Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 9

message: My above suggestion for dealing with the CD section seemed to be accepted (if largely tacitly). I've put it in. Please note that all the information that has been removed is available in the main CD hypothesis article. I will start implementing some of my other ideas (at a reasonable pace) over the next few days, time permitting. These should not affect this section.--Thomas Basboll 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good. I made a couple of changes. Comments welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need some sort of adjective on the amount of adherents. "significant"? Or something about a widespread belief. And can we perhaps avoid the theory/hypothesis argument by using "Controlled demolition controversy"?--Thomas Basboll 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What do the sources cited call it, and how do they characterize it? Tom Harrison Talk 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scripps Howard source counts CD among a "widespread" and "growing" resentment of the US gov't. I've gone with the former. The only real alternative is to say 16%, but this is only the US stats. I'll find the international survey also.--Thomas Basboll 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the word widespread isn't used in the CD context at all....it's just not accurate. RxS 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see. It says, "Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." Unless you want to call them conspiracy theories, I don't see how you can justify "widespread" and "growing." Tom Harrison Talk 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my worry (as per my edit summary). The article on the poll didn't have our particular angle on it, but I think it is fair to say that (the poll shows that) the CD hypothesis is subject to the same trends as the other aspects. We could move the conspiracy theory association to the front of the section and then say "As part of a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11, the belief that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition, not the fires that the resulted from the impacts of the planes, has found increasing support among members of the public."--Thomas Basboll 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implemented consensus on controlled demolition (?) 

message: I outlined my ideas for the top of the article above. The idea is to explain what the specific engineering puzzle was that the NIST report eventually solved. This means going back to the initial shock among engineers and focusing the design details to make understanding the collapse mechanism easier. Please give me a few days, and feel free to help out. We can always go back to the way it was.--Thomas Basboll 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to ensure that we don't call the events unprecedented as that is POV. Early descriptions of the issues aren't very interesting in themselves at all. All we need to do is utilize the most widely understood basis for the collapse mechanisim, as exhaustively detailed in the NIST reports.--MONGO 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Bazant and Verdure introduce their recent 2006 with a remark about how puzzling these collapses initially were. Its a way of acknowledging the enormous and admirable amount of work that goes into explaining these sorts of things. But you have to start with a sense of the puzzle, the difficulty. You can't just say, it was an engineering thing and engineers did a good days work doing their thing and figured it out. You have to try to explain what the problem was. That's what I'm working towards and it's going to be fine. I've already changed the heading (no revert was needed to that) to address your concern. But I don't think "unprecedented" is POV--everyone agrees that nothing like this has ever happened before.--Thomas Basboll 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scale of damage was unprecedented, but it is POV to say that no building has ever collapsed before because no buildings have ever endured this amount of destructive force before aside from those destroyed during wartime. Engineers have had to do lots of analysis of events when things have happened they didn't expect...though it is poorly detailed in the article, the Baldwin Hills Reservoir dam disaster took some time to understand how it happened, but it's not the first time a dam failed, anymore than the WTC collapse was "unprecedented"...the only difference is scale, not the event overall.--MONGO 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Engineers had no precedent for understanding this disaster. That was part of the reason it was so difficult to explain (FEMA got it wrong, remember). But is there anything wrong with the section as it now stands (as I read it, it doesn't make any of the claims you suggest: i.e., "no building has ever collapsed before" (from fire, I take it).--Thomas Basboll 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FEMA got some of it "wrong". Lots of buildings have collapsed from fire, and no other buildings in modern history have endured the stresses these did...the issue is about scale...and many of the earlier analysis were right to some degree. The only analysis that isn't right is those that support a conspiracy theory regarding the events.--MONGO 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review this discussion and the edit you reverted and identify the relevance of bringing CTs in. Also, you last sentence is obviously nonsense (right?). Any analysis that does not support a conspiracy theory is right?--Thomas Basboll 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the mainstream reporting and investigating on this proceeds from the idea that the collapses were at least unexpected. The "unprecedented" idea entered this article a long time ago as part of the "early attempts" section. I simply moved it forward in the article. I've now removed that word (even though it is more or less accurate) to avoid unnecessary conflict.--Thomas Basboll 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any RS's refer to it as unprecedented? If so it should go back in. F.F.McGurk 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new engineering issues section 

