Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 2

message: Shouldn't there be a picture of what the new WTC 7 will look like?  I feel it should be there...maybe a picture of the old one as well when it existed. (Jamandell (d69) 14:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of new building 

message: Can we move the conspiracy theories to 9/11 conspiracy theories?  Most of this is redundant to that page as is.  I think it would be best to have a brief mention of the theory here and then put a link like 
or something. I'm not sure why these theories should be like 3/4's of the page. --Quasipalm 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be better.  However, if we do that, the 9/11 conspiracy theories page should probably have an entire section devoted to WTC7, rather than dispersing various pieces of WTC7 information throughout the existing structure of that article.  Further, the few existing tidbits of WTC7 information on that page should be integrated into that section.  My $0.02.  --Hyperbole 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the explanation from the promoters of the 9/11 conspiracy theories for how tens of thousands of people involved in the official investigation of the collapse of WTC7 were kept from revealing the truth? patsw 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Moving it to one place would make sense.  There is a tendency to write the same article over and over again at all points, rather than a focussed article on one thing at one point.  Repetition should not be mistaken for force of argument.  There probably are not so many as tens of thousands of people who get a look at the building for the purpose of explaining its collapse, and like the conspiracy theorists most of them will be unable to make sense of it.  however there will have been enough before and after that a conspiracy theory seems unlikely.  Midgley 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] 

message: Quoting from Wikipedia:External_links:
"On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first."
It seems clear to me that the "alternate theories regarding the collapse" links must be, at least, fairly represented, if not preserved in their entirety.  That WTC7's collapse was not caused secondary to the plane crashes earlier that day is a widespread POV; removing that section entirely amounts to nothing more than rank censorship.  --Hyperbole 05:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added what I believe are accurate comments informing readers of the POV of two of the "alternate theories" links.  With respect to "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," that link more properly belongs on the main "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, and since it is represented there, it does not, in my opinion, need to be represented here.  --Hyperbole 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the engineering department at BYU doesn't support Steven Jones' opinion...nor does the mainstream press, the U.S. government or any other foreign reputable government. It's junk science. Jim Hoffman link is the same. Misrepresentations of the evidence, misquotes, miscues to deliberately slant the "evidence" to make it appear they have a case. We don't cite in an encyclopedic forum unpeer reviewed original research. Those websites are by the hundreds and all they sell is the same old thing.--MONGO 06:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your POV on this issue is very clear.  What isn't clear is whether you think there is any reason, in accordance with Wikipedia:External_links, that external links representing the other POV should be excluded from the article.  --Hyperbole 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we not not give undue weight to junk science and try to call it encyclopedic.--MONGO 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It meets the external links policy to my satisfaction.  Whether any of the information in those links should be added to the article, and those cites used as references, raises the question of whether the links are encyclopedic.  When they exist only as external links, the only question we need to address is whether one common POV is being adequately and fairly represented.  I think those external links do a good job of representing the POV that WTC7 was brought down by explosives.  --Hyperbole 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brought down by explosives. Sure...they were blown up right? Okay. See:WP:NOR and the section about undue weight ...so few people with more than 12 brain cells believe that there was controlled demolition, aside from cranks and politically inspired (and anti-American) POV pushers that even linking to their bogus websites is undue weight. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."--MONGO 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, MONGO, your POV on the issue is crystal-clear, and arguing the actual point is not the purpose of this talk page.  The viewpoint that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is in no way an extremely small or vastly limited minority view.  For just one example, polls show that one in five Germans - somewhere on the order of a million people in that country alone - believe the U.S. had a role in the destruction of the WTC.  It's a common POV both inside and outside the U.S.; like all common POVs, it deserves representation. You yourself said that "these websites appear by the hundreds" - "extremely small minority view"? --Hyperbole 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: MONGO, you're being deliberately insulting and rude.  The POV that the WTC7 was demolished by explosives has thousands if not millions of adherents.  It has, as demanded by the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV you cited, significant proponents who are easily named (you named two in this very discussion).  It has support at the highest levels of academia.  No matter how strongly you feel that the theory is false, it is a significant POV, and your work to exclude its mention in no way improves the article and only makes it less NPOV.  --Hyperbole 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one believes that the buildings were brought down with explosives. It has support by a few rogue acadmics (who are mostly politically opposed to the current administration), none of which are structural engineers or experts on controlled demolition. As I said, there are countless websites about this looniness, and thousands about the loch ness monster, UFO's, Bigfoot...and none of them, any more than the websites you keep trying to put in here, have one shred of proof about anything. Nothing. Most of them are just bloggish misrepresentations, pulling at straws, trying to find something, oh anything that would constitute proof and they all fail miserably. Stop reading these websites...they will twist your mind.--MONGO 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I reiterate, that a fw signatories or names on some list in a silly website do not constitute anything more than an extreme fringe group that are not even worth mentioning. It's just conspiracy theory bunk.--MONGO 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it to you this way: If millions of people believed in Bigfoot, the article on Bigfoot would deserve external links representing that POV.  Otherwise, it would be an NPOV article.  Or, to give another example, millions of people *do* believe in Scientology - that the alien Xenu put billions of people to death on Hawaii thirty-million-odd years ago - and that POV is (properly) represented in the Scientology article.  Just because you believe a POV is "hogwash" is not a proper reason to whitewash it out of an article, *especially* the external links.  --Hyperbole 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MONGO, I disagree with your edit summary, "Links violate WP:SPAM, WP:EL and have not been published by a reputable neutral party" when deleting an external link you consider to be unreliable. As long as it is properly flagged, extreme POV articles are allowed to be linked. Are you censoring the article? Guinnog 12:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Just to clarify something - there were/will be three reports on the WTC collapse:
*1. FEMA - made preliminary findings that the collapse of 7WTC was due to fire (and not debris impact), but did not reach final conclusions and urged further study.
*2. 9/11 Commission - made absolutely no mention of 7WTC.
*3. NIST - from what I read, released its report on 1WTC and 2WTC, but "decoupled" 7WTC from its report and delayed its release until sometime this spring.
The article doesn't make any mention of the 9/11 Commission in its current incarnation, and a reference was just reverted under what appears to be the erroneous assumption that the 9/11 Commission is the same thing as NIST.  I'm not sure whether we should mention the 9/11 Commission or not.  --Hyperbole 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three Reports

