here. This (or was) supposed to be a debate. Why don't you focus on trying to win the debate which is what I assume you desire, instead of running circular arguments about copyvio. You should cause it doesn't look good for you with this undue weight clause. SkeenaR 11:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Boilerplate request for permission and a Confirmation of permission, if that's useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about a list of participants here, I cannot see ANY copyright violations in quoting it. And I will not dicuss it further, as it seems to be empty bullying on MONGOs part. --EyesAllMine 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read Wikipedias copywrite information, we do not allow cut and paste from websites unless they are within the public domain...the cut and paste was even in the same html format as it appeared on the website page...what do you think...that I just started editing here? You can write the names, as if that is necessary since a link does fine, but you CANNOT copy and paste them...it is a blockable offense.--MONGO 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll check it out. SkeenaR 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide not a page with no relevant information on it other than the word "copyright" but the fact that we cannot use material with permission on a talk page? We will be happy to comply. SkeenaR 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Without seeming rude, I don't understand what you're asking...article pages and discussion pages are the same, we can't copy and paste html text, images and what not from websites without them being within the public domain...all images must have permission to use and the permission must be posted as mentioned by Tom Harrison, above. If you don't think I'm telling you the truth, then read the copywrite policies and all associated pages with them.--MONGO 11:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of participant is not an original piece of art, and I have gotten permission. So go ahead and block me ... or maybe it is just "empty bullying" ? --EyesAllMine 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to protect wikipedia from copywrite infringement and I actually am nice to NOT BLOCK on sight when I see it...instead you fail to understand the copywrite laws, even when you are directed to them and encouraged to read them...yet I'm the bully...okay.--MONGO 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Empty bullying ... I've read them and found that this was not a copyright violation. To be sure I wrote to Steven Jones and got permission, and cited the list ... I'm actually beginning to like you MONGO :) --EyesAllMine 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr...of course you like me...everybody likes MONGO!--MONGO 12:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

EyesAllMine: Okay, not wanting to start something again, but is it "Bovmann" or "Bowman" or are they two different people? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Something to do with European spelling? Notice that in the same post that Buelow is Buelov. I'm guessing this is something like how Vienna is spelled Wien in Austria. SkeenaR 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

This was deleted without a proper explanation and discussion. I am reinserting it here, I find all it need is a reference. What do you think?

It should be noted, however, that some feel that the design critisms are misdirected or without basis.

The first criticism above omits, the second criticism minimizes, and the sixth criticism contradicts the massive core structures of the towers, which in fact contained 47 steel box columns arranged in a footprint measuring 87 by 133 feet. Many of the box columns had outside dimensions of 54 by 22 inches.

The second criticism suggests that the towers employed an unusual design, atypical of skyscrapers, with no actual survey to support this claim. In fact, most modern skyscrapers do employ this "tube-within-a-tube" design, which groups load-bearing columns in the core and around the periphery in order to create unobstructed office space.

The fourth criticism is factually contradicted by NIST's report, which states that the web trusses were both bolted and welded to the external columns, and that the truss-to-column connections probably did not fail. The failure of these connections would invalidate NIST's theory, which depends on the floor trusses pulling in the external columns.

Whatever else happens here or anywhere, the phrase, "It should be noted, however, that some feel that..." should be shot on sight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a COPY-VIOLATION...it is a copy and paste from [23]. Reinserting it into article space is a blocakble offense. Please read: Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations.--MONGO 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shot on sight? How about "lock and load" such as in the edit summary It is time this policy is reviewed[24] SkeenaR 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeena...you're not blocked for the copy and paste only because I gave you latitude due to the newness of your account. Now that you know better, I trust you won't do this again.--MONGO 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think It's being a dick to point out bad writing. It's a common enough phrase, but it says nothing at all. Still, maybe I was more critical than I meant to be; I intended no offense, and regret any given. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure what I inserted was copyvio, but I will refrain from any potential copyright violations. I am going to understand the copyright policies completely and I will watch for them myself as well as watch for vandalism. SkeenaR 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear...don't confuse vandalism with content disputes.--MONGO 20:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about me Mongo. I understand this well. This article needs a makeover and there is quite a lot of consensus for that. It just takes a little work but I'm patient. SkeenaR 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am most sorry if the NPOV badly needed section was somehow misconstrued. I have deleted it and will not reinsert it. I'll state the case for the need of improvement of the NPOV of this article in a way that will most clear and agreeable. SkeenaR 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, isn't it the other way around? It is 911review who has copied wikipedia: "The following debunking of the above 'design criticisms' was added to the Wikipedia article on 10/22/05, and was deleted without comment on 10/25/05." [25] --EyesAllMine 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope we have not been using a circular reference, where the external site draws on Wikipedia and we cite them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Has 911review stated it in another context also? If so - may I get the link? As far as I can see, 911review this is the only page on 911review where the frasing is the same. --EyesAllMine 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious discussion has been reduced to frivolous nitpicking. Progress will resume shortly. SkeenaR 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If one reads what it says on the page it is obvious that 911review is citing wikipedia and there is absolutely no other page on the web with the same frases. So we can rule out circular reference.

