Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 3

message: I'd like to call for citations for this statement:
:. . . extensive retrofittings of `60s/`70s era skyscrapers that share the WTC's main features, such as Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center, are underway.
First of all, at least in the case of the Hancock Center, I don't believe the implication that it shares the WTC's "main features" is correct; even a layman can see that the external-girder structure of the JHC is significantly different from the WTC's internal-core arrangment.  A quick google search turns up no mentions of such retrofits to either building.  Jgm 10:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it several times, that the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building share the same basic design as the WTC, and that the "tube within a tube" design is videly applied to high rise buildings all over the world. I will try to find the sources. EyesAllMine 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll note that if, indeed, the design is "widely applied", the section on Construction here (which describes the WTC construction as unique) needs to be re-written. I really don't think Mies put those big girders on the outside of the Hancock for decoration, though.  Jgm 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference (to yet another 9/11-related website rather than architectural or historical information) does not quite convince me, at least in the case of the Hancock Center, which has visible external steel beams that are markedly different from the internal-core and external-aluminum cladding structcure of the WTC.  Setting that issue aside for the moment, where's the citation for the "extensive retrofitting"?  Jgm 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Gary, thanks for the more detailed information.  I was aware of the basic structure of the Hancock; I still disagree with the statment that it "shares the basic design features of the WTC"; as I've stated (and as you confirm), it's a visibly and significantly different design.  Moreover, after two weeks of requests, nobody has provided a reference for the supposed "extensive retrofitting" on these buildings.   Unless such a reference appears soon, I will delete the statement I quoted above.  Jgm 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago Buidings

message: I have just read the Report, http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm and I noticed that chapter seven seem to be missing. Does anyone know why it is missing? DanielDemaret 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it sure looks like chapter seven is missing from the FEMA report. I'm not sure what you mean by "the most official", but the latest report is the NIST report on the towers and the NIST report on building 7, which is still a draft. The public comments on the first is also worth looking at. EyesAllMine 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing chapter 7 ? 

message: I think it is not only baseless but incorrect to state that a theory lacks 'scientific foundations' when faculty teaching science courses at major universities are putting the theory forth!  Just because some on here disagree with the theory does not mean it does not have a scientific foundation.  Thus I am removing the phrase "This theory lacks scientific foundations so far" from the the controlled demolition paragraph, which currently reads:
"A distinct minority has challenged the findings of mainstream engineers, the U.S. Government and independent researchers, arguing that controlled demolition may have occurred. This theory lacks scientific foundations so far. For more information, please see: 9/11 conspiracy theories." Bov 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that professors of theology were considered scientists now. Even if you discount Griffin, you have to consider that university professors can say some nutty things after they get tenure. We cannot claim that a theory has scientific foundation until there is scientific consensus for the theory - the results are repeated by independent, unbiased scientists. Since no 9/11 conspiracy paper has been accepted for publication in any legitimate scientific journal, I don't see any reason to omit this sentence. Rhobite 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Rhobite speaks the truth in this matter...off the cuff remarks by some professors at some college or the work by a professor independent of that university that is unsanctioned by the university is not science and deserves no mention at all, but if any is made, it should be only in passing.--MONGO 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controlled Demoliton paragraph