message: Who can we source on this? F.F.McGurk 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the mainstream reporting and investigating on this proceeds from the idea that the collapses were at least unexpected. The "unprecedented" idea entered this article a long time ago as part of the "early attempts" section. I simply moved it forward in the article. I've now removed that word (even though it is more or less accurate) to avoid unnecessary conflict.--Thomas Basboll 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any RS's refer to it as unprecedented? If so it should go back in. F.F.McGurk 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What do RS's say on the 'unprecedented' bit?

message: Unless the NIST report has been audited/confirmed by valid third parties as reported by reliable sources their opinions should be noted as their hypothesis opinion. We can't give the NIST undue weight. F.F.McGurk 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't really an alternative source of "weight". There are a few papers out there by people not directly involved in the NIST investigation. (Bazant, for example; I don't think he contributed to it.) They all confirm the conclusions of the report. Everything else seems to be being published outside engineering circles.--Thomas Basboll 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't that his point?  ALthough NIST is the largest organization out there, there have not been a large amount of published scientific reviews of the study (since it is a 500+ page document, there are bound to be sooner or later).  He brings up an issue worthy of disscusion.  As you pointed out, it is the only source, thus claiming its findings as truth rather than NIST's hypothesis/claims would probably give the NIST report undue weight in my opinion. DerwinUMD 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the cost of investigating such a big disaster has been prohibitive. It would be very difficult for university-based engineers to generate data that could compete with NIST's. The best we could hope for is a review (or, as FF notes, an actual audit) of the NIST investigation and report. My suggestion is to first trace the history of the NIST investigation (back through the FEMA and ASCE investigations) and try to understand how it was carried out, and what sort of quality controls/consultations were built into the investigation process. Much of what we discover can be usefully added to this article.--Thomas Basboll 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was audited/reviewed the NIST report?

message: I'd like to move most of the information from the structural details section into the main World Trade Center article, just above the "Engineers & Contractors" section (where this information actually seems to be missing).  Since no detailed account of how the structure collapsed globally exists, and Bazant and Zhou showed that any such account is unnecessary (with their "order of magnitude" calculation), the structural details (like the amount and tapering of the columns) seem irrelevant here. In its place I want to add some materials about the extent to which the towers were designed to survive aircraft impacts, which it what the reader probably wants to know something about. Your thoughts?--Thomas Basboll 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could be trimmed down.  I think that an explanation of what "core columns", "perimeter columns", "spandrel", "floor truss" etc. mean is necessary to have a meaningful discussion of the collapse, though. Toiyabe 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my initial impression too. And the core/perimeter structure must of course be noted because of its role in the collapse mechanism. But on closer examination, with the demise of Eagar's truss theory, and, more generally, the pancake collapse theory, the rest of it seems really not to have made a difference. The columns simply failed. The top (a rigid box) fell onto the bottom (another rigid box) and crushed it. The WTC was perhaps especially vulnerable to column failure by fire (due to the open floor spaces--which remains in the next section) but once the top starts to move downwards, any (reasonably efficient) structure (no matter how the columns are distributed and connected) will, as I understand it, fail. The structural details section make them seem decisive, despite the fact that the report makes very little out of them.--Thomas Basboll 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats bordering on original research so lets stay away from that. We can quote them only, not make judgements about their work or derive our on conclusions from it.--MONGO 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is bordering on OR? I am proposing to trim this section drastically. That is, I'm trying to decide what parts to select from the (pages and pages) of quotable descriptions of the WTC structures. I'm not deriving any conclusions at all.--Thomas Basboll 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NIST report doesn't discuss how the buildings collapsed?--MONGO 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Just how the collapses began. That means that pretty much any (ordinary) structure would suffer the same fate. (Which is why there was so much concern about new building codes, etc.) The total progressive collapse (after initiation) was not the result of unique structural features of the WTC.--Thomas Basboll 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what more is needed though...the initiation of the collapse led to the full collapse. Not sure why they would detail every second of the event, which would be virtually impossible anyway. No, not every building might react in the same manner, especially since buildings are built differently. No doubt, you take almost 300,000 pounds of aircraft and ram it at over 400mph into anything and you'll create a huge amount of destruction.--MONGO 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less what NIST says. So the structural details here are superfluous.--Thomas Basboll 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's right. Not every building would react in the same way to the impacts. But once collapse has initiated, it really doesn't matter how the floor trusses, core columns and spandrel plates are arranged. According to NIST the "enormous weight" will just crush the building below (unless the building is ridiculously overdesigned). That's why the structural details provided in this section are superfluous.--Thomas Basboll 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of structural details section 