Now, deleting it on the basis of the "no original research" is a bit farfetched. All we need is a reference on the design "... which in fact contained 47 steel box columns arranged in a footprint measuring 87 by 133 feet. Many of the box columns had outside dimensions of 54 by 22 inches." and "...In fact, most modern skyscrapers do employ this "tube-within-a-tube" design,". The first I has alredy found a references for here [26] and here [27].

The last paragraph "The fourth criticism is factually contradicted by NIST's report, ..." is easy as the sources are the NIST report and the FEMA report. --EyesAllMine 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can find no case of copyvio either, but like I said I'll leave it for now. SkeenaR 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom I made a change in the article and it is visible but no record in history. Whats up with that anyway? SkeenaR 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed "It may be that bin Laden" to "It is a common belief that bin Laden" SkeenaR 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything unusual in the edit history. We've been editing pretty close together, maybe there was some kind of edit conflict. I don't know if it's likely in this case, but reverting to a previous version that's identical with the current doesn't show up as an edit; I suppose because no edit actually occurs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something happened there because the change is visible but no edit visible in the summary. It was a couple of minutes after your last edit though, so it is kind of funny. I thought it might be worthwhile to point out. SkeenaR 02:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite requested

It took me about thirty seconds with Google to find a reference for bin Laden having studied engineering. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of the citation request tags? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an exercise in redundacy.--MONGO 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you were better that me then - super :) - it is strange then that he is stating that he expected the fire to melt the steel. --EyesAllMine 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Maybe you the can find as quickly references for the part MONGO deleted? --EyesAllMine 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison issues threats, incites violence

Tom Harrison, in an apparent effort to intimidate authors with physical threats, has opined that a particular author should be "shot on sight". Besides being a criminal offense, (incitement to violence), it is a clear indication of his mindset. For the record, I personally would never advocate murder, or attempted murder of those with whom I disagree. Tom Harrison apparently feels otherwise. 69.231.8.216 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon IP 69.231.8.216 removes entire sections of text from the dicussion pages here :[28] for no apparent reason...it wasn't due to it being a copy violation. Anon IP also fills the article up with hideous citation requests, even after being asked not to :[29]. Don't you think Tom was being cheeky...it's hardly likely that he was being literal...this has nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC...do you have any real proof that this happened? I'd like to see the proof, not continuous jargon from fringe elements that continuously try to make people think that just because there is less than zero chance that controlled demolition occurred, that that in itself doesn't make it impossible.--MONGO 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I invite anyone who cares to read what I wrote above[30] and draw his own conclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted entire paragraphs from this article because there were entire paragraphs with unsubstantiated assertions. They were reverted. Concerned about the accuracy of the article, I then tagged all the individual assertions with "citation needed". The sheer number of them caused a stir, but, as EyesAllMine has pointed out, the burden of proof is on those who wish them included. I too invite anyone to research the history of this article. Clearly, TomHarrison, MONGO, and others are way outside the bounds of WP rules, and are simply trying to bully their personal agenda into what ought to be a scientific article. 69.228.47.62 05:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The federal reports are accurate, the websites you and others promote are based on conspiracy theories...they are the ones that have to provide proof that controlled demoltion happened and have yet to do so. I wish you luck in providing proof of controlled demolition.--MONGO 06:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The federal reports are unproven. Websites presented here are based on investigation by experts and scholars. The only thing proven about this article is that the undue weight clause is not applicable. SkeenaR 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

