Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 4

Proof that controlled demolition is not a fringe minority POV
This month, a Zogby poll was commissioned by 9/11Truth.org to gauge where people stand on their beliefs about 9/11. A report on that poll is here:

The poll found that 42% of Americans believe there has been a cover-up in connection with 9/11, 52% of Americans are familiar with 7 WTC, and of those Americans, 70% believe it should be investigated.

We don't have a lunatic fringe minority theory here - we're looking at a theory that a bit over a third of Americans (.70*.52) afford some degree of credibility. --Hyperbole 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The poll has been discussed at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly a discussion over whether the poll should be included in the article space of that article. I present it here to prove that those claiming controlled demolition was a "non-notable POV" as their reason for not linking to it were dead wrong.  There are apparently millions of Americans who hold or give at least some credence to that POV.  --Hyperbole 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The poll was sponsored by 911truth - not exactly a neutral, reliable source. The poll was reported in a press release.  I would like to see how all the questions were phrased, and detailed results.  However, I have yet to see mention of the poll on http://www.zogby.com or any other reliable source that provides me those details. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, here you go: the report on the poll from zogby.com.   --Hyperbole 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the same text that is on the 911truth site. Why do the questions start with #23? Where are the first 22 questions?  -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that text anywhere on the 911truth site. I couldn't tell you why the first question is 23: perhaps the first twenty-two questions were on the demographics of the poll-taker (you'll notice that Zogby compares the results of the questions against the age, race, political affiliation, etc. of the participants).  At any rate, the fact that Zogby has the poll on their site means the poll is verifiable.  --Hyperbole 23:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This should prove once for all that it is not a "fringe minority POV", it is in fact a notable minority pov, if not a majority pov. --Striver 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly...Islamofascists had nothing to do with the attacks...eh? The U.S. government was behind it...surely. Opinions don't matter...but facts do...time you faced the facts.--MONGO 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The poll is measuring suspicion and speculation, topics relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. patsw 01:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right on the money, thanks. The poll questions are not specific enough to support adding any single theory to this article. The point is that doing so would open the door for the addition of every "crackpot" conspiracy theory out there. Take this question for example (referencing 7WTC): "I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it" That's so general as to be meaningless. Rx StrangeLove 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For control purposes, they could have asked about 8 World Trade Center. The 9/11 Commission should have investigate the collapse of that building as well. patsw 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all the fires in virtually every building nearby.--MONGO 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all to include the poll. The five questions that were in the press release (where are the first 22 questions?), are phrased in a manner that trys to solicit certain responses, and influence the results. (see Opinion_poll). -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So why don't you include that information, rather than suppressing information? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; even leaving that aside, 911truth.org is a reliable source only for what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Rx Strangelove above, the poll does not indicate anything about intentional demolition. Using this poll as a support that the controlled demolition theory is notable is farcical; there's little connection. This has been mentioned before, yet here we are again lather-rinse-repeating the same debate over again. If you want to assert that the controlled demolition theory is notable, do so with verifiable references that actually show this to be the case. The Zogby poll does not do this. I could just as well assert, if I use this poll as a basis as has been used here, that the theory that there were remote controlled 767s crashing into WTC 1/2 that day is notable (yes, some people believe that). Or, that the theory there were nuclear explosions underneath WTC 1/2 that day is notable. Or, that at least one of the 767s launched a missile just prior to impact. Or, that the 767s were actually not passenger planes, but KC-767 Tanker planes. Or, that all Jewish people were warned to stay away that day. Or, . There's a dizzying array of theories that have been put forth. Whether or not they are factual, we are after truth here...not fact. But, the truth is that so far there's no support that any of these theories is particularly notable. That there are suspicions of malfeasance is supported by the Zogby poll, not any specific theory. --Durin 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that the fact that a major poll finds so many Americans have doubts is itself noteworthy? If not, why not? --Guinnog 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is adequately covered by 9/11 conspiracy theories. Again, the poll does not show that the controlled demolition theory is notable. --Durin 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The poll asks questions about WTC7 specifically and these findings should be included in this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but not in relation to a controlled demolition theory as there is no connection between the poll and that theory. --Durin 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So just mention and source the poll then, and let people decide for themselves? --Guinnog 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cerainly so. But of course, my addition of the information was reverted immediately. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm very disappointed to see that it has been reverted again. Of course the poll is relevant to the 7 WTC article! What people think in relation to why a building fell down is important in an article about the building. We can do better than this bowdlerised article, and following proper wiki process is all the more vital here. Once again, we must use this page properly to discuss changes to the article. The properly-sourced and notable information belongs in text and as a source for the text. Seems self-evident. --Guinnog 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the Zogby poll is intentionally misleading. Quoting the poll question in regards to WTC 7: "World Trade Center Building 7 ... collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. ... do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?" The 9/11 Commission did not investigate the collapse of WTC 1 or WTC 2. They investigated the events of 9/11 and did not conduct an investigation into the nature of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Other agencies (such as NIST) were directed to investigate, and they have. This is not noted in the question. These two pieces of information points to intentionally misleading questioning by the Zogby poll. --Durin 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just took another look at the zogby link and noticed in the "survey methodology" section, they state "The target sample is 1,200 interviews with approximately 81 questions asked". So not only are the first 22 questions omitted from the press release, so are 54 more questions.  Given such selective presentation of the poll results (5 poorly worded questions out of 81 total questions), this poll has no business being linked or mentioned in this article.  It doesn't even belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories either. It's way too misleading and unreliable. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's funny. The reason given for removing the link was (rv - link not particularly relevant to 7 World Trade Center). So regardless of these alleged problems with the poll, the link was going to be suppressed no matter what. You are making WP:AGF very difficult. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you have the info in text along with any reservations you feel are justified, and the link to the poll, so that people can make up their own minds. Simple, eh? And can we have the NPOV tag back, please, while we are discussing this POV issue? Thanks --Guinnog 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What we're discussing isn't really a POV issue. What we're discussing is whether to include a link to an unreliable source. --Durin 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you regard Zogby as an 'unreliable source' on everything? I had always thought they were a reasonably reputable polling organisation. I certainly think it is a POV issue. --Guinnog 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...even though external links don't fall under the Reliable Source policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * NO, but we're not a link farm either...WP:NOT...stop your POV pushing of nonsense.--MONGO 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be the article's 2nd external link. It is not I who is peddling nonsense here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Can anyone here justify this article having only the official site as an external link? --Guinnog 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

