Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 5

message: Please do not use embedded links in the article...I have tried to use a cite style and it is simple to copy the style...simply put the author first, the external link with the title of the reference next, the pblisher third, any date the work was published fourth and the date the URL was accessed last. Or just use cite templates and make sure you put the brackets--MONGO 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded links 

message: Specifically, I'd like to add a paragraph that explains clearly to the reader that very high temperatures were achieved, melting and partially evaporating steel, in the presence of sulfer, leaving the steel with a "swiss cheese" appearance which baffled engineers. 
I'd also like to state clearly that these were unprecedented events, that no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed from fires, with or without fireproofing. 
I'd like to change the beginning picture to one of the actual collapse taking place. The current picture of the firefighter would be better for "Aftermath at Ground Zero" or something. 
TruthSeeker1234 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though in the interim, the firefighter picture is a pretty good pictre.--DCAnderson 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The specifics of the steel you want to talk about are already in the Seven World Trade Center section.  "An article in the Journal of Metallurgy discussed microstructural changes that resulted in the erosion of a piece of a steel beam collected from WTC7 ...".  Toiyabe 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're the one pretending to be ignorant (or truly so). The description of an item with an analogy does not mean you take the analogy literally. Observers said it "looked like the steel was evaporated", referring to the degraded state of the metal. That doesn't mean it actually did evaporate, requiring temperatures that even modern industrial processes would have difficulty creating, and only a daft idiot would assume the latter. Specificially, the precise engineering report you are attempting to alter to incorporate your OR doesn't say anything of the sort. Witnesses said the towers coming down "sounded like a freight train". Doesn't mean that a freight train started the collapse. --Mmx1 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add to the Article

message: Sorry if this is an FAQ, old news etc. (I looked through as much of the archive as I could bear.) I am confused about this bit, near the start: "Both main towers lost structural integrity and fell that morning, killing 2,595 people within and nearby, as well as 157 people who were aboard the flights." And the article is called Collapse of the World Trade Center. Putting those two together I find it very odd that we seem to say the collapse killed 157 people on the aircraft. Surely they were killed by the plane crashes, not by the collapse? I know this is a contentious article and I am trying to tread carefully, but I just don't see how this works. If the article is about the collapse then it shouldn't be suggesting that it killed the plane passengers, surely?? Gonegonegone 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with this.  Surely the passengers were not killed by the collapse.  However, the sentence could be rewritten to reflect this also. -- Deville (Talk) 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airliner deaths listed with collapse fatalities 

message: There is now scientific evidence supporting the thermite theory. 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001
www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/scientific_analysis_prove_towers_brought_down_by_incendiaries.htm 
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
CB Brooklyn 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not reliable sources for a factual claim about the existance of Thermite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The official report will be released soon. Until then, I will remove the statement from the article.
CB Brooklyn 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Something tells me Hannity won't show any cool videos, the same as Tucker Carlson. I predict that any time Fetzer gets to his point, Hannity will shout him down with noise. I think of Sean Hannity as kind of like EngineerEd.TruthSeeker1234 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Evidence for Thermite Theory 

message: Compare  to 
*
The headline is "Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel." What you provided in quotes, TruthSeeker, appears nowhere in the article. Nor do the words "baffled" or "swiss cheese," TruthSeeker. The article does not mention sulpher. The word "eutectic" never appears. Here, TruthSeeker, is a quote in context: 
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
"Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."
Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth, and accuracy 

message: I've removed User:EngineerEd's additions to the article, and blocked him indefinitely. He suggests on his talk page that he is a sock puppet, and I can find nothing about the Fuji Towers. I've posted a notice on WP:ANI. Tom Harrison Talk 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuji Towers, etc.

message: Let me ask (and only ask) a few questions. This is from a neutral POV.
If molten steel was indeed present due to the jet crashes, won't the molten steel have melted a few floors of the building and weaken the structure of the towers, without assistance of controlled demolition? If sufficiently high temperatures were achieved to melt steel, then won't the building just start melting until it cannot support its own weight, hence collapsing? If these two points are true, won't these points render the assertion of controlled demolition groundless, or at least render this theory unnecessary to explain for the collapses?
However, if there is no molten steel, how would the towers collapse? If molten steel was not present, the buildings would be able to support themselves because the steel beams will still be in place.
Please help me (and others) clarify these confusions. It might also lay to rest the above controversies. --Physicq210 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been addressed ad nauseum. Steel does not need to melt to weaken - once it weakens beyond the load on it, it will fail. This will happen way before it actually melts. --Mmx1 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Think of simple blacksmithing - a steel bar is heated to the point that it becomes malleable, but nowhere near molten, and then bent and/or hammered into the desired shape. This would not be possible with unheated steel. Heating weakens the structural integrity. --CBD 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Topic Thrown into Conversation 

message: I really like the animated gif showing the collapse of WT7, but I think it would be better if it stopped after a certain period of time.  Support?  Oppose? St.isaac 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Annoying continuous animation 

message: As you can read in the policy reverts must be always explained: 
:Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.
And this must not happen.--Pokipsy76 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pokipsy...that link is to 1RR...an essay page, not a policy page and though edit summaries are considered the minimal required, comments on talk pages are expected when making large alterations or if the revert cannot be adequately addressed in the edit summary..--MONGO 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that it will happen, again and again, because no-one oversees the actions of administrators. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People do overlook the actions of admins, that is why when you posted insults and misrepresentations about me and others in your user page, I removed them and other admins checked and saw that there was grounds for doing so...get your facts straight.--MONGO 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still does come down to the fact that a lot of people here do not agree with the reverts that are made by you, MONGO, I think that is the point. I am not being insulting, but I myself think there should be added more on the alternate views that are present here, and which are not proportionally mentioned in these articles. Just reverting all the additions made, referring to Wiki rules as too much detail, doesnt work when different people do feel it should be in there. Do people agree with me here and think there should be paid more attention to raised questions in the article?Fritzz44 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts must be explained 

message: Wow...no one has said anything for the past 3 days. Is that a record or something? --Physicq210 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace at last?