Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 6

message: :The World Trade Center was one of the major technical systems that failed as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Although no major studies of the collapses had ever proposed such hypotheses, the NIST report states that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) This conclusion may have been a response to the widespread use of the term "controlled demolition" in the popular media to describe the disaster. In one case, a demolitions expert was misquoted as proposing explosives planted in the building as the initiator of the collapse. In his correction, he clarified that it only "looked like" controlled demolition. (Alb. Journal on Van Romero.)
:Despite the NIST report's conclusions, the collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and is a staple of 9/11 conspiracy theories, along with the failure of other social and technical systems, including those of the air defenses and the intelligence community.
I'm no Bertrand Russell, but you can't tell me that isn't better prose, and more informative, than what we've got there now.--Thomas Basboll 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy Theories" (New Draft) 

message: I've cleaned up quite a bit in the opening few paragraphs in order to provide a clear summary of the basic collapse mechanism, and the structural response/performance issues that have been central to the FEMA and NIST investigations. I hope I haven't killed anybody's darlings too cruelly. Note that I moved the "row erupts" part into the "design criticisms" section. I didn't know where else to put it and I didn't think it should be lost altogether; it just didn't seem to fit the now more confident tone of the intro. If anyone wants it back, I suggest adding a single sentence like, "Though the FEMA and NIST investigations have settled most questions among engineers, some engineers still fault the design of the towers to varying degrees."--Thomas Basboll 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The opening of the article 

message: I've been looking at the article's sources and it strikes me that instead of presenting the best explanation (NIST's), the sections sort of cobble together bits and pieces of all the explanations that were provided (including some that date back to late 2001.) I've therefore added a section for "earlier theories and investigations", where these ideas, which may be of historical interest, can be presented. I suggest always checking whether your source was published before or after September 2005, which was when the NIST report (in its final form) came out. Not that earlier sources will be wrong, just that they may conflict (like NOVA, Eagar, and much of FEMA's reports) with what NIST finally determined to have happened. In most cases, no expert opinions other than NIST's conclusion really need to be cited.
I'm open to disagreement on this, of course.--Thomas Basboll 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old and new info? 

message: I've taken out some of the early speculation about the collapsed, which has been superceded by the NIST report and now doesn't fit into the collapse mechanism section. It could perhaps be worked into the section on earlier theories. Here's what I took out:
:In the south tower, intense fires led to a sudden bursting of bolts in one section, while the failures in the north tower core involved slower creep and softening effects.Wilkinson, Tim, Why did it collapse?, World trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects, (April 3, 2006), URL accessed May 1, 2006
:The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, which may indicate that there were two modes of failure. The north tower collapsed directly downwards, "pancaking" in on itself, while the south tower fell at an angle during which the top 20 or so stories of the building remained intact for the first few seconds of the collapse, then pulverized into dust in mid-air, and the tower continued straight down. In spite of these differences, an Australian structural engineer believes that the "same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers"Wilkinson, Tim, Why did it collapse?, World trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects, (April 3, 2006), URL accessed May 1, 2006
The coverage of the NIST report is actually pretty thin (as you can now see). I'll try to add some detail. Anyone who wants to help should look at page 179 and forward of the NIST report.--Thomas Basboll 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Tom Wilkinson's theory (outdated) 

message: Here's the text:
:The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, which may indicate that there were two modes of failure. The north tower collapsed directly downwards, "pancaking" in on itself, while the south tower fell at an angle during which the top 20 or so stories of the building remained intact for the first few seconds of the collapse, then pulverized into dust in mid-air, and the tower continued straight down. In spite of these differences, an Australian structural engineer believes that the "same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers"Wilkinson, Tim, Why did it collapse?, World trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects, (April 3, 2006), URL accessed May 1, 2006
:Subsequent modeling suggests that in the north tower the internal trusses supporting the concrete floors failed as a result of heat-induced warping.Eagar, Thomas, The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective, NOVA, (May 2002), URL accessed May 1, 2006 This would have placed additional stress on the bunched core columns, which were losing integrity from both impact damage and heat. When the core columns gave out on one of the impact floors, this floor collapsed into the floor below. Once the collapse started, it was unstoppable; the huge mass of the falling structure had sufficient momentum to act as a battering ram, smashing through all the floors below. Witnesses from within the tower stated they heard "something like a heavy freight train approaching".
This stuff (and especially the "pancaking") is misleading after the publication of the NIST report, but it should definetly be worked into the "earlier theories" section. Again, the "collpase mechanism" as actually described by NIST turns out to be very under-represented in the article. Working on it....--Thomas Basboll 14:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Eagar's theory (outdated) 

message: I see Mongo's point of reverting. I just wanted to get the early speculations (even though they have references - old ones) out of the known collapse mechanism. There will be a little work to do to rewrite the "earlier" section as a narrative in the past tense.--Thomas Basboll 15:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On second thought... 