First, a poll isn't relevent to the article's topic which is a building, and its history, but since we are discussing a poll let me state what the poll is attempting to do -- it is asking questions to push the person being polled into an agreement with a suspicion that the investigation of the collapse of 7 WTC was inadequate, by making the suggestion that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States should have investigated it. The 9/11 Commission had discretion to investigate or not the damage to 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, 3 World Trade Center, 1 Liberty Plaza, 55 Church Street, 90 Church Street, 140 West Street, 90 West Street, 30 West Broadway, 1 World Financial Center, 2 World Financial Center, 3 World Financial Center and a dozen others. It chose not to, leaving that to the usual agencies which investigate fire and structural damage. Even if the poll question was asked -- "Were the independent investigations by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the federal goverment, the state government, the city government, private insurers, architects, engineers, and building inspectors of damage to those buildings so incomplete or inadequate that it would be necessary for the 9/11 Commision to investigate the damage to those buildings in addition to the damage to the two towers of the World Trade Center?" -- even if that more precise poll question was answered yes, it would only be relevant to the article on the 9/11 Commission article and not this article. patsw 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All polls are instrinsically flawed. Have you ever tried designing one? A poll my a major organisation which asks the question aboujt the building is relevant to the article on the building. The result is too. You can include your criticism of the methodology of the questionnaire if you wish, provided it is all verifiable of course. --Guinnog 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure...I guess if the poll demonstrated that an overwhelming number of person did not think there was a conspiracy, you wouldn't even be bothering to link it...who do you think you're fooling?--MONGO 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not true that all polls are instrinsically flawed. This one certainly is.  How can you ask if someone was aware of something and at the same time tell them.  Do you test math students this way?  "Students, the square root of 64 is 8.  How many of you were aware of that?"


 * I could stand 100 feet from the entrance of 7 World Trade Center today and randomly sample Americans. I very much doubt if 624 of the first 1200 I ask could even recall anything about the buildings beyond the fact that some collapsed on that day and, that afterwards, others had to be torn down, and others were damaged.  The typical visitor I encounter at the site expects that it would be still be a smoking pile of debris. patsw 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What a low opinion you must have of your fellow human beings! In any case, as I said, you can insert your claims of poor design and/or bias into the reference, but that surely doesn't disqualify it from notablity? Quite the converse, I would have thought! --Guinnog 03:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that the flawed, overly general and irrelevant nature of the poll makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in this article. 9/11 conspiracy theories is a slightly better place for it but overall it's pretty worthless as a indicator of how people feel about the demolition business. Rx StrangeLove 04:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is, with all respect, that a fairly small group of editors are blocking progress on improving this article (for example the necessary addition of more than its current one external link) with arguments that change from moment to moment. Cumulatively, this makes it harder and harder to assume good faith.