message: There seems to be an error in the aircraft impact section. FEMA (intro, p. 17) did offer the "lost in fog"/180 mph idea as mentioned in the article (which is pretty much Leslie Robertson's version of it). NIST, however, found a reference to a study involving a plane hitting at 600 mph (NCSTAR 1-1, p. 70-1). Given the issue of whether the 490 mph and 590 mph impacts exceeded design expectations that immediately follows this claim, it seems an important problem to deal with. NIST seems to say that no conclusions about the design in relation to aircraft impacts can be drawn. Any ideas?--Thomas Basboll 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which report are you looking at? This is the one I am looking at--MONGO 22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have linked. It's this one:  (PDF). And here's a Google cached and highlighted version of the FEMA report's intro. .--Thomas Basboll 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So you agree we need to remove FEMA's "lost in fog" speculations from the article?--Thomas Basboll 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if FEMA's study is based on a more relaiable report that was done during the design stage of the WTC. The one NIST mentions can't be further evaluated by them since they don't have any of the specs available that the report from 1964 was based on.--MONGO 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both FEMA and NIST are talking about what the buildings were designed for. NIST did a document search and did not find whatever FEMA was referring to (probably based on Robertson's recollection in an interview). NIST is the most recent statement and they say we can't really say anything very specific about what sort of impact the WTC's designed imagined, only that they did consider the possibility of an impact. So we should remove the idea that the impacts were seven times worse than expected.--Thomas Basboll 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look over thr reports later and get back to you in about 8 hours. The studies I have seen involved a 707 flying at approach speed (roughly 140-180 mph) and a 707 was lighter weight than a 767. I'll see what I can dig up.--MONGO 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. Just keep in mind that we generally give NIST the last word. I imagine you're thinking of Robertson's calculations (He provided a version of it in 2002, here , - PDF - see page 8, esp. figure 3). NIST seems to have been unable to confirm that these studies were made.--Thomas Basboll 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just report both FEMA and NIST ("FEMA says..., while NIST says..."), rather than trying to decide among ourselves who is more right? If, for example, we decide to include only NIST, then someone will come along in a few months and say, "Hey I just the FEMA report and this article is wrong!". Surely its better if we report both from the start. I can also see OR issues with us trying to decide which agency is more credible. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps something like "While it is has been argued that [FEMA/Robertson], NIST was unable to document these studies, finding only a reference to study that suggested a 707 travelling 600 mph. NIST therefore characterized all attempts to compare the building's performance during the impact to design expectations as 'speculation'."--Thomas Basboll 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual discrepancy between the NIST report and FEMA on aircraft impact design 

message: The next thing I want to do is to rewrite the "NIST report" section as a history of all the investigations that led up to it, and how they came about. Reports like this one  in the New York Times and the Skyscraper Safety Campaign in general provide a lot of good info to this end.--Thomas Basboll 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to merge this with the "early attempts" section. Call it either "History of the investigations" or simply "The investigations".--Thomas Basboll 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next project: history of the investigation 