message: It would be interesting to have some information on the extensive and difficult clean up process. It would also be an approapiate place for this excellent photo which keeps getting removed because some editor mistake it for evidence of demolition (its actually just a picture of the clean-up opperation) Self-Described Seabhcán 21:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. There are a lot of rumours about the cleanup. It would be good to have some basic, uncontroversial facts about (1) when it began, (2) who was in charge, (3) when the site was finally cleared, (4) where the materials went (and how they entered the investigation process.)--Thomas Basboll 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: "Cleanup" 

message: Theres a lot of interesting material out there on the dust. There's some in the article already, but I think it would be useful if we collected it under one heading. It also effected a lot of people in New York, not least the rescue workers, some of whom have died from exposure. It also has no connection to any conspiracy theories that I am aware of (I think we can all accept that there was dust and it was a result of the collapse) - so we (hopefully) can discuss it's inclusion with civility. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a section about the aftermath, with sub-sections for the clean-up/rescue operations and one about the effects on the city. There's a mainstream scandal (not CT) in which the Whitehouse revised the EPA's statements about air quality in order to re-open Wall Street as quickly as possible. The current "other buildings" could also be moved in there, maybe.--Thomas Basboll 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are aware there is an article on the Aftermath_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks, right? The after-effects of the dust belong there, not here. Unless you have a point to make about squibs such ideas. --Mmx1 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wasn't. Thanks. It looks like it would suffice to add a section called "Aftermath" and link to directly to the sections that are relevant in the article you point out.--Thomas Basboll 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, the dust cloud itself is a physical feature of the collapses that does belong here, including its composition of various toxic particles (from the computer, fire-detectors, etc.). Some of that information is very briefly touched on in the "Aftermath" article. The details belong here.--Thomas Basboll 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can see a sentence mentioning that the collapse generated dust from office equipment; for unity, why not put that as part of the synopsis paragraph of "Aftermath" here, and link to the "Aftermath" Article. There, I think, it would be appropriate to expand and go fully into an analysis of the composition of the dust. --Mmx1 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be bold and try to work it out in practice. I think the section on the practical aftermath (like rescue and cleanup) could be very short and link to the main article; but the physical properties of the collapses (which includes the duration of the fires at ground zero and the dimensions and composition of the dust cloud) belong in the article on the collapses itself. I'm going to look at some of the official accounts and try to come up with a description of them that includes the dustcloud right at the beginning of the "Collapse of the two towers section". Then I'll add a "see also" link.--Thomas Basboll 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great. I wish I could help but I'm engaged in another research effort ATM. I'm just offering suggestions on how to properly organize and segregate the information you're coming up with. Great work so far.--Mmx1 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Dust 

message: A merger proposal is gaining steam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Comments from regular editors of this article would be most appreciated. Thanks!--Kchase T 07:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merger proposal 

message: I took this out:
:Some see the WTC as an irresponsible experiment in lightweight, rent-space-maximized construction and place particular opprobrium on Leslie E. Robertson, its Chief Structural Engineer. Others see it as a landmark in structural engineering simply in need of refinement due to unforeseen, and probably unforeseeable, variables.
If someone has a source for this and the idea remains current after the NIST report, you can put it back in in the construction section.--Thomas Basboll 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opprobrium for Robertson? 

message: I removed Eagar's single bolt theory from the construction notes. This is the text:
:# Single-bolt connections binding the longspan floorplates with the load-bearing external columns were extremely light in weight for their assigned task. A study group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded the proximal cause of the south tower collapse was failure of these bolts in the southeast corner of the building.Eagar, Thomas W., Christopher Musso, The Design, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation, JOM, vol. 53/12 pp. 8-11, (2001), URL accessed May 1, 2006 Double-bolts should have been used.
If there's anythin you want to keep, please put it into the past investigations section (where Eagar now has his own subheading.--Thomas Basboll 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single bolt theory out 