 * Flawed? All polls are flawed. Should all references based on polls be removed from Wikipedia? I think not.
 * Overly general? There is a specific question on the WTC 7 collapse, making the need to mention it in this article obvious and straightforward, at least to me.
 * Irrelevant? Is that "irrelevant" as in "disagrees with my POV"? In what other sense is a poll by a reputable polling company about the beliefs of people on the reasons for the collapse of a building, irrelevant to an article on the building itself?

I am curious as to the origin of your reference to "the demolition business". Did you actually read the reference we are discussing? I can see no mention of demolition. To remind you, it's at, scroll down to question 25.

Please, let's discuss this honestly and rationally here, with a view to improving the article. --Guinnog 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear why you're wanting to add that poll. Look at the first sentence in the first appearance of the poll section:


 * ...38% of respondents were aware of 7 WTC's collapse and thought that the Commission should have investigated it.


 * Your goal all along here is to get the controlled demolition theory added and this is just another way of justifying it. So, yes...I did read the reference. And the next time you go running to AN/I and complain about how mean people are being to you, make sure you add your own lack of good faith. Rx StrangeLove 15:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than telling me what you think my motives are (you are wrong for what it is worth), why don't you answer the points I made about the article?


 * The diff you posted wasn't made by me, so I won't comment on that.


 * Be assured that as a civil editor myself, I will always follow wiki policy towards others, using the prescribed resolution process where necessary. On this subject I find your assumption of bad faith above rather uncivil. Why don't we try to improve the article; frankly, your opinion of my motives for wanting to make it better balanced seems rather irrelevant to me. Please, answer the points I made about the relevance of the poll to the article, rather than descending into personal attacks. --Guinnog 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised you won't comment on it...but we're all free to look at the edit patterns that's taken place on this page and come to our own conclusions. Your characterization of your edits as being civil may not be universally accepted. And my answer to your "points" are just below..you might have missed it. I really do think that everything that needs to said has been said. Your attempts to improve the article by adding the poll have been rejected here. We've stated the objections and I don't see a point in going round and round. Rx StrangeLove 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and I should probably answer your bullet. Making us repeat ourselves over and over responding to the same flawed assertions is starting to be a little WP:POINT-ish. Time to move on. Rx StrangeLove 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, your "answer". It was so slight I missed it! By 'answer', I meant something that actually corresponded to my questions. I'll state my problem with the page clearly, so you may answer without feeling you are repeating yourself.


 * With only one external link and no specific mentions of the great doubt that surrounds the collapse of the building, I think the article looks POV. This poll (a verifiable and noteworthy piece of data) would seem to provide an ideal opportunity to redress this imbalance. goethean, Striver, and Hyperbole would appear to agree with me. There is certainly no consensus here not to include a reference to the poll; there certainly should be a NPOV tag while we discuss what belongs in the article.


 * Would it be fair to say that your stance is that no further information should be added to the page? --Guinnog 20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be fair to say that the material you've suggested shouldn't be added, as you can see from this page that there isn't anything close to a consensus to add it. The assertion that there is "great doubt" surrounding the collapse is unsupported. Rx StrangeLove 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ...except by the FEMA statement and the Zogby poll, not to mention at least four editors including me.


 * Do you think a NPOV disputed tag should be added to the article while this NPOV dispute takes place? If not, why not? --Guinnog 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that your "great doubt" includes a massive cover-up and a controlled demolition of WTC7. FEMA's doesn't. So you're left with the Zogby poll and 4 editors. That's basically why it's not being included at this time. As far as NPOV tag....I don't really think it's a good idea for a very small group of editors to hold an article hostage like you've been doing. So until something else comes I think everything has been said. Rx StrangeLove 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What a weird thing to say when I have specifically stated that I am not an adherent to the controlled demolition theory! Nor have I claimed anything about a "massive cover-up". As a scientist I only tend to use "massive" to mean "having mass" so that would not be my style. No, what we have here is not a massive cover-up but a little tiny cover-up.