message: The date of May 2006 has been removed because it can't be cited.  It was in New York Metro but I can't find it online.  Hey, it's probably going to be delayed anyway.  CoolGuy 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening date 

message: There's now an ongoing edit war regarding the inclusion of a link to wtc7.net. Some of the arguments for/against inclusion are above on this talk page. Given the presence of the edit war, I'd like to take a straw poll to see what contributors here feel we should do regarding this issue. Please sign in the appropriate section below what you feel should be done. Please do not engage in lengthy conversations in the poll; start another section on this talk page for that. Thank you. 
Support inclusion of a link to wtc7.net in External links
#Support, along with Popular Mechanics link for balance. I do not believe the conspiracy theories, but the behavior of administrators on this talk page almost makes me want to. The shameful record of administrators opposing the inclusion of neutral information about the conspiracy theories in this article should be extremely disturbing to everyone here. It is certainly very disturbing to me. Not so long ago, two administrators were insisting at length that not a single word about the theories could be included on this article. Fortunately, things have not gone their way. — goethean ॐ 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia links to dozens if not hundreds of sites that happen to sell a product in addition to performing their main function, whatever that may be.  wtc7.net exists to disseminate information; it does not exist to sell DVDs.  It is not spam, and WP:SPAM is not a valid policy for its exclusion.  --Hyperbole 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is..end of story..it stays out.--MONGO 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think that you personally define an editorial consensus?  Or do you think your adminship gives you the right to unilaterally dicate the contents of an article?  If either is the case, you're sorely mistaken.  Bottom line: wtc7.net does not exist primarily to sell merchandise; therefore, it does not run afoul of WP:SPAM.  Wikipedia:External_links demands the inclusion of sites representative of notable POVs.  The link should be included.  --Hyperbole 08:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think that I am the only one that opposes the inclusion of the link? Hardly. Right there, soon as one clicks the link to that preposterous website is a link to a their DVD which is not free...it is FOR SALE...what are you trying to sell us Hyperbole? It is spam and  advertising and is not compatable with this forum becuase inclusion of the link to that website violates guidelines and policies. So it stays out.--MONGO 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just not sure what you think it accomplishes by dictating "what happens" on Wikipedia as though you have the right to do so.  Have a look at Homestar Runner.  Or, I don't know, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.  Perhaps World Wrestling Entertainment.  There are *hundreds* of Wikipedia sites that have external links that include a shop.  The bright line test is whether the site *exists* to sell merchandise, not whether it happens to sell merchandise.  And, frankly, sites like Homestar Runner or World Wrestling Entertainment's homepage are *more* questionable under that test because they are commercial sites.  Yet no one sees anyone challenging them as external links - because they don't contain a POV that any editors object to.  Trying to paint wtc7.net as "spam" is utterly transparent; if you really objected to any link that sells a DVD, you'd be going through Wikipedia rapid-fire and ripping out a third of the external links on the site.  And I notice that no deletionist here has made any attempt to replace wtc7.net with another site that shares its POV but doesn't sell a DVD.  Curious, mmm?  --Hyperbole 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Homestar Runner, the homestar runner link is the official website for the topic.  Same with WWE - official sites for the article topic.  Per WP:EL, "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."  With 7 World Trade Center, wtc7.net is not at all the official website. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL also says that on topics with multiple points of view, sites representing each point of view should be included - so I'm not sure where you draw the distinction.  --Hyperbole 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with MONGO on this point. --Durin 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tom. wtc7.net does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source policy, except for reference on the 9/11 conspiracy theories of what conspiracy theorists are saying. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a mere external link, Wikipedia is not a link directory, and I don't think wtc7.net meets WP:EL. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: MONGO, This is sounding a lot like what the media and government was doing with the Iraq war, I mean, WMDs, 9/11, Iraqi freedom, whatnot... Why not stick to one objection here. When you change your objection, you are implying that you are no longer convinced with your original objection. And that is no way to debate. --Spindled 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no debate, if inclusion of nonsense that also is spam is in question...what on Earth are you talking about? If website ahs multiple reasons (aside from it being nonsense) for exclusion, then they should all be explained. Uh?--MONGO 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ofcourse if you label it as "nonsense" it would seem so, but don't forget that the "nonsense" part is really only your opinion, as quite a large group of people find this much more sensible than the official story, and it would seem to that group that the official story is quite a better candidate to the term "nonsense". So, if you want to be objective, you have to forget the nonsense part and accept this as being a different point of view. As for the SPAM comment, I tend to disagree that this is actually SPAM. They are not selling you junk, they are just trying to promote their POV in a sensible way. And really, the DVD portion of the website is insignifact to the amount of information on that website. Exaggerating this DVD thing seems to me to be just an alibi. However, a better way to solve this problem is probably to link to http://911research.wtc7.net instead. --Spindled 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Large is a pretty subjective word. I'm sure there are a lot of people that believe wtc7, but objectively it's a pretty small minority compared to the number of people that think it's nonsense. This hasn't anywhere near critical mass. Also, I don't think anyone profiting from a POV can be objective enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Rx StrangeLove 20:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on use of wtc7.net for reference 

message: That's what a former German minister of defense is saying on interview with Alex Jones. The link: Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack. No mentioned yet in this article. He is the highest profile politician to make these accusations.--tequendamia 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never would have figured that, but I thought that Giuliani had the Batman alert spotlight down there though.--MONGO 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea has been around for three years already:Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste. Piper Verlag GmbH, München 2003,  y 2004,  (The CIA and September 11 (book))--tequendamia 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giuliani's bunker in tower 7 used to remotely control planes?  

message: Silverstein Properties' statement about Larry meaning to pull the firefighters cannot be true. According to people at NIST, FEMA, and the New York Times, there was no firefighting in WTC 7. Links to verify these facts are near the bottom of:
www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/silverstein_answers_wtc7_charges.htm 
The statement by Silverstein Properties is therefore an outright lie.
CB Brooklyn 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a classic card-castle made of lies. These are just lies piling on top of lies, end eventually, it will all collapse and the truth will come out. What they need to understand is that the more they lie, the greater the damage in the future is going to be for them. So, best thing to do for them is to just tell the truth now. They are fabricating a story, and obviously there are numerous loop holes in it. Silverstein is just adding to these loop holes ofcourse by first giving that interview, and secondly, lying afterwards about what he meant by "it". For God's sake, should we teach them English or something?? --Spindled 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was NO firefighting in WTC 7 

message: How is politics over the design of the Freedom Tower relevant to this article? patsw 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom Tower in the 7 World Trade Center article