message: :On the day of the attack, Van Romero, an explosives expert in New Mexico, told the Albuquerque Journal that the collapses of the towers looked "too methodical" to be triggered by the aircraft impacts and fires. He said they looked like they had been triggered by "explosive devices inside the buildings"Uyttebrouck, Olivier. "Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September 11, 2001. He later clarified his position, saying that he did not believe that any such explosives had in fact been involved; he was merely noting that that is what it looked likeFleck, John. "Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September 21, 2001 Indeed, NIST would find "no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." This clarification was added to Part III and the executive summary of the final report in "consideration of public comments" that had been made to an earlier draft. Indeed, the controlled demolition hypothesis had not been proposed in mainstream engineering scholarship prior to the publication of the report, and has not been suggested in such scholarship since. Nonetheless, the controlled demolition hypothesis has become characteristic of the 9/11 Truth Movement and many 9/11 conspiracy theories. 
Please accept or reject this idea in the new context of the article as is. I am suggesting we delete the "conspiracy section", for the reasons stated above.--Thomas Basboll 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accept : That looks excellent. you've changed my mind. Self-Described Seabhcán 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Change last sentence from "Nonetheless, the controlled demolition hypothesis has become characteristic of the 9/11 Truth Movement and many 9/11 conspiracy theories." to "The controlled demolition hypothesis is a fundamental concept embraced by most 9/11 conspiracy theories." I see no reason to have the 9/11 Truth Movement mentioned at all. They are just one group and not particularly more notable than any other group, aside from being perhaps the loudest...their arguments are no more convincing, however.--MONGO 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Conditional Accept : accept after applying MONGO's above proposed change. --physicq210 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the phrase "a fundamental concept embraced by most" is a bit presumptuous. Making that claim would demand, if you'll pardon it, some original research. The word "characteristic" comes from the WP article on the truth movement, which is not to be confused with Scholars for 9/11 Truth (who may be the small, loud group you're thinking of.) 9/11 TM is just a covering term for a bunch of activities being carried out by a bunch of people interested in the same thing very broadly speaking. When I began to look into this stuff it very quickly made ordinary sense ... as people have pointed out, a bit like Gay Pride and the Peace Movement. I think you're making too big a deal of it.--Thomas Basboll 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The controlled demolition hypothesis

message: I've accepted Mongo and Physicq's corrections. And drawn a bit on the status quo. See if you like it. I'd still like to add "...and it is a characteristic issue of the 9/11 Truth Movement." But I'll take this one step at a time.--Thomas Basboll 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see zero reason to mention them...this will make for a serious issue as I see no reaosn to use this article for a platform for their misinformation...sorry.--MONGO 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you and I have a different sense of who "they" are, Mongo. When we return to this issue (after the remaining cleanup work has been done), I think we should compare notes about what we think the movement is.--Thomas Basboll 06:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, being bold... 

message: Glasgow tower block to shed light on 9/11 fire - A PROFESSOR of engineering is to destroy a Glasgow tower block in an effort to understand why the Twin Towers collapsed in the 9/11 attacks. Jose Torero, Professor of Fire Safety Engineering at Edinburgh University, will set the disused building in the east end of Glasgow alight and study the effects... Self-Described Seabhcán 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, and? Are these strutures at all similar to the WTC...is he also going to impact them with wide body jets? No and no. It looks like he is mainly focused on how to make buildings safer in fire. I think, that computer modeling does the best in terms of analizing the events of 9/11...so unless someone does the same thing to the Sears Tower or a similar tall building of similar construction and getting hit by similar size jets with about the same amount of fuel and flying at the same speed, it is pretty hard to actually "recreate" the situation as they happened in real life.--MONGO 06:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alos, as the abstract plainly points out..."This investigation does not take into account the structural damage caused by the terrorist attack."...so it is just a fire analysis.--MONGO 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your complaint, Mongo. With the Fire Safety Journal reference and the Scotsman story, this looks like a perfectly legit (though perhaps flawed) scientific inquiry into the performance of steel frame buildings under (what it claims are) WTC conditions. Ideally, we would wait til Torero publishes his results, but if he interprets it as WTC-relevant experiment and his peers agree with him in their review, then what's the problem?--Thomas Basboll 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This part of the story may be worth pursuing: "[Torero] is one of a number of experts across the world who believes that the Twin Towers should have stayed up after they were hit by hijacked airliners on September 11 2001."--Thomas Basboll 06:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he isn't going to fly wide body jets into the buildings, then what good is it as a cross examination?--MONGO 06:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He could go in an cut a comparable percentage of the columns. He could remove one column section on one floor and trace the load redistribution. He could observe the weakening of the steel. I'm not exactly sure, but isn't he, and not you and I, the reputable expert?--Thomas Basboll 06:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, but the point is, what columns does one cut, is he going to study load distribution...are the buiildings steel framed or instead built in a very closely parallel manner to those at the WTC? What we seem to have is someone doing a fire investigation, rather than a collapse study. Is the building going to have similar materials, similar venting, aviation fuel used as an the primary combustible. Is the building even remotely similar in mass, of a similar height and is the fire going to be at a zone of similarity, such as a similar mass percentage above the fire point. The study looks like it will be a fire study, and we already have plenty of those from real life...albeit, they are mostly of steel framed buildings and none of them were hit by a wide body jets laden with aviation fuel at flying at 500mph or greater.--MONGO 07:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point wasn't so much that he would do anything in particular, but mainly that he and his peers are better qualified than you and I to determine whether it is a WTC-relevant experiment. We don't (I certainly don't) know enough about engineering in general, or his study specifically, to make this judgment call. But we've got reputable source that makes the call for us. Keep in mind that the NIST study was largely, and in its decisive aspects, a fire study. To simulate the hypothesized collapse mechanism you might just have to take out some percentage of columns and see if fire can cause the buckling of the remainder. (Naturally, the most interesting thing from my point of view is what happens after "collapse ensues".)--Thomas Basboll 07:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Prof Torero's theory is that the fires were primarially/totally the cause of the collapse - which is why he isn't simulating the plane impacts. A note on his theory and experiments can added to the section "The Fires" or, as he disagrees with the NIST and his research continues today, to the "The Last Word?" section. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, with the NCE piece it does look there is an open question there in the mainstream eng. community: would fire alone have done it? (That's an argument for putting it in the "last word" section.)--Thomas Basboll 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't entirely the fault of the press - I imagine that Prof Torero suggested the connection with the WTC, as I doubt it would have occured to the reporters themselves. My experience with the press is that if you want to get a scientific press release published you have to make it sexy, I'd imagine thats what Prof. Torero did. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've noticed that virtually all papers on the subject refer to Bazant and Zhou (2002) to explain the global collapse, and thus every paper now simply tries to explain what brought the structure to the point of failure. Bazant and Zhou (2002) makes the claim that the forces exerted on the lower structure by the upper structure falling on it were an order of magnitude above what the building could withstand. They also try to explain the speed of the collapse using a sort of shock wave idea which weakended the structure in advance of the battering ram effect of the falling upper floors. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable. Why not just put it in near the top of the "early attempts" section and include your observation about that they seem to be the first to offer an explanation of the global collapse?--Thomas Basboll 09:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll do it later today. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added section on Bazant paper. It got me thinking that we could combine some of these sections: 5.1 5.3 and 5.4 could be combined under "Global Collapse", 5.2 and 5.11 could be combined under "The Fires". Self-Described Seabhcán 11:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Prof. Torero's experiment has taken place. I'm looking forward to his publications on this.  Self-Described Seabhcán 11:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Interesting story in UK 