message: I have a minor concern in regards to the section, Controlled demolition conspiracy theory. The section cites a Journal of Engineering Mechanics publication as rejecting the theory.  However, I am wondering if that warrants stating that the entire engineering community necessarily rejects the idea.  Sure it was published in what I presume is a prominent engineering community publication.  However, the presence of such a publication does not mean that everyone in the community would agree.  There are probably many reasons to believe that the authors of the publication would not want to agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Imagine the negative response they would receive if they did.  So, they may just be responding to requests for such an article and avoiding controversy.  I'm not saying the article is incorrect, I'm merely pointing out possibilities.  I believe the article should state that this publication has rejected the theory and not label it as an idea belonging to the entire community.
I'm not the most elegant writer, but this is along the lines of how I think it should be written: "The hypothesis has been explicitly rejected by both NIST and a prominent publication of the engineering community, and is pursued mainly as part of larger conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11." Or perhaps the publication can be named directly.  Either way, I don't believe we should loop all engineers into their rejection of the demolition theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.203.74 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bazant and Verdure's rejection of controlled demolition passed peer review of the prominent journal in question. No other journal I'm aware of has mentioned controlled demolition as a possibility. The Chronicle of Higher Education aksed a number of engineers and met with an unambiguous rejection of the theory.. (This article is cited in the main controlled demolition hypothesis article to establish the fact you raise concerns about.) The engineering community does reject the hypothesis, what all (individual) engineers believe is not really the issue. The "community" stands precisely for the imaginary "negative response" one would meet if one brought it up.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled demolition rejected by the engineering community 

message: I found another article on Wikipedia which I feel could serve as a good example of how to balance a controversial issue.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control, under the "MC in conspiracy theories" section.  Despite the overwhelming sentiment against conpsiracy theories regarding mind control, the article strikes a fair balance of presenting the arguments of both sides, one section labeled as arguments for, and another section labeled as arguments against.  I think the community associated with this page may benefit from reviewing that page's approach to fairly presenting a controversial issue. DerwinUMD 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reality and fantasy are not two sides of an issue.  The "controlled" demolition hypothesis has no technical merit. Peter Grey 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is widely-known folklore, and it already has its own article. Peter Grey 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled Demo - A fair way to balance the article 

message: I took these pictures out because they didn't supplement the text very well. If anyone can find better use for them...--Thomas Basboll 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed images 

message: Just a quick question.
Since the WTC towers were the tallest buildings in Manhattan - a very populated area - surely the architects that built it would have included in the design a method of demolishing the building once it had outgrown its useful economic life without risking damage to neighbouring buildings. In other words, built into the design would have been a method of demolishing the towers in the future when they eventually became old and unstable. Is there any evidence that such a demolition strategy was incorporated at the design stage?217.38.254.254 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to 9/11, the tallest building ever demolished was the Singer Building, it was half as tall as the WTC, was demolished 60 years after it was constructed, and which was only demolished because it wasn't large enough. I think it's fair to say that the designers of modern skyscrapers expect their buildings to last hundreds of years, and I doubt that they give much consideration for how to destroy them. Cogswobble 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse of the World Trade Centre 