University of Sydney

How come this article on a web page of a small university in Australia has been used as a reference, and not the NIST investigations recent findings? Isn't it best to go to the source for reference? --EyesAllMine 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Australian page is a good user-friendly summary with minimal jargon, and is from outside the US, which some have thought was important in the past. The NIST findings are cited as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what the australian page has to say of its own article:

"(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)"

It is stating that this is one possible reason for failure. Shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect this? --EyesAllMine 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't deal with politically based conspiracy theories in this article...you're more than welcome to put these speculations in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 11:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You deal with politically based conspiracy theories with your insistance on the official story and your speculation about "ulterior political motives". SkeenaR 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, some historical context might be useful. The Warren Commission, perhaps partly out of a perceived need to provide closure for the nation, concluded that JFK was shot by a lone assassin. Independent researchers across the country raised doubts, and eventually years later, the U.S. Senate's Church Committee conducted an investigation of its own and concluded that a conspiracy to assassinate was the more likely reality. (See JFK assasination article). Do you want additional examples? Pearl Harbor was said to be a big surprise at the time, and was the reason for the US's entry into WWII. Years later, US gov't records revealed that we may have known well in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and even the date of the attack becasue we had cracked the Japanese code, but FDR needed the attack to enter the war. The point? We should not dismiss facts that happen not to support or even happen to contradict the official theory of the collapses. Wikipedia should present facts and evidence as they are available regardless of where the chips fall, see Wikipedia rules, I don't have to cite them at you. Also, uncited assertions should not be presented, except perhaps if clearly identified as speculation.--216.57.0.210 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

216.57.0.210, (aka anon editor), That's interesting...I was taught that we didn't break the Japanese code unitl after Pearl Harbor [31], [32], [33]. Besides, the controlled demolition nonsense is mentioned, and properly linked to the article in which this misinformation is supposed to be located. What was that about uncited assertions?--MONGO 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, Much of the article about the mechanics of the actual collapse is cited to an Australian university source. The source states: "This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice." It is not peer-reviewed. By its own admission it is a hypothesis based largely on the information available on the day of the attack, about what might have happened. You chide others here for citing non-peer reviewed websites. But because this one supports the conclusions you/Tom have reached, you cite it generously. With respect to the Pearl Harbor debate, some Com 16 intercepts and Baker code were available before Pearl Harbor (See Debate 1 of Pearl Harbor debate on Wikipedia). My larger point was just because it is the official theory for the moment, doesn't mean we should accept it as gospel. It will take decades before a lot of material withheld by the 9-11 Commission (like some internal reports and transcripts of witness testimony) will be available to the public. The 9-11 commission did not even address the collapse of WTC 7. --216.57.0.210 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

216.57.0.216, the is no official "theory" at the moment. There is a finding of evidence based on an overwhelming preponderance of information...and none of that information indicates there was controlled demolition or a government coverup. WTC7 is being finalized.--MONGO 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Controlled demolition"

Part of the problem with the 'controlled-demolition theory' is that there does not actually seem to be such a thing. That is, there seems to be no theory that attempts to explain how any of the buildings might have been destroyed by controlled demolition. Giving any weight to it at all seems undue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

>>"That is, there seems to be no theory that attempts to explain how any of the buildings might have been destroyed by controlled demolition."

That would amount to a real conspiracy theory then wouldn't it! Actually there's a good one :here.

There it is...I'm convinced...it's true...controlled demolition is true! I'm calling the all the major newspapers and it should be on the front page in 12 hours...but I think I already saw most of this in another publication.--MONGO 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, what are you talking about here? There is a well developed theory of controlled demolition, and you know it. Steven Jones has published a peer-reviewed paper that "acutally seems to be such a thing". It does a far better job of explaining the observations than the "official" theory. Many steel buildings have been brought down by explosives, whereas fire has never done it.

That is why the "official" reports simply ignore so many curious questions.

Having security or maintainence workers place explosives during the power blackout of 9/8 - 9/9 is at least as plausible as believing that 19 arabs boarded 4 commercial aircraft without tickets and without being on any passenger list. 69.239.243.234 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking more closely, there are several scenarios. None seem to explain controlled demolition: Projectiles "timed to begin radiating intense energy just as they started to fall;" Energy beams; "numerous explosive charges hidden in locations from the top to the bottom of the towers." The website says, "One can imagine a scenario in which a thermobaric device was installed at each floor in the service core..." In other words, FAE bombs hidden in the elevators. An imagined scenario is not a theory, of controlled demolition or anything else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Theories are supported by evidence and tested according to the scientific method. Theories are not "it was a missile... no wait it was a pod on the bottom of the plane... no wait it was controlled demolition..." The day there's a peer-reviewed paper supporting controlled demolition is the day we should think about taking it seriously.

