Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 4

message: I've started to re-do the references using Template:Cite web. Tom Harrison Talk 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea...I was just trying to get the basic format in since we were using inline links, embedded links, notes and well, it was a mess. Thanks for all your work helping to standardize this.--MONGO 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So we don't duplicate our efforts 

message: These guys seem to be reputable. Comments?
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home
TruthSeeker1234 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe ANYTHING on the web anymore :) --Tom 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As for Elsevier -- regardless of how "reputable" they are as a publisher, that doesn't establish the accuracy or appropriateness of any particular statement in any one of their over 20,000 publications.  It is quite easy to misuse text published by a reputable publisher, for instance by treating an unsourced bit of hearsay as if it were a fact (see below). -- Jibal 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elsevier as a Reputable Publisher

message: If you want to say, "According to the report," then you need to cite the report, not someone's tendentious gloss. Further, the statement you wrote is a mischaracterisation. The report says
:"For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004."
From this, you made "The Twin Towers contained absolutely no core columns at all, and instead had only a "hollow steel shaft" in the center, this according to the 9/11 Commission Report." That's not according to the report. That is at best a misreading of the report, and does not seem to be presented in the report as a criticism. I question whether a webmaster's opinion of the building's construction is even notable.Tom Harrison Talk 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the SOP for conspiracy theorists...take information, twist it around to fit their POV and/or misrepresent facts and comments. Standard ploy.--MONGO 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem citing the report in larger context, it's still a blatant lie, the context does nothing to make the statement any closer to the truth. Especially when one considers that this is the only mention of the core in the entire 9/11 commission report, which also fails to mention WTC7, which as far as I can tell, is also still supposed to part of this article.
See if it's OK nowTruthSeeker1234 05:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think we've already adressed the usage of the 9/11 Commission report on the structural aspects of the WTC.  It shouldn't be used.  The 9/11 Commission report doesn't discuss the structure at all except in a small footnote which is poorly worded at best.  For some reason folks want to latch on to that poor wording in order to discredit the FEMA and NIST reports which do deal extensively with the structural aspects. Toiyabe 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't actually seem to be a criticism of the building's design, but of the commission's report. I don't favor including it, but if it is to be here, it needs to be correctly sourced and accurately presented. It might go better in Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report, if it's not there already. Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote report, cite report 

message: "These theories are considered by the vast majority of engineers to be without merit." This line isn't supported with any facts or sources. If the "vast majority" disagrees with demolition theories, shouldn't there be some sources someone can cite? Rondmc170 13:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they weren't considered bunk by the vast majority of engineers, you ought to be able to point to a few engineers who disagree.  The only one I've heard of is Judy Wood at Clemson, who apparently publishes her reasons for disagreeing anonymously on the web.  Toiyabe 14:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me a few engineers (my criteria would be licensed structural or fire protection engineers, or those with an advanced degree in one of those areas or materials science) who have publically endorsed the controlled demolition theory, and then I would support changing "vast" to "large".  If you can't manage that criteria, but can with a broader group of engineers, then I would support changing "engineers" to "engineers in the relevant fields". Toiyabe 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer who openly supports the controlled demolition theory. And actually, when you get down to names, there aren't THAT many who openly support the government theory. WHen you then take into account that there have been 3 different "official" theories, with different "experts" touting each one, you realize that that the imbalance isn't so great. TruthSeeker1234 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled Demolition Theories 

message: "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:" I do not think we should have a section called 'collapse features', as I've said before.
I moved this to the correct section and added the cite-web template, but I don't see the relevance, and I'm not sure we should include it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article from the Journal of Metallurgy is already discussed in the "Seven World Trade Center" section of the article, and that seems like a good place for it.  I don't think we need a separate "Collapse Features" section for that.  Items relevant to the collapse of the Towers should go in the "Collapse of the Two Towers" section.  Toiyabe 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting idea, but Wikipedia is supposed to have a dull encyclopedic tone. It would also serve to increase the length of the article without adding much in the way of information.--DCAnderson 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of factoids 

message: "Prior to 9/11 FEMA was not even an investigative agency, as far as I know. So how could they have had ANY reputation in order to be reputable?"
:This one is a little sketchy, but FEMA has a large number of departments under them which are in charge of all sorts of things. I am sure they would be prepared to investigate such events, because part of their duties under the 1979 Executive Order that created them  is:...for the coordination of preparedness and planning to reduce the consequences of major terrorist incidents. So there was no reason that they shouldn't be investigating this, as they need to evaluate past terrorist incidents to determine the US's current preparedness.
:Also, as a government department that not only has to provide flood insurance, but also reimburse those who have lost property in disasters, they would probably allready have departments dedicated to investigating disasters so as to determine fraud.
::You miss the point. Whether or not FEMA "should" be investigating 9/11 is not relevant to WP. What matters to WP is whether or not they are "reputable". In order to be "reputable", FEMA must have a "reputation". If they have not previously been an investigative agency, how can they have ANY reputation at all?TruthSeeker1234 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FEMA as Investigative Body

message: Actually, a more accurate name would be "Collapses at the World Trade Center". 
::TruthSeeker1234 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Title of This Article?

message: This statement is currently in the article: "Debates between engineers have looped along this circular cause-and-effect chain . . ." I agree. The mainstream debate was indeed a circular argument. Why did the buildings collapse as they did? Impact damage and fires did it! How do we know impact damage and fires did it? Because the buildings collapsed as they did! 
TruthSeeker1234 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased that sentence, because that is the most annoying phrasing I've ever read on Wikipedia.--DCAnderson 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it because I didn't understand the new one, but I'm not attached to the old "loop" phrase either. Tom Harrison Talk 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular Reasoning Criticism

message: I put Steven Jones' name in there, in an attempt to remove Weasel words from the section. While I disagree with his theories, Jones is the most prominent (and only notable) supporter of these theories, so he probably should be named.--DCAnderson 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Jones in the Contrlled Demolition Section 

message: Enough of the revert war please. Hash out the title of that section here, on the talk page. --Durin 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not only about controlled demolition any more than it's about only Steven Jones. It's about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the section name should match the name of the main article we point to. Tom Harrison Talk 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, miscommunication.  I was talking about the section in THIS article, which, as it stands right now, is just about controlled demolition.  Yes, the other article covers other topics as well. Friday (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories vs. Controlled demolition theory 

message: Paul Cyr removed this with the edit summary "rm pov:"
:The largest camp appears to be those who feel the towers did well under the circumstances by standing long enough for the majority of occupants to escape. A minority takes exception to that view.
That left the sentence, "The collapse of the towers set off intense debates within the structural engineering and architectural professions" which seems to me no less "pov", and unbalanced by itself, so I removed that as well. Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design criticisms