Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 1

message: Rhobite, 
Thank you for starting a [User talk:166.165.251.71 dialog.]  Let us do this here in a more visible location.  
Thank you for improving the building seven timeline reference. Now please reference building seven in the section: 2001 terrorist attack. It is conspicuous in its absence.
I once believed, as you appear to believe, that commercial aircraft and burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. However, as I began to examine specific facts such as pictures of the planes colliding with the towers that did not have windows nor were painted like commercial flights and the fact that steel buildings are specifically designed to withstand jet fuel fires as well as jet collisions, my knowledge increased and I began to see that truly the emperor is wearing no clothes (or the mass media stories look more and more like regurgitation of misinformation).  
  
Examining your claim, "The WTC article is a discussion of the towers themselves. The article is not about the attacks" flies in the face of the following two sections 
# 3 1993 terrorist attack
# 4 2001 terrorist attack
Also note:
The word attack appears 22 times in the article.
From this it appears clear that this article truly does feature "attack". The article also presents the widely accepted theory that the attacks were executed by islamic terrorists.  This itself is a conspiracy theory to wit; Anti-american islamic terrorists planned and executed mass murder in Manhattan.  
The article also presents the illogical theory that for the first time in history a modern steel building collapsed because of fire. In fact the history of steel buildings since 9/11/2001 includes several fires greater in magnitude and of longer duration that did not result in collapse.  Futher, not only are the first steel building collapse from fire reported within the scope of this article, the second and third collapse from fire are reported to also within 8 hours.  Stated in a different way, there have been no collapse of steel buildings because of fire before or since these three buildings collapsed on 9/11. 
I have read the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. My request that people examine another point of view IS consistant with that policy and perhaps more consistant with verifable photographic evidence, engineering design facts and physics than the fuel fire collapse theory verified with tv and newpaper reports.  To exclude the ever growing understanding of the the physics and publicly recoverable evidence as they pretain to the collapse of three WTC buildings on 9/11 is inconsistant with wikipedia neutral point of view policy.  
Have you watched the video Loose Change ?  It is not perfect, however it does point out some of the inconsistancies that first got my attention.
:The overwhelming scientific and official consensus supports the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. Let's keep the conspiracy theory, which is supported by a very small amount of people, in the proper article, 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rhobite 04:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how patriots such as yourself are quick to boast that the 9/11 Commission report is supported by "overwhelming scientific evidence", yet I've yet to see this scientific evidence, nor has anyone ever explained to me how a building can crush itself as though falling through air, or how a plane can disappear into a building without even leaving a hole where the plane should've gone through. If there's evidence then show me. Don't give an Ameriflag 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Studies show that The world trade center's steel girders weren't treated with a standered fire and age resistant coat, which was deemed enviromentally unsafe during the towers construction, 1970's, and was cheeply replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which theory do facts best support?

message: I'm trying to put together a list of films in which the World Trace Center is shown. So far I can think of:
* A.I.
* American Psycho (movie) 7:32-7:38 minutes in (along with Katrina & The Waves's walking on sunshine)--Jerryseinfeld 05:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  i dont know how old this talk article is but there is a world trade center in film and media article. maybe you are the author. 121.127.200.79 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films showing the World Trade Center 

message: "...American implementations of the architectural ethic of Le Corbusier..." Modernist, yes. Corbusier, no. Shouldn't a more apropos name be inserted than Corbusier's? --Wetman 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Le Corbusier?

message: For subjects that are about locations, such as this one, it would be useful to have the map coordinates of the place, as precise as possible. There are many different coordinate systems in use, but the one which is most often used with GPS receiver (whichever it is) is probably a good choice. The coordinates could be given in a standard form, similar to other special links, so that clicking on the link would take the user to a map. --HelgeStenstrom 19:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the url I developed from Google Maps , 40.711646 north by 74.01264 west would get you pretty near the center of the irregular block bounded by Vesey Street, Church Street, Liberty Street, and the West Side Highway which the WTC occupied. knoodelhed 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map coordinates 

message: Don't ask me why I'm asking this, but is the World Trade Center a federal facility? Or is it just a financial center for corporations and such? Thanks in advance. 66.177.138.113 18:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have one question 

message: Are the plans for building a 609.6 metre high TV tower as replacement for the transmitters on the former WTC cancelled?
:: yes 121.127.200.79 09:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayonne TV Tower 