message: Construction of the towers began in 1966 and were completed in 1972. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Unlike many skyscrapers of the period, WTC does not include stone bearing or masonry in the facade but aliminum cladding sheathing the perimeter columns. Also unique was its grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building.
The construction of the towers began in 1968, althought "bathtub" was started two years earlier. The towers were completed in different years. Also, towers do not use bearing masonry, not even the Empire State Building. There were other buildings built before the WTC that use aluminum cladding on the exterior ( Chase Manhattan Plaza a few blocks from the WTC).
Also, this article needs some help, controversial issues notwithstanding. Much of the information is incorrect and not accurate. It seems that constant additions are appended to existing text and not coallated into it.
(Gary Joseph 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MONGO: you are spinning around as usual. You are saying that we should not prove the mainstreem account aka the official eplanation, but we should proove the alternative???? Lol. Wikipedia is not about proof at all. Wikipedia should only describe the various beliefs. We are not in a position to prove or disprove anything. It is clear that you are beyond being able to look further than your own point of view. EyesAllMine 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Borderline personal attack? I stated that you must prove that the buildings were imploded, not that it is theoritically possible...we don't deal in the hypothetical here...we need proof that the buildings were imploded, not a lot of questions that are somehow supposed to be used as proof of controlled demolition. Do you have proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you guys know, Shermer isn't a structural engineer, he has a Phd in the History of Science and a degree in Experimental Psychology. SkeenaR 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No way...there is no proof of controlled demolition and this is not the forum to post it in article space...this is not a blog. Prove that there was controlled demolition and then we can discuss it, otherwise all these long paragrphs above simply look like a blog with nothing but opinions.--MONGO 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is an interesting statement (made by Gary above): "The point is that the alternate theories are not grounded on experience or history". Cause that is some of the critique being raised against the official explanation as well: Never before in history has high rise buildings collapsed due to fire. Neither has it ever been experienced :) Until now nobody has ever seen molten metal in the basement of burning buildings. EyesAllMine 09:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The buildings were also hit by wide body jets...what part of that contnues to be mystifying? I have seen no proof that there was pools of molten steel at the WTC site...and if there were...no surprsie, the fires there ranged for three months...maybe molten or melted aluminum.--MONGO 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe ... only an independent deep-going investigation, that will take into account ALL the phenomenons observed, will answer what kind of molten METAL it was. It is still a fact that molten METAL never has been observed in the basement of burning buildings. Another fact is that melted aluminium never turns orange, but stays silver-colored. EyesAllMine 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can say, "It looked like a mushroom cloud in the video," or "Molten steel dripped from the window." Maybe we could quote, in context, a reliable source describing the collapse. Since you seem to be starting with the conviction that the government blew it up on purpose, and you're trying to find and add material to support this position, I'm skeptical about the reliability and objectivity of what you might choose to include. Tom Harrison Talk 01:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It will all be original research. The only way these edits could happen is if we allow non peer reviewed websites that are in control of a single or couple of webmasters and have failed to have correct scientific cross examination occur. Controlled demolition simply did not happen. In fact, it's completely unproven. Article space is not the place to dwelve into speculations that have no basis in fact. Could have does not equate with what did happen.--MONGO 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What theory...? The WTC towers collapsed, debris hit WTC7, fires raged for hours, the building was destabilized, it collapsed...end of story. The "official sources" are the collective efforts of  thousands of researchers and investigators. There wasn't controlled demolition and that is where you want to take this article...it won't be happening.--MONGO 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Changes, Quality 