message: SalvNaut, above (at the end of the Cherepanov discussion), makes an interesting suggestion. With the publication of Cherepanov's paper, and along with Bazant's previous call for further study of the "mechanics of progressive collapse" in order to put alternative hypotheses "to rest" (he mentions controlled demolition and fracture waves, though without citing Jones and Cherepanov by name), it now seems clear that the collapse sequence beyond collapse initiation is, scientifically, an open question. So I propose the following: remove the "progressive collapse" subsection from the collapse section and move it to the end of the history section under the heading "open questions". Here the lack of any detailed study by NIST of the progression of the collapse (beyond initiation) can be emphasized and the three alternatives surveyed by Bazant can be presented: controlled demolition, fracture waves, and (his own) progressive collapse. As a side consequence, this would allow us to completely remove the "conspiracy theory" section. It should be noted that both controlled demolition and fracture waves have been officially presented to NIST as hypotheses in the form of "public comments". Finally, in an unrelated matter, the open questions section should also include Lane and Torero's ideas about the possibility that fire alone could have initiated the collapses.--Thomas Basboll 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this, as it would seem to legitimize the conspiracy theories about the collapse. This article is about physical reality. 9/11 conspiracy theories and its sub-articles are about a sociological phenomenon. No expanded presentation of conspiracy theories into this article, whether called 'controlled demolition' or anything else, is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It only legitimates questions about the progressive collapse mechanism, and only grants them as much legitimacy (very little) that Bazant and Verdure apparently also think they deserve. Like BYU's administrators, we have to distinguish scientific doubts about structural mechanics from accusatory speculations about global politics. It looks like doubts about progressive collapse of the WTC buildings are perfectly legitimate. To dismiss them by association with conspiracy theories is a kind of ad hominem.--Thomas Basboll 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The so-called 'controlled demolition hypothesis' is a conspiracy theory, and is described as one by the reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and one of those sources is a mainstream engineering journal (Bazant & Verdure). The critique of progressive collapse that the CDH proceeds from is not, in any case, just a conspiracy theory: people like Cherepanov use it as part of proposal for another natural process. I'll write up a draft and post it here, that should make the discussion a bit more concrete.--Thomas Basboll 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open questions? 

message: I have reverted the descriptor for the MIT quote regarding the week-after-event prediction of the collapse mechanism to "accurately speculated" from previously "correctly identified."  It is my feeling that the word correct makes the quote seem as if their opinion should be taken as the utmost truth of the procedings of the collapse.  Perhaps speculate does not give the postulation the credit it deserves (the source says nothing of how the conclusion was reached). DerwinUMD 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIT Quote 

message: The Vermont Guardian article referenced in the proposed edit is not a technical assessment of the collapses.  It simply repeats the well-known qualitative and intuitive arguments. If this (individual) engineer performs a quantitative analysis and sujects it to peer review, that would be something entirely different. Peter Grey 16:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Rice commentary 