 * On one side we have a group of editors who are trying to add verifiable and noteworthy content to the article, supported by FEMA, Zogby and public opinion. On the other, we have you and your friends apparently trying to censor the article, no doubt from good and laudable motives of course.


 * I don't think it is a "very small group of editors". And I don't think we are holding it hostage. Just trying to improve it a bit. While there is a lack of consensus on a NPOV dispute, Wikipedia policy is to display a NPOV tag. What is your problem with that exactly? --Guinnog 23:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What people think about why a building fell down ... may be relevant, if they are structural engineers. If their thoughts are based on nothing but suspicion of their government then they belong in an article on suspicion of the government - conspiracy theory at a guess or possibly urban myth - if anywhere. The opinion of a man in the street is not WP:RS and neither is the opinion of a hundred thousand of them. The opinion of a structural engineer is, as is the opinion of a metallurgist, needing only publication in a place reviewed by his professional peers to make it WP:EL as well a RS. Midgley 13:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that public perception and public opinion are irrelevant to what is essentially a political NPOV dispute. With Tacitus, I prefer "Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names." (quoted on WP:V), to censorship.
 * I look forward, however, to seeing your sourced info along the lines you are suggesting, appear in the article, and will support its inclusion. It certainly needs some help in that area. --Guinnog 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tiresome, is what this is...people refer you to our policies and you and others continue to badger about an inconsequential opinion poll that is a lot of nothingness. I'm sorry you think so badly of the U.S. Government and possibly its citizens that you are misled to even believe that the events of 9/11 are different than what has been reported. If I had answered that poll, the only thing I can say is, yes, the government may have known the attacks were a possiblility...but they didn't ask that kind of question. Of course, there were indications that something awful was going to happen, but even when combining all the tidbids of information together, they were not enough to act on. Simply put, a well organized and highly secretive group of al-queda operatives managed to hijack 4 airplanes on 9/11 and then use them as missles to destroy buildings and kill the occupants that were in those buildings. Just today, Canada arrested 17 youths who had obtained three times the amount of ammonium nitrate as was used in Oklahoma City...they had been inspired by al-queda and they were planning on using this material to target buildings in Ontario...it took 400 officers to participate in the investigation and the subsequent arrests...was the U.S. Government the actual culprits and "framed" them instead? Building 7 was serverely damaged by falling debris from the collapse of the WTC towers, as was almost every other surrounding building...7WTC was built in the same style as WTC 1 and 2...central core with supporting steel cladding...the Sears Tower and Aon Center both in Chicago are built almost the same...the message is, these buildings do not stand up the same as full skeleton steel structures in similar events...that is the lesson learned from that day in terms of engineering. As far as non experts opinions, they are worthless, and continuously arguing to include it is POV pushing. I would say that Zogby is willing to poll people solely for a buck and could care less how leading and misleading the questions are when a client of theirs comes to them with such quetions...I mean, impartiality is unlikely when the solicitors of the polling are conspiracy theorists themselves. The poll is worthless and honestly, the next time I see a Zogby poll I will forevermore view it with a raised eyebrow.--MONGO 19:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your considered and reasonable reply. First of all, let me say that I have no axe to grind here, and certainly do not think badly of the US Govt and especially not its citizens. I am not a 'conspiracy theorist' at heart really; you can review my edits to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations if you are interested, where I have been taking, you could say, the opposite stance to the one I am taking here. But I feel this is an issue with a different balance of probability to the Moon landings, which are highly verifiable events which are very well understood by all but an ill-informed minority. And so I feel the article should more fairly reflect that balance. When your own government agencies have failed to come up with an explanation they themselves consider convincing ("...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue" (FEMA, quoted on the current version of the article)), the article really ought to reflect that doubt. When an opinion poll (and, believe me, I understand your reservations with its methodology and potential bias) shows that a substantial number of people believe there is something fishy about the collapse, I think this only strengthens the case for adding something to the article. Even if we posit that the polling organisation is somehow completely falsifying its data, even if we mention it alongside the doubts we may have about it, this survey is still newsworthy and notable.


 * Note that I have never stated I am in favour of the controlled demolition hypothesis, nor edited the article in that direction. But something fishy, something inadequately explained, inadequately investigated, inadequately understood? absolutely.


 * Even if all we say is, as you put it, "these buildings do not stand up the same as full skeleton steel structures in similar events", then we still ought to say it. I would remind you that expressing doubt about the veracity of the mainstream hypothesis is not the same as expressing support for any particular alternate hypothesis.