message: Sudden Onset
Both twin towers survived the jet crashes. While the impacts left gaping holes in the sides of the buildings, having severed many perimeter columns, the loads were redistributed onto the intact columns. The towers stood motionless as the fires inside them burned. 
Then, at 9:59 am, 56 minutes after the jet crash, the South tower suddenly fell into catastrophic collapse. About a half hour later, at 10:28 am, having stood for 102 minutes after suffering its impact, the North Tower also fell into sudden, total structural collapse.
Above the Crash Zones
The South tower had about 34 floors above the impact zone. As the collapse began, these top floors tipped over towards the south for about 2 seconds, attaining an angle of about 20 degrees away from vertical. Then this top part stopped rotating, and began shattering into pulverized dust and shredded steel, falling downwards into the large dust cloud forming beneath it.  
The North tower had about 12 floors above the crash zone, and a large transmission antenna on the roof. The antenna went  first, falling almost straight down into the building for about 1 second before anything else visible was moving. Then the perimeter columns above the crash zone gave way, and the 12 upper floors compacted to about 8 floors, while below the impact zone the structure was still motionless. Finally, about  4 seconds after the the initial drop of the antenna, the structure below the crash zone began collapsing, beginning at the crash zone and proceeding downward. 
Symmetry
Both collapses were remarkably symmetrical, falling nearly straight down and ejecting material laterally in all 4 directions. Even the south tower, which began with the upper part toppling to one side, recovered symmetry. By the time each the collapses were half-over, they looked almost identical to one another.
Collapse Times
Both towers fell down at nearly free-fall speed. Government reports put the figure at 10 seconds, but independent researchers clock it at 12-15 seconds. A precise time is impossible to know, because by the time the roofs hit the ground, they were obscured by the huge dust clouds. 
Totality
Both towers were totally destroyed. The steel frame was shredded into pieces, most being 30 feet long, or shorter. The remaining non-metallic  contents, including the  4" thick concrete floors, the office materials, and the human beings,  were mostly pulverized into a fine powder. This pulverization occurred as the buildings were falling. The resulting rubble piles were about 3 stories high. 
Lateral Ejection
From beginning to end, each of the two collapsing buildings ejected steel members and clouds of dust sideways, in all four directions, up to 300 feet. During the collapses, both towers exhibited several horizontal "plumes", sharply focused jets of dust and debris emerging from center windows about 20 stories below the level to which the total destruction had proceeded by that point in time.
Dust Clouds
The pulverized buildings produced pyroclastic flows of dust, expanding to about 5 times the original volume of the buildings within 30 seconds. These clouds flowed outwards in all directions, down streets and between buildings, eventually leaving a coating of thick, toxic dust over much of lower manhattan.  After each collapse, a mushroom shaped cloud  formed above where each building had stood.
Molten Metal
Molten metal, flowing and in pools, was reported in the sub-basement areas of each rubble pile for weeks after the collapses. A large chunk of what appears to be red-to-yellow hot metal was photographed being pulled out of the North tower rubble 8 weeks after the collapses. Moments before collapse, what appears to be molten iron was video taped dripping out of a corner window of the south tower.
TruthSeeker1234 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The molten metal part is easily documented by reliable sources, see Talk:Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Molten_metal. I think we can find sources to the rest as well EyesAllMine 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapse Features - Twin Towers

message: "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" by FEMA seems to have been moved. Does anybody has a link form the FEMA website that works? The report is cached here though - also the missing chapter seven EyesAllMine 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link To the FEMA Report 