Please learn what this discussion about

How come it is going to take you guys so long before you finally understand what this debate is even about. That the government reports are being criticized. By a significant minority. Read the undue weight clause. Read the undue weight clause. Read the undue weight clause. Please. Please everyone else read it too. Tom and Mongo are not the end all be all. They still have yet to understand what we have been discussing. SkeenaR 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In comparison to the thousands of researchers, investigators, law enforcement personal, medical personal, fire fighting personal, academics and scholars that were involved in the analysis of the facts of what really happened, and not to mention that none of the people on the list provided have proven that controlled demolition happened...point 3 of the undue weight clause applies to their misinformation. A few dozen nonexperts simply on some kind of list is not anything more than just that. This story is over.--MONGO 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you say so and what you say goes. Don't go anywhere. SkeenaR 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One other thing. Everybody look what Mongo pulled with the copyright situation and judge for yourself as to his credibility. I'm not saying anything, just have a look. SkeenaR 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes everyone, have a look at how SkeenaR here made this edit to the talk page: [34] and it is a copy and paste from: [35]. Also note that he/she removed my information to his talk page [36] when I informed him/her of the copywrite violation, in an effort to cover something up I suppose and also that I didn't block him for this because he/she is a newer editor that may have been unaware. It seems that there is more education to come. Does anything about your opinion about my credibility have anything to do with controlled demolition. Do you have any proof to offer of controlled demolition?....I didn't think so.--MONGO 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please everybody check this stuff out. Please. SkeenaR 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes this a ludicrous conspiracy theory as opposed to a credible alternate theory is the utter implausibility that all of the conspirators before and after the fact could and would conceal any evidence of a conspiracy to take down the towers by a controlled demolition. patsw 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If your statement has any meaning as far as WP is concerned could you please enlighten us? SkeenaR 21:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what patsw is saying is that this controlled demolition bunk is "ludicrous"...and that word seems quite appropriate. What is "WP"?--MONGO 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

An administrator would know that means Wikipedia Policy. To try and help you, I'll point out this section is titled "Please learn what this discussion about". Not whether you or your buddies think something is ludicrous. Please see here [37] SkeenaR 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

really...oh you mean what policy...I've not once seen anyone post it as WP...maybe since there is no one policy. I think we have clearly shown that a few dozen non notables with no training in controlled demolition are clearly in the realm of extremely non notable. If even ONE can prove controlled demolition, then that would be a different story. You have nothing of scientific value to add aside from the far fetched stuff you've picked up from these websites. Happy editing!--MONGO 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you source from your precious FEMA/NIST or Carl Bernstein is proven, we have established that. The scholars, scientists and websites we have cited are notable, we have established that. Please see here.[38] SkeenaR 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeena...most of these people are simply not notable...some have no credentials that can be googled to even prove they exist...I think a few may even be delusional.--MONGO 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fruitcake? Mongo, I must admit, you actually are pretty funny sometimes. It won't help you though. SkeenaR 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states 'most representatives from these professions' in the second paragraph. Is that the design and construction professions? It is unclear as design and construction is stated after 'these professions'.

Merge with Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Merge what with what? This is a vote without a specific question. patsw 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the merge notice was just taken off the article, so this discussion is harder to follow. As per changed section title, this was a discussion of merging this article with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I closed the tag since it had 6 oppose votes and zero support votes. Consensus would required 75-80% support; and I just don't see 20+ support votes suddenly coming in with no more opposes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea...--MONGO 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: The collapse is a fact. Scholars for truth is speculation. We should and will have an article on the collapse. Having the collapse article merged into the scholars page and become a redirect does not make sense. --Durin 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: If this list of 'scholars' belongs anywhere, it belongs in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. It certainly does not belong here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: I oppose the merger to any specific group including: FEMA, 9/11 investigators, NIST or " Scholars for truth" Also they "Scholars for truth" do not just deal with aspects of the collapse and encompass a wide range of speculation among the 9/11 investigation. It would be far more just, to merge "Scholars for truth" with "9/11 Truth movement" ScottS
• Oppose. Agree with Tom. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: On reflection, and reading it again, I agree that it would be innapropriate to merge that article, but I honestly feel that the Collapse page is missing information that prevents it from being an NPOV entry. It wasn't a bad faith attempt and I'm sorry if anyone has misunderstood this. Please discuss. SkeenaR 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This is basically what we have been discussing the whole time. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth article is the previously deleted material that is a large portion of the entire dispute on this page. There is support for this material to be merged. This matter is in no way resolved and thus the tag should go up.SkeenaR 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No? SkeenaR 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The opposite of yes.--MONGO 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is support for this, this is established. According to Wikipedia Policy, proposals such as this must not be deleted until a reasonable amount of time has transpired for people to come to a consensus. Yes. The opposite of No. SkeenaR 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is borderline trolling and is disruptive to this project at this point and I am soliciting outside views on this matter.--MONGO 09:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Give up your futile "cause" Mongo. Your position is absolutely indefensible. And lay off with the personal attacks. SkeenaR 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