 * I promise you I am not "POV-pushing"; I would hardly know how to on this issue as I am not even sure I have a POV on it. I just know that the article as it stands does not seem to me to adequately cover the knowledge and doubt about what happened on Sept 11th to make the building fall down. --Guinnog 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though Guinnog does not support my pov, i support everything he advocates, on the only ground that he is more concerned with actuall wikipolicies than defending some pov. Guinnog, You have my support, alert me if anything happens that i should know of! --Striver 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the controlled demolition theory is absurd (as are most 9/11 conspiracy theories... in fact, as are most conspiracy theories, period). With that said, I think it would be NPOV and informative to add a sentence at the end of the collapse section saying "despite the lack of any scientific basis evidence for claims that the building was asploded, a Zogby poll conducted on the whatever of whatever stated that X% of Americans believe such and such." I can understand the concerns that this would become a foothold for fringe conspiracy lunacy in this article, but don't think those concerns are warranted with the addition of one &mdash; carefully worded &mdash; sentence about the Zogby poll. JDoorj a m     Talk 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As shown above, the Zogby poll has nothing to do with the controlled demolition theory. It only asserts, via an intentionally misleading poll, that some Americans believe there was malfeasance on and after 9/11. --Durin 01:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Having now read the actual Zogby poll instead of the Yahoo! article, and then re-reading the Yahoo! piece and realizing that the article is just a press release from 911truth released through a free press-release site and picked up by Yahoo!, I concur with Durin, MONGO, et. al and do not think the article should contain the link. JDoorj a m    Talk 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is certainly far, far better to link/reference the Zogby poll itself than the 911truth's press release. Still, this is a poll showing that 40-some percent of Americans believe there is a government cover-up involved with 9/11.  That would imply that the due weight that should be afforded to alternate theories is roughly 40% of the portion of the article that deals with theories about the collapse.  Certainly it is afforded more due weight than a vague semi-mention and a link to a bloted monster of an article.  --Hyperbole 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lets pretend that a EXPLICIT question by a mainstream source is not relevant... --Striver 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

...specifically with reference to the building which is the subject of this article. Your assertion that the poll was intentionally misleading only makes it more interesting, more noteworthy, if you can source it. Can you? You're right though that it makes no mention of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and I confess to being a little puzzled as to how that got involved in the debate about the reference, when we have had a link to the reference in the discussion for quite a while. The current description is inadequate. I suggest:
 * instead of
 * Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some individuals and groups have presented alternate viewpoints and theories, usually as part of a larger belief in a 9/11 conspiracy.


 * We try
 * Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some doubt about the collapse and the way it was investigated exists among US citizens, according to a Zogby poll in May 2006 []. When asked a question that critics regard as poorly designed, 38% of 1,200 telephone interviewees indicated "I am aware of it and think the commission should have investigated it".


 * No major steel-framed building had previously collapsed from fire, and building codes have been made stricter as a result [insert ref].

Thoughts? --Guinnog 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need to change how we present the link. The scope is clear, readers will know where to find more information about 9/11 conspiracy theory. The objections to the poll are spelled out above. Rx StrangeLove 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it shold be mentioned in this article at all. More appropriate for 9/11 conspiracy theories, because that was what the poll was actually about.--DCAnderson 03:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is inseparable from alternate theories about 9/11. And you'll note that the pollsters did ask a question - albeit, in my opinion, the wrong question - about 7 WTC.  Roughly 70% of Americans who are aware of 7 WTC think the 9/11 Commission should have investigated its collapse; that's a fact relevant to this article, and an indicator that due weight for alternate theories is more than a mention and a link.  --Hyperbole 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The poll should most positivly be added, it is a blatant violation of WP rules to exlude a higly maintream source reporting on the views of the majority of Americans regarding this specific article, specialy when the issue is highly controversial, just becase you dont like it! Guinnog, go ahead an add itm, you have my support and i will revert if you get reverted. --Striver 10:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you are preparing to engage in an edit war. Can you show me how not having the poll mentioned in this article is a blatant violation of WP rules?--MONGO 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, you are *BLATANTLY* omitting the pov of a LARGE amount of the American people. --Striver 10:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Chill out. The poll is not a representation of a large amount of the American people...it was asked solely to New Yorkers and the questions were both loaded and misleading...not once did they say ask: "Did the building get blown up", or "Did the U.S. blow up the building", or "Did the U.S. conspire to blow up the building"...nothing substantive was asked by the poll and the poll was solicited by conspiracy theorists. It is a worthless poll and it means nothing.--MONGO 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not asked solely to New Yorkers: "This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International.", from the second paragraph entitled 'methodology'. It worries me that you guys have such deep (but constantly changing) objections to the poll, without seemingly having read it properly! It says nothing about the US govt blowing anything up, and neither does my proposed addition. I'm sure you mean well, but it's really coming across as a campaign to keep any further info off the page, and one where any reason will do, no matter how spurious. Striver, I've removed some of the repetition and emphasis below as it was hurting my eyes.