message: I put some  labels in the article this morning under the paragraph about the design and the critique of it. The whole paragraph lack sources. First Mongo and now Tom Harrisson has, as usual, removed the tags. I will repeat myself: Don't be afraid of facts. Facts are neutral, and making verifications in articles is a good thing. Verifiability is especially important for Wikipedia. The  label might be ugly (according to MONGO), but it is very practical in an ongoing encyclopedic work - 'cause you can remember wich parts of an article still needs citation, while your digging them up. Why on earth is that abusive Tom? Why cant we put a source to this part of the article? EyesAllMine 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you put them in to prove a point, in an attempt to discredit the mainstream view, and to hold the article hostage. I don't think you added them to elicit information. The article is already well supported by the references included. Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No it wasn't vandalism...you need to read about WP:VAN and then you'll understand what vandalism is. Be careful about what you refer to as vandalism.--MONGO 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is absolutely one point I'm trying to make, through all my edits - and that is that the facts of this article should, like in any other article on Wikipedia, be verifiable. We've come a long way, and we still need to come a long way yet. I have tried to point out several times, as has several others that a lot of the facts in this article needs sources. I really, honestly, don't understand why this is resisted so hard. EyesAllMine 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is as follows: Tom Harrison, MONGO, et. al do not care about WP policy, but care very deeply about preserving the "official" version of the "collapses", at all cost. I post a list of visual observations, which are both published and as obvious as a blue sky, and Tom Harrison says it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Very silly. The problem is, when reasonable people confront the observations, they immediately realize there must be something very wrong with the official explanations. They also realize that posting the pictures and the observations would allow any reader to come to the same realization. So, the cover-up is in full swing, here at Wikipedia. I'm very grateful for this talk page, as it will serve as a document on the lengths people will stretch to avoid the truth. TruthSeeker1234 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep personal attacks off this page, period...you have an article dispute, then address the content, not the messanger...personal attacks do have to be tolerated. Please provide proof...I am waiting patiently for that.--MONGO 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By following every declarative sentence with a  tag, not looking for references yourself, and ignoring the references already included in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
Tom Harrison has repeatedly removed factual, relevant, published, sourced material from this and other articles, as has MONGO. THey have removed requests for sources on the original research which pervades the current article.  These are deliberate attempts to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.  I hereby restate and re-allege that Tom Harrison and MONGO are guilty of vandalism. I further state that this vandalism is deliberate, and premeditated, not merely negligent. 
I challenge either of you to submit this dispute to an independent  arbitration service, using our real names, and publishing the results. 
Mr. Harrison, it is observations and facts which "discredit the mainstream view", but WP does not have a policy for "preserving the mainstream view at all cost". It has policy for citing sources and using secondary research. Please stop vandalizing this article.
TruthSeeker1234 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a dispute resolution mechanism. I invite you to follow it. I will not be replying to you again. Tom Harrison Talk 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truthseeker1234, it's a good time for you to read WP:NPA...you have a problem with the message, then address that...do not attack the messenger. No vandalism has been committed either. There is a distinct difference from what you think is vandalism and what is actually efforts to ensure unencyclopedic and unproven allegations and original research out of article space. Furthermore, no one here is mandated to reveal their true names...and your comments about submitting this to an "independent arbitration service" indicate to me that you could possibly be threatening legal action...an indefinitely blockable offense. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...what part of that do you not understand? I have yet to see you provide one ounce of proof of anything. Lastly, this is the discussion page for this article...we don't need to clutter up article space with a bunch of fact tags...they are ugly and unnecessary.--MONGO 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't take arguments off-wiki...remember that...I post anonymously, though a few know my real name only one or two wiki editors know what I do...it's not that impressive. I could care less who you are...if your "facts" do not prove controlled demolition, and you offer nothing but speculations (as you have done here repeatedly), then nothing you have had to say on this matter is notable. I think you have Wikipedia confused with a blog. Non scientific websites that post nonsense and offer no proof clearly do not belong in an encyclopedia.--MONGO 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: Hi. I am a structural engineer and have worked in the field of controlled demolition. Just thought I would inform anyone interested that it would take a team of 200 to maybe 225 skilled implosion technicians 4 to 5 weeks to set the charges need to reduce just one of the world trade center towers. Thermite would be not used as it is too unstable under the conditions that would be necessary to perform a successful reduction. I read here about this issue of molten metals, but rest assured this isn't steel or even from a ferrous related combustion sequence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doug Madson (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 April 2006.
:Is there anything else you care to add. Were the buildings blown up?--MONGO 07:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And more...this is just a page break