message: I just added a new sub-topic "Observation Deck".  Having now looked at the rendered article, might have been more suitable nested within the "Twin Towers" sub-topic.  How do others feel?
:You're right -- the addition would be better as a subheading, so I just changed it.  Thanks for the addition!  I added an image of the observation deck from commons.  --Quasipalm 13:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading your paragraph I decided to add a bit about the other public space in 1wtc: windows on the world.  Since they are both mentioned breifly together earlier in the article, I thought it would be nice to add a bit more in the observation deck area.  This ok with you?  --Quasipalm 13:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good... Thinking about Observation Deck also gave me the idea that a great addition somewhere in a future part of the WTC article would be to mention the various stunts (legal and illegal) that took place up top like Philippe Petit (inter-tower tight rope walk), the Human Fly, and the half dozen or so BASE jumpers.--Jamott 17:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation Deck 

message: Max rspct, the word "was" in the opening paragraph doesn't need any emphasis.  I haven't seen any sign that anyone is confused over whether the World Trade Center still exists.  —Cleared as filed. 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does need emphasis as not everyone in the world is a tv-watching american -max rspct 13:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you need to be a TV-watching American to understand the meaning of the word "was"?  It is past tense all on its own without any emphasis, and in any case, if they read beyond the first couple of words, it becomes obvious that it can no longer exist. —Cleared as filed. 13:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Cleared as filed's comments.  Was is unnecessary.  Considering this event was the most covered news event in history, even people in isolated parts of the world learned of the attack.--Jamott 23:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "was" 

message: Noticed two conspiracy links added to site, since they originally added to the top of the links (which I moved) they suggest a political slant to the editor's addition.  Should we have these, I'm voting no. --Jamott 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them. This article is about the WTC buildings.. sites with theories about what happened on 9/11 are not relevant to this article. We already have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which already has a ton of links to "9/11 truth" sites. Rhobite 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the editor came in anonymously, I figured it was more or less political vandalism... but wanted another opinion on that.  Thanks.--Jamott 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Links 

message: In response to the increasing number of people using the 9/11 articles as a platform for wild theories, I created a watchlist so we can keep track of these attempts. Please visit User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist. You can use the "recent changes" link to view recent edits to the articles listed. Feel free to add any other relevant articles. Rhobite 23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 watchlist 

message: I have removed the following statement, due to lack of sources:
:One source estimates the 1993 value of the gold at one billion dollars, believed to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. That same source claims that when the World Trade Center was destroyed, the amount of gold "far exceed[ed] the 1993 levels." The gold was finally recovered in its entirety in late 2001.
Until "One source ..." is more specifically identified and properly cited, we cannot include these details.  Please see Wikipedia Cite sources for guidelines. --Aude 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this revision it appears the passage is added back in with the cites included, but the sources really need to be better explained in the passage rather than just adding a blind link to a cite. I'd encourage further revision of the passage.--Rosicrucian 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold 

message: I have split off the "Media" section into a separate article, World_Trade_Center_in_film_and_media that is linked here.  The Media section was getting way too long.  Any objections to this move can be discussed here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article was blooming too much in that section.--Jamott 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Was it on the 107th or 106th story?Geni 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I've ever seen or read indicates it was on the 107th Floor.--Jamott 02:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It occupied both the 106th and 107th floors.  The restaurant was on the 107th, with it's offices, along with conference/banquet facilities on the 106th. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I guess the article could be altered to that fact, or just left at 107 to address the space that was more or less "publically acessable".--Jamott 18:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows on the World

message: I added some information about specific buildings to another article World Trade Center site#Reconstruction plans.  This article's own "Rebuilding" section has its own incomplete information about the site plans, most of which I feel should be moved to World Trade Center site to avoid duplication.  There's a reference to the latter article elsewhere in this article but not in its "Rebuilding" section.
Skierpage 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding section overlaps "World Trade Center site" 

message: I do... who else does?
I'd prefer that over some memorial with 'freedom' in the name, but I'd also like to see it named something that doesn't seem to arrogantly suggest the place is the center of world trade.
:This is not a disscussion form. But I'd rather they'd rebuild the Twin Towers. The Freedom Tower looks like something cobbled together haphazardly. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Special:Contributions/BigMacSC99 for other suspected copyvio-images uploaded.  I've restored the images that were here previously.  Though, you might want to check out the photos on http://research.archives.gov/search — most which were taken by the EPA (some which mainly illustrate smog, industry, and pollution, but others are nice photos).  There might be other public domain photos elsewhere... -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who wants the World Trade Center built once again with the Twin Towers?