you created the page since you failed to reach concensus here to include this heresay. You then tried to merge them together right after the creation, a bad faith effort to push a POV into this article. I also just got through speedy deleting two images you uploaded that were copyvios...the ice you are on is getting thinner, Skeena.--MONGO 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are those veiled phony threats? Is that an attempt at intimidation? Is it another bonafide personal attack such as in the edit summary? It's possible that they are all of the above and I invite everyone to observe this gongshow. SkeenaR 10:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my kindness has gone unnoticed. Since you have been made well aware of the copywrite policies by now, you can assume the consequences should you violate them again. I'm hoping that you won't post text and or images that do not conform with our policies again.--MONGO 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image use

We only own copyright on pictures we produce (graphic mock ups). Anything else is free reign.

Best regards, Paul Joseph Watson http://www.propagandamatrix.com

Original Message From: xxx To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: image use request/wikipedia user

Hi Paul, I go by the username Skeenar as a contributor on Wikipedia and I would like to know if it is possible to contribute pictures from the PrisonPlanet website without violating copyright regulations.

Sincerely, Skeenar

As well as Prisonplanet and Propaganda Matrix the same rule applies to the following.

• Infowars
• PrisonPlanet TV
• Infowars.Net
• Arnold Exposed

There was a dispute over this matter. SkeenaR 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Regardless of people's opinions on this matter, engaging in a revert war is not the way to go about resolving it. MONGO, SkeenaR, EyesAllMine...all of you need to stop revert warring over the tags. If the revert warring does not stop, temporary blocks will be applied. --Durin 13:35, 7 February 2006

Maybe we should ask for this srticle to be peer-revieved? What do you think? This article need more eyes - don't you think? --EyesAllMine 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is only performed when the article is near featured article status, and even if all the facts here were to your liking, it's doubtful it would qualify due to the articles instability...which seems to be a relative recent situation due to some people's attempts to add nonsense. You can of course file a request for comment if what you seek is more opinions.--MONGO 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What explains how this secret has been kept?

The point below about cell phone tower ranges is not applicable. At least one phone used is known to have been a GTE airfone, not a cell phone, based on which operator handled the call. The airfones do work at any altitude and speed.

On the other hand, the comment about the time and number of persons to rig a building with explosives needs to be evaluated more closely. Most of the time and personnel required for properly controlled demolition are needed only for doing it safely, without loss of life or damage to other buildings. If you are willing to risk those things, as those responsible in both the conspiracy theories and the official accounts were, then it could be done with less time and personnel.

Also, remember that many persons who seemed to be fire fighters entered the towers without first reporting to the command post, as was required so that the commanders could keep track of how many fire fighters were inside, and make sure that there were enough fire fighters outside to respond to any other fires that day. It is generally assumed that they were really fire fighters who disobeyed orders to wait outside, but they could have really been terrorists, using the chaos and confusion as a cover to enter the towers without passing through the security normally there. In this theory, the airplane crashes were a diversion.

207.47.102.146 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes the collapse of the World Trade Center from a deliberate controlled demolition even less plausible than the moon landings were faked or that an alien was autopsied in Roswell, is that a secret has been kept which would require a hundreds, if not thousands of people to be inside the conspiracy.