message: Mongo recently protected this page and removed the following comment which he described as trolling:
Wikipedia:No personal attacks clearly states that statements like "Mongo is a troll" "can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." However, the statement made by Mongo "get a life" is clearly trolling. I leave it to others to make the judgement. However, I will now remove the protect. Seabhcán 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets take a look at your edit summaries, my friend...not to mention, your edits as of late. The comments left by this anon IP were inserted four times, I then sprotected the page...I would have done the same had it been repaetedly done against you. Nothing stated by the anon IP or you here in this section could be considered constructive in terms of article enhancement. In fact, your reinsertion of this definitely constitutes a personal attack in itself. Do you have any proof of controlled demolition, aside from what is observed in photographs...by proof I mean, eyewitness that saw bombs being placed, etc....surely the number of people that would be needed to pull off controlled demolition would be large enough that by now, at least one credible witness would come forward with actual proof of implosion. My sprotection was definitely not in bad faith as your edit summary states.--MONGO 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mongo, I have no interest in the controlled demolition theory. I do not think it should be present here. You seem to assume that everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest is pushing a POV. You set up these strawman arguements as a way to discredit your opponents. What I want is reasoned debate about how to best present the factual data in this article. I assume, like me, you have read the NIST, FEMA and Commission reports? I will happily work soley from these sources. But this is irrelavent to your poor behaviour on these topics. If your behaviour improves, I think we can work together. Seabhcán 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this again...if you support the actions of an obvious troll than you can be no better. If anyone's behavior is poor, it's yours. Your edit summaires and insulting commentary do nothing but fuel the fire. Therefore, I do not assume any good faith from your "contributions". While you were being so helpful to this article, I spent my time fixing all the crummy cited references and standardizations...you're sole contributions have been POV laden and insulting...you're the troll, buddy.--MONGO 10:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPA.  I would also recommend basic courses in logic, to avoid the numerous fallacies employed here. -- Jibal 13:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling? 

message: In this section it is stated
Firefighters appeared to have abandoned the building and let the fires burn. It remains unknown what criteria they used to determine that it should be abandoned or who decided to abandon it. Since little could be seen from the outside, and no one was able to observe what happened within the building, the cause of the collapse is disputed.
I am curious, if someone could point to a citation that firefighters ever actually entered the building or attempted to stop it from burning. I will probably change the article to reflect citation missing soon if this is not fixed. I figure I might as well try to see if talk can remedy it first though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix4e (talk • contribs) 
:Are you serious, or are you pulling our collective legs?  Do you believe that it is disputed that firefighters entered the 7 World Trade Center to determine to the source and extent of the fire and to assist in the evacuation of people from the building? patsw 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is (or was 8 years ago and I see no reason to change) that the FDNY will only enter buildings to prevent loss of life. If a building is evacuated and the fire not in danger of spreading to neighboring buildings, it is common practice to evacuate and fight it from the outside only. No sense risking lives over property. Given the height of tower 7, there's not much they could do from the outside. --Mmx1 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The premise of your statement is "if a building is evacuated..."  When the fire at 7 WTC was first detected, the building was, of course, not empty.  It had to be evacuated and so fire department personnel were in the building to determine to the source and extent of the fire and to assist in the evacuation of people from the building.  Later a decision had to made either to continue to attempt put the fire out or to abandon the building and the decision was made to abandon the building to avoid further loss of life. patsw 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware of the fact that it was initially occupied, I'm replying to Posix's allegation that "It remains unknown what criteria they used to determine that it should be abandoned or who decided to abandon it." as if it were irresponsible to let it burn down. The criteria is always human life first. The FDNY is under no obligation to protect property and they will and have let unoccupied structures burn down rather than risk firefighters to fight it from within. --Mmx1 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for Seven World Trade Center 

message: I changed all the cited references (found in the text) to one format...namely cite.php as explained at Wikipedia:Footnotes.--MONGO 10:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the change in font sizes.  The guideline is that article content not include specific font changes, and the Wiki's html generator owns formatting.  It hinders readability by people with some vision impairment to reduced the font size. WP Manual of Style:Formatting Issues  patsw 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine...the featured articles I have worked on all had reduced font sizes in the references, but the reduced eyesight impairment is a definite concern and I agree with your changes.--MONGO 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen somewhere (I can't find it right now, maybe in the Village pump) a suggestion to add the reduced font size reference formatting to the sitewide .css.  I it might happen.  This would include a special .css identifier and one could go into their personal stylesheet and set the font size differently (to suit those with vision impairment or other preferences). -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, found it: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive#proposed_change_to_css_.28.references.29.  Looks like people were unable to agree on this. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have been neat though. Still need to fix the format for the general references...at least smiliar to the way I have cited references for uniformity, as right now they are all just imbedded.--MONGO 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References