message: There are quite massive discrepancies (of several million square feet) in this article, relating to the areas of floor space in the towers and the centre as a whole.
:The figures I found seem to indicate ~ 10 million sq. ft. of rentable office space in the Towers.  When you combine the other WTC buildings in the complex, the number on the article seems probable. --Jamott 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: I have cut the following text from the article, seeing that the "plans seem to have been cancelled" and this is mentioned anyway in the Bayonne, New Jersey article.  It's fine to note that the top of the WTC contained the broadcasting facilities, though.  Since nothing will come of these plans, it just doesn't seem notable enough to mention in this article. 
:When the World Trade Center collapsed, many of New York's radio and television broadcasting facilities were destroyed. As a permanent replacement for them, a 2,000 foot (609.6 m) high TV tower at Bayonne, New Jersey was considered. A transmission site away from the coast would have allowed a much larger reception zone than the original WTC facilities. In spite of this advantage, the plans seem to have been cancelled.
-Aude (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bayonne TV Tower

message: Also, I trimmed a few links, but there are still way to many links.  Since Wikipedia is not a link directory, we should try to cut the list in half (at least). If anyone wants to go through the long list of links and help shorten this list more, that would be great.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just trimmed many more links and added a link to DMOZ open directory.  If anyone objects to deletion of any particular link, please bring it up for discussion and consensus here.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Kmf, the way you left that sentence is confusing and not needed, imho. Transmission issues YES were temporarily effected, but the bulk of NYCs radio and TV broadcast facilities WERE NOT located in the Towers. Can we please remove that sentence? Thanks!Tom 22:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming to the talk page.  I was just puzzled that this statement has been in the article for almost a year (unquestioned).  When I cut out the "Bayonne TV Tower" section which is IMHO irrelevant, it's important to try to salvage as much of it (as possible) and leave a note on the talk page for discussions.  Outright reverting it, without trying to reword it or come to the talk page tends to annoy me.  But on further thought, I'm fine with leaving it out, as this is covered in List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. For each of the sections in this article where there's a link to a "main article", we need to make these brief summaries of the subarticles.  Summarizing the "Rebuilding" section is the next task here.  If you'd like to help, that would be excellent. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a newbie so I am sure there is a TON more stuff I'll find :) Anyways, I love Wikipedia except HOT topics are VERY unmanageable because everybody has an agenda and a POV no matter how NPOV this site tries to be. Topics like broccholi and iron ore are fine but George Bush, abortion, suicide bombers?? FORGET IT! Anyways, back to the Towers..There should be some discusssion about transmission knockout but in the SCOPE of things its pretty small and this article seemed bloated, again imho. Your link above seems to tend more with the covergae of events/programming rather than the technical knock out of the transmission towers/facilities ect.Tom 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can think of a good way to incorporate mention of it, go ahead and do so.  I agree that the wording pasted from the Bayonne TV Tower section was poor.  I also cut out the "conspiracy theories" bit that had been here.  Wikipedia attracts many proponents of those theories, so it's a constant effort to argue with them and keep them from overtaking the place. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NYC's broadcast facilities

message: What's wrong with the first paragraph as written? patsw 19:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, precisely, do you mean? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with the rewording, regarding Larry Silverstein.  While true, the particular wording "six weeks prior to ..." seems to perhaps suggest or imply something more than it should.  Instead saying "July of 2001" is good. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed out of place the way it was. The way is it now, Larry Silverstein is simply mentioned as the final lessor of the World Trade Center, which is appropriate. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: It's written
:The Twin Towers collapsed due to fire and other structural damage resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks[...]
I can easily believe that the collapse was "due to fire and other structural damage" but we need a source.--Pokipsy76 10:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is so much controversy about why they collapsed, dont you think it should read "The Twin Towers collapsed following fire and other structural damage resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks"? Raemie 22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who say this? 