message: Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World, has put together a useful summary of the coverage of WTC 7, prompted by the recent internet storm over their pre-reporting of the collapse. I think he can be taken as a reliable source for the following addition to the first paragraph.
:Unlike the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 had been anticipated for at least an hour before it happened.
I'm not making changes to articles these days. But if there is consensus for this, then just put it in.--Thomas Basboll 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yep" from me. This sentence contradicts some official statements, if I recall correctly. Then, none of them is in the article, so I guess there is nothing to discuss. SalvNaut 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would go better on one of the conspiracy theory pages, since it is primarily about aspects of the conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see no logic here. How the information about WTC 7 having been expected to collapse for some reason (who knows? maybe it showed sings of destruction? or maybe someone wanted it to collapse?) is about aspects of conspiracy theories? It's mainly about events that preceded the collapse, nothing else. Many firemen and policemen knew some time before that WTC7 is going to collapse. SalvNaut 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the title of the web page presented just above as the reference? Tom Harrison Talk 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Porter has in this case been prompted to make a much more general contribution to our understanding of the collapses: he has settled the question of whether the building collapsed suddenly and without warning or whether people were actively worried about it. We may not like the people we have to thank for bringing this to light; but it happens all the time in this kind of activism. Also, Porter could even be a source for a piece of "trivia" (a mainstay of WP articles), namely, that the BBC (and less confidently CNN) reported that WTC 7 had collapsed about half an hour before it did (even, funny twist, standing in front of the building while making the report).--Thomas Basboll 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, in one of the pages about the conspiracy theories. But I oppose expanding the presentation of conspiracy theories in this article. Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is a fact about the collapse of WTC 7. Why should only people who are interested in CTs know that the collapse of WTC 7 was anticipated about an hour in advance?--Thomas Basboll 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E X A C T L Y. SalvNaut 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like it is more about the conspiracy theories, and the media coverage of them. People have been trying to insinuate this latest BBC thing into several pages. Further, this will have the result of elaborating on the conspiracy theories. I oppose that for a number of reasons, which I think are all listed above or in the archives. Tom Harrison Talk 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source itself might be more about conspiracy. But the information that we want to put is not. SalvNaut 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom, do you recognize that, in this case at least, protecting the article from (mentions of) conspiracy theories (in the sources used) comes at the cost of leaving out a verifiable fact about the collapse of WTC 7?--Thomas Basboll 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Selectively presenting factoids that exaggerate the importance of fringe theories does not add value to the article. Tom Harrison Talk 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposed statement is weak - it should be possible to provide much more precise statements regarding the evacuation orders for 1 WTC and 7 WTC (which are, of course, important elements of the story).  The reference given is useless - it is hardly a "summary of the coverage of WTC 7", and it simply isn't possible to make a very strong statement corroborating or refuting has either collapsed or is collapsing.  That can apply equally well to a collapsed or a standing building. The tie to conspiracy theories doesn't make any sense - conspiracy theorists typically do not emphasize the fact that professional firefighters on the scene believed 7 WTC was ready to come down without any further intervention. Peter Grey 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Peter, the words "has either collapsed or is collapsing" are not in the proposed statement. But I agree with you that (and disagree with Tom) that this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.--Thomas Basboll 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what the link is about, and that why it's irrelevant. Peter Grey 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting we reject a fact solely because of who it's target audience was when ordinally presented? This discussion would be moot if he had better source. Now, we are in a position to cite both CNN and BBC directly on the day of the event, but the conclusion that the collapses were "anticipated" is actually more Porter's professional judgement based on his review of the archives.--Thomas Basboll 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The reference is unsuitable because it is unrelated. Peter Grey 21:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Then let's put it in with your source.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, let's put it in the article to which it is relevent. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can of course try to work it into another article as well, if you like. But I think people who are just here to read about the details of the collapse of WTC 7 will want to know stuff like "could anybody tell before it collapsed that it was going to?" etc. It seems the answer is a clear yes.--Thomas Basboll 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was common knowledge that the building was likely to collapse. That is one of the reasons firefighters made only a minor effort to deal with the building. Let's not twist it around into something it isn't.--MONGO 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would consider myself more knowledgable than most about most details of 9-11, and the fact that WTC7 was suspected to collapse for an hour is news to me - I have yet to see a reliable source that says such a thing.  And please, if Tom is the only major objection, I think some information regarding the time line of the knowledge of wtc7's iminent (spelling?) collapse ought to be put into this article. DerwinUMD 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is documented fact that 7 WTC was considered at risk by the professionals at the scene. Peter Grey 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to WTC 7 section 

message: :Unlike the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 had been anticipated for several hours. It had been evacuated and there were no casualties. (Hayden, Peter. "WTC: This Is Their Story". Firehouse Magazine, April 2002. )
Or, if Peter has a better source, we could use that. I did go back to the FEMA report but I could only find scattered reports of the damage, not direct predictions that it would collapse.--Thomas Basboll 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the link to the reference to the use of the transit?  I looked at that reference before and found it to be unsubstantiated, i.e., they attempted to use it but it gave bad results, but now can no longer find the link. 70.137.172.194 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft 

message: The mention of Secret Service officer Craig Miller in this section in unnecessary and misleading and should be removed.  Officer Miller was evacuated from WTC 7 and the entered either WTC 1 or WTC 2 to assist the NYPD and FDNY in the ongoing evacuation of people from those building and he tragically died as many others did in the collapse of those buildings. patsw 00:19, 4 March 2007(UTC)
::It would be good to have an actual reference to this statement -- could you please provide it so this issue doesn't come up over and over?  Thanks.  70.137.172.194 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Service officer Craig Miller 

message: Shows one theory under "Theories" and lists supporters and proponents of any theory or hypothesis counter to the official story. Much needed improvements in points organized above. As for supporters and proponents, not all challenges to official story imply or infer controlled demo hypothesis.
Blaswell 03:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:911ct confused listing 

message: I am not sure, but to me the quote "The fires were hot enough to significantly weaken the columns and cause the floor trusses to sag. This might have caused the buildings to collapse, although not as quickly," does not seem as if it is referenced.  This quote either needs cited or removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerwinUMD (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited quote