message: Can somebody please fix -- I'm not familiar with the citation style.  Morton devonshire 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote numbering is off

message: I've re-written the construction section.  It's a little short on references - I'm not sure how to handle that without putting a reference after every fact.  The information all came out of the FEMA report, chapter 2 and NIST-NCSTAR1-1A. Any thoughts?  Toiyabe 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. That's the sort of thing we need to do with every section.--Thomas Basboll 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. I wonder if it could stand shortening. It may be more detailed than is necessary for understanding the collapses. Maybe we could move some of it over to the WTC article?--Thomas Basboll 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we are going to be talking about floor trusses, hat trusses, core columns, perimeter columns, spandrels etc. in the Investigations section, it makes sense to introduce those terms in the Construction section.  Maybe there is too much information.  I would suggest that once we get the Investigations section into better shape (there's a lot of work left to be done) we go back and re-evaluate the construction section.  Toiyabe 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.--Thomas Basboll 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction section 

message: The article is decent, but will need many more facts, many of them easy to find, to get it through peer review. I'll work later or tomorrow on cleaning up the references as I just got through doing at Steven E. Jones--MONGO 21:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Mongo has added a bunch of tags calling for references up in the introduction to facts that are in all but one case mentioned again in the body of the article and referenced there. In the one case where we don't mention it again (the death toll) the facts are public knowledge, easily verifiable, etc. Finally, all of the facts in the introduction (including the death toll) are accounted for in a single source (NIST), which is referenced in the introduction. There are limits to the marginal utility of providing sources, some of which are stylistic. But in this case, it gives also gives the reader the wrong impression: that each fact has a separate source or a separate substantiating argument, when all we're doing in the introduction is presenting a completely uncontroversial summary of the most superficial aspects of the received view. We risk sending the reader into a thicket of primary sources when we should be standing in a clearing. We risk giving the impression that everything is in question. Not referencing every sentence simply can't violate WP:RS or whatever. For an example of more judicious use of sources (especially in the intro), see Earth.--Thomas Basboll 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is standard to reference information as many times as is needed if this is to be going to peer review and possibly to the FAC process. The second paragraph in the intro may only need one reference for the section. The first section after the intro only has one reference! The intro needs cleaning up anyway, as I find it a bit of a jumble.--MONGO 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in introduction?