 * Guys, please, I'm trying to be reasonable here. At least read the thing I'm proposing to link to. There is no mention of controlled demolition in it, there never was. That was either a mistake or somebody's red herring. --Guinnog 11:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What worries me is your incessant demand that the poll be included. The poll is meaningless. It was solicited by conspiracy theorists, the questions were loaded and no conclusions worth noting were derived. I mention that the poll didn't ask the questions above as an example of what direct questioning is all about. If you want to do a scientific poll, the questions should always be as unambiguous as possible. This poll failed that miserably.--MONGO 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whadever, only New York if you want. "Did the U.S. blow up the building"?

"Did the U.S. blow up the building"?

How did that came into the disscussion?! i dont care who blew it up right now, im talking about the poll that, as you admitted, does not even talk about explosives, dont spin the issue here, the Poll clearly and UNABIGUESLY PROVES that a LARGE amount of people belive it SHOULD have been investigated, and IT WAS NOT, and is a *BLATANTL* violation of WP rules to exlude their pov--Striver 10:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop capitalizing for emphasis. It's not going in the article because it is of zero importance and proves nothing. I'll wager if you asked the same people at random if they believe in UFO's there would be a lot of people that do.--MONGO 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True, and Unidentified flying object very properly reflects this. Your point? --Guinnog 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Section break
Oh, really? Another spin? It proves what it says, it says what it says, nobody is trying to draw any conclusions from it or use it to support any other arguement. It say that they wanted a investigation of the collapse of *this* building, and that *is* relevant to *this* article. --Striver 11:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't relevent...in fact, the poll is worthless. They did not ask the questions as you suggest.--MONGO 11:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If 43% were unaware of the collapse of 7WTC, how many do you think are aware of the NIST and FEMA investigations of the collapse (of WTC1, WTC2, and 7WTC)? Few probably are.  The way the question was worded implies the government hasn't at all investigated the collapse.  A properly done poll would have informed respondants about the NIST and FEMA investigations, and asked despite those, should the 9/11 commission have investigated the collapse. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 11:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the NIST investigation which said almost a year ago that 'its report on 7 World Trade Center would be released "at a later date."'. And the FEMA investigation which said "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." A properly done investigation would have found out some facts about why the building fell down, and we wouldn't have to be having this discussion nearly five years after the event.
 * Ask yourself, five years after the Challenger crash, the Chernobyl disaster, or the sinking of the Titanic, was there still speculation about the causes? No, because these were properly, credibly and timeously investigated.
 * Without aligning myself with any particular alternate explanation for the collapse of the building, it seems obvious to me that there was something unusual about the collapse and the way it was investigated. The poll shows a significant minority of Americans agree with me. What is wrong with including this in the article? --Guinnog 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What your opinion of those investigations was is irrelevant, the poll talked about WT7 like it was not investigated at all (which is bull.) It was deliberately misleading, and was designed to get a specific response.--DCAnderson 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the comparison to the sinking of the RMS Titanic is rather interesting given that speculation about how it sank continues to this day (see Titanic alternative theories), though most issues have been resolved now. Still, nearly a hundred years after its sinking, we're still talking about how, exactly, she sank. Getting back to the poll; the reason it should not be included is that the poll is intentionally misleading. We're after NPOV here, please remember. --Durin 13:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've actually read Robert Gardiner's book, and very amusing it is too. No one seriously disputes that the ship was sunk by an iceberg allied with a flawed design though. Having this knowledge has allowed ships to be better built, and other safety improvements to be made, and so no similar disaster has taken place in the century since. By fudging the reason for WTC7's collapse (and the efforts to censor this wikipedia page of any coverage of the uncertainty about why it fell constitute a small part of that fudging), we rule out the possibility of learning from it. I sincerely hope that nobody close to you is killed in another unexplained collapse of a steel-framed building in the future. Think how guilty you would feel then if you had helped, in your small way, to suppress information about just how uncertain the reason for the collapse of this building really is.
 * It is only your contention that the poll is intentionally misleading. We have very recently had people being intentionally misleading about their many and varied reasons for not including the poll; two examples of this would be the statement that the poll was somehow connected with the controlled demolition hypothesis, and the false assertion that the poll only asked New Yorkers. When your 'side' in this debate has been so dishonest, I hope you will excuse me for my bluntness when I ask:
 * What is it that you think gives you and your friends the right to censor wikipedia? --Guinnog 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be influenced by emotional considerations in the crafting of an encyclopedia article. In attributing dishonesty and me being on the side of it, you are asserting that I am dishonest. Please, enough of the personal attacks. Please see WP:NPA.