Unlike the fake moon landings and the alien autopsy, many people had access to the physical evidence of the so-called controlled demolition and videotapes of the collapse who would have no reason to lie about their findings and a professional obligation to report the truth. patsw 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true. One prominent researcher has created a plauible scenario involving LESS than the 19 people fingered in the official conspiracy. http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

69.228.47.62 01:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So they used knockout gas to incapacitate the passengers, then crashed the planes using autopilot? Yeah OK. Doesn't explain how passengers made phone calls and described the hijacking. And how air traffic controllers heard the hijackers on the radio. I suppose in the world of 9/11 fanfic, the phone calls were faked and the Middle-Eastern voices on the radio were broadcast by secret spy satellites. And of course, it only takes a couple guys to plant and detonate "numerous explosive charges" in the elevator shafts of the WTC buildings. And nobody is going to notice the blast damage, or find any residue from explosives, when they sift through the rubble. Rhobite 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

speculation-You asked, so you must be interested. There are unconfirmed reports of onboard phone calls about mace or some other gas subduing passengers and crew. It is assumed that this is unlikely, being too much of a problem for the hijackers because unless the terrorists were wearing gas masks or something, it should affect them too. What would airport security think when four men go through checks with gas masks? You would think Halloween would be a more appropriate time to try something like that.

At low altitude and high speed, the normal telephone links would be made completely unusable. It is impossible for any celltower to interrogate, authenticate, and connect a cellphone before it was out of range of the tower. This would seem to indicate that stories regarding cellphone calls are possibly fabricated. I'm no expert, but I guess you could use satellite phones right?

Also Rhobite, the 'hijackers on the radio' tape, while not necessarily fraudulent, would probably be the easiest thing to fake about an operation like the one you were referring to.

The 9-11 Commission has no identification whatsoever of the voices on the air traffic tapes, or even that the voices on the tapes came from the assumed jets. The tapes exist exist and they have voices on them, but the voices of no known crew members appear anywhere on the tapes presented in the 9/11 commission. Have you heard them? From the point of take off to the hijacking there is complete radio silence broken only by indistinguisable mumbling. All that is really known about the tapes of Flight 11 and 175 is that they were broadcast on the same frequency that the flight controllers were using. Of course it would be logical for controllers to assume that the voices came from the planes in question. The transponders were shut off . While an aircraft can be positively identified by it's 'identity friend or foe'(unique secondary radar)it is not possible to positively identify which aircraft a voice radio message is coming from. It could just as easily been coming from a van or apartment.[39] [40] [41]

It seems unlikely to many that these alleged muslim fanatics who could barely fly would have been at a strip club drinking and snorting the night before they pulled of their incredible covert operation and managed to perfectly target the two buildings, including one in a sharp turn, while doing 500 or 600 mph. Wow! See? Can't you just hear them? "Booze and dope and chicks don't affect my abilities as a religious terrorist pilot." So it doesn't matter how you look at it, there aren't any stories that don't challenge your sense of rationale.

We've all heard the reports of emergency drills and power outages...consult experts about the length of time needed for rigging the buildings. Also, I remember reading about how those towers were supposed to be dismantled at some point but they were balking at the mammoth cost of such an operation. Maybe thats just a conspiracy theory but I don't think so. If anyone is interested, let me know, I'll try and verify it.

Remote control jets are nothing new. In the mid-seventies when US aircraft were being hijacked the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked aircraft. This allowed ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on jet and then take control of the computerized flight systems remotely. While not necessarily accepting the implication here, it is worth considering when you bear in mind that in 2006 the mid 70's were 31 years ago-if you get my drift.

Not to mention that flying remotely is routine.[42].

Lufthansa completely stripped American flight control systems from its fleet of aircraft in the early nineties and replaced them with homegrown versions. This was a big job. This was under Andreas von Bülow's tenure as Minister of Science and Technology. He presumably would have known about DARPA's project when you consider his position.

There were large pools of molten metal all through the rubble at the bottom.

I'm not saying I believe any particular theory. I'm just saying that all of these theories challenge the rationale ,including the official story. It's not just the alternative theories that are hard to believe. Possibly some theories are worth considering and some are not. Possibly some are more far-fetched than others.

Not that this has anything to do with article I guess. Why were Patsw and Rhobite asking about secrets and theories and stuff like that anyway??? Oh yeah, alien autopsies, fake moon landings, and it's tough to keep a secret. Sorry, thats just wrong. Unlike these things, you're right Patsw, there is physical evidence. And many credible people are questioning the official version. The analogy that correlates the speculation that was deleted from the article with aliens & what-not is... a fantasy. It doesn't work.