message: What does it mean
:Later that day, 7 World Trade Center subsequently collapsed as a result of the initial attack.
can't we explain it better?--Pokipsy76 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this was a seperate building next to the twin towers. it can be explained alot better. GallifreyanPostman pwns you 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: This part of the article just seems out of place... certainly is a minor point in the grand scheme of the article.  I'm for deletion of it... yeas/nays?  --Jamott 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. If someone wants it in, they'll put it back, hopefully with some citation. Tom Harrison Talk 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTC Pregnancy Studies

message: Hello, is it approriate to place the following picture in this article? Miss USA w/WTC in background I find it very symbolic, its of Miss USA Kim Seelbrede at the 1981 Miss Universe pageant held in New York City. Regards ~  Mallaccaos, 21 June 2006
:I don't think it's an appropriate picture for a few reasons.  First and foremost this article is about the WTC... in the photograph the WTC is not the centre of attention.  Secondly the scanning of the pic is low quality.  Lastly having a swimsuit clad model's picture in an article that memoralizing a building is inappropriate.--Jamott 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally only took a glance at the photo, taking a second look at the background... It is not even the WTC!--Jamott 13:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic picture 

message: why is that nonsense in it (the breakdown into percentages, not the main total)? Surely that'll be covered in the various Sept 11 articles. This page should be about the buildings not solely the attack
85.210.62.128 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  death statistics 

message: A cute story: In the year 2040, a man took his grandson to the site of the World Trade Center in New York City. The man told his grandson "This is where the World Trade Center stood." His grandson said "Pop Pop, what was the World Trade Center?" The grandfather replied, "They were the two tallest buidings in New York City, and they housed many of the most influential corporations in the modern world." The grandson asked "Pop Pop, what happend to the buildings?". The grandfather replied, "They were destroyed by Arabs." The grandson asked "Pop Pop, what were Arabs?"
I had two questions regarding this part of the article. One, is it appropriate for an encyclopedic article given that there's no statement of fact in it? Two, since it is said that it's a 'cute story' and the story implies the eradication of Arabs doesn't that make it wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry? Just wondering.--Jadden Sinn 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cute Story? 

message: I removed a bunch of images from the article such as multiple views of the twin towers prior to the collision and a bunch of movie posters. Most of the posters are gone but some of the others have been readded including one of a restaurant. There are still far too many pictures which are redundant: the restaurant, marriot with towers, manahattan skyline with twin towers, two pics of towers on fire.
I also prefer the image of Manhattan across the water (currently removed) as the lead image as it is more representative of the twin towers place in the landscape than an arty picture looking up at the twin towers. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the images I consider unnecessary or duplication of images more relevant to other articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Idea. But I think we need a better free use image for the main page. Koolgiy 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  why do people go around butchering articles? it doesn't hurt anyone to have some pictures! 121.127.200.79 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: This caption has got to be wrong. The World Financial Center was built by 1990 yet it is not showing up in the picture. Revise or I will remove the photo.Gary Joseph 14:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Doc ♬ talk 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The World Trade Center as viewed across the Hudson. Photo by Edgar de Evia, circa 1990.

message: Rest in Peace - the victims of the 9/11 attacks. In Memoriam, 5th Anniversary. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article space

message: Who on earth was so insensitive to put the current horrible image up? For shame.
 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.160.229 (talk • contribs) .</small> 
: User: 81.152.12.68 added this image to the article at 12:51 today. I have since reverted this user's contribution, and reported him/her for vandalism. All of this informtion can be found in this article's history located [here]. Somnabot 19:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This article is borderline on the number of relevant images in it. I removed a bunch a while ago but they are creeping back in. Can anyone tell me what value this image adds to the article other than consuming a lot of space, as every time I remove it gets readded. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on no feedback I have removed the image. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you remove images, please post them to a gallery on this talk page. -- Petri Krohn 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary photos

message: A fifth tower of the new World Trade Center has recently been announced and it should probably have an article about it, no? 62.136.208.173 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New World Trade Center Tower 5 

message: Is it just me or does that b&w photo of the WTC across the Hudson look incredibly dull. It is also quite useless are there are already plenty of photos on the page. Should we remove it? --62.136.208.173 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black & white WTC photo

message: September 11, 2001
There is no proof at all that the hijackers are from the al-qaedas groups. Why must it says Al-Qaeda is the group who hijack the plane and destroy wtc in an encyclopedia...?? Even police don't know yet. Wow, Wikipedia had been a truly informative with infos that no one ever know yet. Izzudin 11:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The broad consensus is that Al Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is confirmed by numerous reputable and verifiable sources and is discussed in detail in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article, which includes more than seventy references. That article also acknowledges the many minority views that assign responsibility to other parties. - Eron Talk 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia had been a free encyclopedia with wrong infos...