Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Letter to Leslie E. Robertson Associates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explanation of removal of 'Aircraft Considerations' rewrite

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Touche!  Next time I shall be more bold.  Blackcats 04:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FEMA Report on building 7

message: 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)
thread_title:  www.serendipity.li 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it was removed because it would show a reason for the whole event, since it would be impossibly expensive to remove the asbestos, and unthinkable to openly demolish the building, hence, if there were someone groping for a reason that the WTC would have been 'attacked by other than foreign terrorists', then that would provide a reason.  If you get my drift... Pedant 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  Asbestos Coating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frank Gayle quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to the actual report? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Prove controlled demolition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Speculations or Hypothesis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 ...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)

text: I was reading this section from the link I provided above from Controlled Demolition, Inc.....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)

text: 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)

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: Was molten steel observed? Tom Harrison Talk 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Did Usama really say this?