 * I state that this poll, which says "Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?" makes a claim the the 9/11 commission investigated the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. This is blatantly false, and anyone with any base familiarity in the 9/11 commission would know this is false. This fact, combined with the fact they make no mention of the FEMA or NIST investigations in structuring this question points to intentional misleading on the part of Zogby. You can interpret it how you like; angelic if you like. It doesn't really matter. The fact is, the question is falsely based; it states the 9/11 Commission investigated the collapse of 1/2 and that is blatantly false.
 * I am not censoring Wikipedia. The various people who are in opposition to the Zogby poll are not friends of mine. I am in favor of a neutral, unbiased, professionally sourced encyclopedia. Citing a poll that is so inherently flawed does not serve that purpose. And let's be clear; I am NOT opposed to the inclusion of a notable theory on why WTC 7 collapsed. We already have one notable theory in the article now; the official line. It's notable because it is the official line, and there's reams of documentation to support it. Any other theory that has so far been put forth lacks any valid assertion of notability. Using this poll, which does NOT speak to a demolition theory, as basis for the inclusion of the demolition theory if flatly wrong.
 * Since it is obvious that this discussion has fallen into a rut of lather-rinse-repeat, just like prior discussions on other links, I'm terminating my involvement in the discussion. Barring revelations pointing to the Zogby poll actually not being misleading (intentional or otherwise), I will remove it from the article if it used as a reference, and most especially if it is used as a reference to support the demolition theory as being notable. In the former case, because it is inherently fraudulent and in the latter because there is no connection between the two. --Durin 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my opposition to the suppression of this information through sophistry, edit warring, and the false assertion of consensus. The poll happened, it is notable, it is on topic and should be mentioned in the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. I think it's time for everyone to admit that there is nothing resembling a consensus here about how this article should look.  That's why I put up the npov tag, but even that was the subject of edit struggles, with some people somehow making the claim (how, I'm still not sure) that the neutrality of this article was not in dispute.  --Hyperbole 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll scout around and see if there are any Wikipedia admins who will honor Wikipedia policy on the NPOV template. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Several admins here have already been honoring policy. That's the point. --Durin 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. You can go ahead and point me to the policy page that says that the NPOV template should be removed while there is an NPOV dispute raging on the talk page, that content can be removed with no consensus, and that admins should enforce their personal opinions on the article through edit-warring. Thx. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In short, lather-rinse-repeat. The reality is, there's disagreement. The reality is, the admins here have noted a large number of policies and guidelines that preclude the inclusion of links to the various sites that have been put forth here as demonstration of notability or what have you. If you want to get other admins involved, by all means go shopping. But, given the presence of several admins in this dispute, none of whom agree with your position, you may have less success than you hope for. --Durin 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I missed the link to a policy page in your reply. Actually, the situation is that there is disagreement, and a few administrators have imposed their opinions on the article through edit warring. Is that Wikipedia policy? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already cited a number of policies and guidelines on this talk page before. For my part, I'm not imposing any opinions. I've made it quite clear I'm happy to include notable alternate theories to the collapse of WTC 7. So far, none of you have been able to come up with any grounds on which the demolition theory is notable. The 'best' so far has been citing a poll that has nothing to do with a demolition theory. There are a dizzying array of theories regarding the events of 9/11. We do not make a blanket statement that all theories, regardless of notability, are acceptable. Instead, we assert that things need to be verifiable and notable. That has not happened in the case of the demolition theory. Instead, there's quite a bit of brow beating about admin abuse, censorship, edit warring etc. on the part of the people that are asking you and others to come up with some grounds to assert notability. I'm not interested in the assaults upon my character (as above Guinnog implied I am dishonest). I am interested in applying Wikipedia policy and guidelines. No brow beating and/or assaults on my character is going to motivate me to violate them, though I fully recognize that some people feel this is a valid tactic for getting their way. --Durin 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I implied nothing. I stated that some of the arguments that your side of the debate has made are dishonest, and gave two examples. There is no personal attack here, merely an attempt to hold you to the same standards we all must keep to. Honesty (and in this case I mean actually reading the reference you are arguing about and referring honestly to what it contains, and not trying to distract with red herrings that are not mentioned in the reference, as you continue to above) is fundamental. Using false arguments is liable to attract criticism here; if you don't like the criticism, I suggest you stop doing it. Nonetheless I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by referring to honesty if it was an honest mistake rather than a deliberate distraction to keep bringing the controlled demolition hypothesis into the argument about this link which makes no mention of it.