Another question. Seven of the 19 'suicide' hijackers are still alive. Sorry, actually it's six 'cause Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crashsometime after the events 9/11(was it a suspicious crash? at this point, who cares?!). Why are they still alive? And why doesn't Carl Bernstein ever talk about it? That should be big news! Mongo, you should call him and get the big scoop.

I don't think a big conspiracy theory story should be included in the article either people. Again, my point is that the official story of the collapse isn't solid, even if none of the other ones are either, and that it is being challenged(it is) by credible people(they are) for a variety of good(they are) reasons. There is no real reason that this shouldn't be mentioned in the article. It belongs there. It's a fact.

And I apologize for revert war.

SkeenaR 10:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The question about how a secret can be kept among hundreds is a good one. But does this not happen all the time? Governments and commercial industries has secrets, in warfare secrets are kept, secret-services keep secrets, not to mention organisations like the mafia. Isn't it just a question of fragmenting the information? --EyesAllMine 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's easier to keep secrets when there is a command structure that enables compartmentalization of knowledge and activity. SkeenaR 07:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Most secrets are maintained about what is true and not a matter of dispute. They are not maintained by threat and fear but simply for two reasons: harm would come from the disclosure of the truth, or professional ethics or legal obligations require that the truth not be disclosed. When a crime or a manifest falsehood is the object of the secret, the above doesn't apply. This happens on a daily, ongoing basis by anonymous source news stories, "leaks", etc. This alleged conspiracy is not exclusive to one cohesive organization but to people dispersed across many professions and many locations and organization. It is implausible, and no plausible explanation has been given, how the secret that the World Trade Center collapse was caused by a deliberate controlled demolition has been maintained by hundreds, if not thousands of people for four years. It's an incredible leap to conclude: some secrets are kept, therefore this secret is kept. patsw 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Until a secret is exposed it may be a matter of dispute. Many secrets have been exposed that had previously been kept under wraps by threats and fear. Actually, this is ubiquitous. There have been numerous whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds that have come forward with facts pertaining to these matters. I could make a big long list of government officials, military personaal and journalists, all who seem credible. Implausibility is a matter of opinion. There have been many examples of crimes that were committed that were not exclusive to one cohesive organization, including the conspiracy involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. As shocking as it is, this is a primitive example. For the sake of parsimony, here is only one other example of a crazy sounding, but nevertheless real conspiracy.

From Operation Mockingbird ""Carl Bernstein, who had worked with Bob Woodward in the investigation of Watergate, provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in Rolling Stone in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a twenty five year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA:

Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad." [43]

"According to researchers such as Steve Kangas, Angus Mackenzie and Alex Constantine, Operation Mockingbird was not closed down by the CIA in 1976. For example, in 1998 Kangas argued that CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world."

"On 8th February, 1999, Kangas was found dead in the bathroom of the Pittsburgh offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in Salon Magazine, (19 March 1999) Andrew Leonard asked:

"Why did the police report say the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into Kangas' past?"

"On 27 June 2005, the World Tribunal on Iraq published their preliminary declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq. Finding and Charges Against the Major Corporate Media:

"Disseminating the deliberate falsehoods spread by the governments of the US and the UK and failing to adequately investigate this misinformation. This even in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Among the corporate media houses that bear special responsibility for promoting the lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, we name the New York Times, in particular their reporter Judith Miller, whose main source was on the payroll of the CIA. We also name Fox News, CNN and the BBC.[33]. Please note that the source to which the article refers is Ahmed Chalabi who provided paid informant for Weapons of Mass Destruction evidence as well as a source for the New York Times.

SkeenaR 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This insanely long response is a good example of why it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist. The theories are not falsifiable. If someone points out problems with a CT, the theorist will just explain the problem away. I'm done talking with Skeenar. Someone who thinks knockout gas / fake phone calls to relatives / elevator shaft explosives are a more plausible explanation than lucky hijackers does not have anything useful to contribute here. Still no explanation of how Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and other voices were faked (their loved ones spoke with them or identified their voices). Maybe robots? No wait, the government put them on other secret planes, which they pretended to hijack, so they would make phone calls to their relatives. Uh huh. Rhobite 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my response, I figured that might happen. I said terrorists using knockout gas sounds bizarre, fake phone calls sound bizarre, and the official story sounds just as friggin nuts as most of the alternative theories. As well, nothing I wrote here has anything to do really with the article, it was you guys who were asking the questions. This response of mine was just trying address most of the points and questions you posted in your first smartass post in this section. You asked a whole pile of stupid questions trying to ridicule me and others. Don't ask anymore questions if you are just going to try and insult. And insanely long? Not enough room up there Rhobite? If you are done talking with me thats fine. Jerk. SkeenaR 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:WTC-remnant.jpg

Photochopped?: When you blow this image up to full resolution you get some very odd distortions in the lower left hand corner, that look like airbrushing, not to mention, the debris seems to be perfectly vertical, the smoke cloud seems to not exist anymore, and the lighting in the foreground is different than in the back? Not to mention for some reason there aren't any buildings visible behind it in the background--152.163.100.134 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Are we sure that this photo hasn't been touched up?--152.163.100.134 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any of the inconsistencies you point out. There is nothing wrong with the lower left hand corner. The smoke is plainly visible in the background. I don't see anything wrong with the lighting. And I can't understand why the debris shouldn't be roughly vertical - after all, the building was vertical, wasn't it? I'm not even going to speculate about what you might be implying by suggesting this picture is doctored. Rhobite 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm implying that the photo looks like it's been chopped, which tends to happen with ditigal photos, and that it might not be fairuse, ie a magazine cover, or some other such thing that's had the logo removed. What are you trying to imply?--64.12.116.134 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well it's obviously been cropped, but I don't see how that is a problem. The buildings on the left and right are irrelevant to the picture. Since the photo was taken by a U.S. Navy employee it is automatically part of the public domain. I still don't understand your complaints. Rhobite 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Today we could never be sure that any digital photo has not been touched up. --EyesAllMine 07:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lacking of primary sources

Rhobite has recently removed the lacking primary sources tag. I put this tag on, because several sources are not primary sources, and should be fixed to meet the wiki-standard of wp:cite. As I noted under University of Sydney above the article on Sydney University is actually outdated and is not the primary source of information regarding the collapse of WTC. Rather theese parts of the article should be based on the latest reports, facts and findings by NIST. As long as this isn't done it would be helpfull to have primary sources tag on, also to attract attention so this article can get all the help it can get in being precise and factual. --EyesAllMine 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be some misunderstanding here (and maybe it's my own), partly because of how the tag is worded.

This article does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication and are not primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article. (emphasis is mine)

Historians and journalists use Primary sources. We do not; Wikipedia should cite secondary sources. We may use primary sources, if they have already appeared in a credible publication. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...that is why we don't allow the use of misinformation from non peer reviewed sources.--MONGO 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the merge tag on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article. After reflecting on this, I agree that this article would be innapropriate to merge here, and even if it was, the material in that article needs to be reworked. SkeenaR 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I tink there is a misunderstanding here. This is what Wikipedia:Citing sources says:

"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." --EyesAllMine 17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research says, "In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library."

Maybe we're trying to work at too high a level of generality. What source exactly is it that we're talking about? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am talking about souces like the latest NIST report. Do I understand you and MONGO correctly: You are saying we can not quote NIST, 'cause it hasn't been peer-reviewed and has not been published by a reputable third-party publication? And what about the webpage from Sydney University which has been used as a source? --EyesAllMine 18:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think both of those are appropriate and useful. Do you think they are not? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think (as I noted under University of Sydney above( the article on Sydney University is actually outdated and is not the primary source of information regarding the collapse of WTC.

This is what the australian page has to say of its own article: "(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)"

I would rather use NISTs report as a source. That is why I put the "primary sources needed tag" on top of this article. The tag Rhobite has removed. But now I am in doubt. Because NISTs report does not meet the requirement from Wikipedia:No original research of being peer-reviewed or being published by a reputable third-party publication. --EyesAllMine 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are proposing. The tag does not request that primary sources be added. The tag says, "This article does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication and are not primary sources..." (The emphasis is mine.) It looks to me like that tag is not appropriate for this article. Are you suggesting that the tag be added, or that some source be added, or that a source be removed? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding Wikipedia:No original research. We can't create primary sources, but we can of course refer to them in articles. Rhobite 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate among engineers

Tom, the discussion between you and EyesAllmine (first and second post) in Ongoing debate among engineers sounds reasonable. SkeenaR 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm not sure that I have much more to add right now though. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)