 * Now, let's focus on improving the article. I gave you my suggestion; what would yours be?


 * Oh, and meantime, we really do need that NPOV template. This is a NPOV dispute we are having after all. --Guinnog 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lather-rinse-repeat. This argument continues endlessly. --Durin 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And that's your response? Wow. Sorry, I hadn't noticed though that we've got a tag back in, well done User:Hyperbole! Now, please, let's leave it there while we take this onwards. --Guinnog 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Myself, Tom Harrison, Durin and Kmf164 are all admins and we all have stated that the poll is worthless. Are you suggesting that 4 admins are biased?--MONGO 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you all seem to be controlling the editing of the article in the same direction, for reasons that seem confused at best. But I really could not care less about personalities here; I'm sophisticated enough to see that while everybody thinks they themselves are NPOV, everyone has some opinion about everything. I just want to make the article a little better, a little less bland, as do a few others here. I've suggested a number of compromises in this direction; I'll continue to do so. I'd say the status quo is not an option here; do you like the article as it stands just now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guinnog (talk • contribs).
 * I figure there will be room for improvement if the feds ever release their latest findings on what happened.--MONGO 07:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that 4 admins are biased?--MONGO 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems fairly obvious given the conversation here on the talk page. What the four admins are insisting on is: silence. Silence about the poll, silence about the conspiracy theories, silence at the external links section, silence about the dispute. In this article, we will act as if the conspiracy theories do not exist. That is simply not the way that Wikipedia does things. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think four admins are working in concert to silence alternative opinions on this article, then please file an RfC. This argument has dragged on now for (I think) months. It isn't getting anywhere. --Durin 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ... 5. After an initial mis-read, I'm also against inclusion. JDoorj a m    Talk 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Make it 6 if you want....though we're not really wearing our admins hat here most of the time. I think it's more telling that this page as been put on WP:AN/I twice and there hasn't been any real complaint on how this has been handled. I think we've been acting well within policy to this point. Rx StrangeLove 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you include taking down the NPOV tag in that? Would you include the sophistry, use of false arguments, and misdirection? Just interested in exactly how elastic you are prepared to be in your interpretation of policy to defend the present poor state of the article. At least you concede you are acting as a 'we'. Before you start howling NPA, I am adressing the dishonesty of your side as a group, not you personally. I'm sure on other areas of the project all six of you are honest editors and good admins. --Guinnog 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the word "we" as a distinct group but just as the group referenced in the ongoing discussion. There is no "we" here in any real sense, and I think you know that. As far as the tag goes, personally I've stated that a small group of editors shouldn't be able to hold an article hostage by placing a NPOV notice whenever they don't get their way. As far as the rest of your note the assertion that there has been sophistry, use of false arguments, and misdirection in the effort to reduce the POV you're trying to insert into the article I'd remind you that that opinion is in the minority. The rest of your comments are mainly made up of false assertions so I won't prolong this. I'm not going to go round and round on this... Rx StrangeLove 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Guinnog, do you have anything in particular that you're making reference to here, or are you just trolling? I'm not sure what part of "the survey is misleading in its delivery, biased in its source, and thus not a valuable addition to this article" you would consider sophistry, false argument, or misdirection.  And I'm not clear how you think that saying "I'm not saying any one of you is dishonest and intentionally misleading, I'm saying you're all collectively liars" is somehow not an attack on your fellow editors.  I concur with StrangeLove, incidentally, and in fact only ended up on this page because of a post at WP:AN/I.  I would strongly recommend you henceforth avoid attacking other editors, and stop accusing editors of conspiratorial nonsense simply because they don't agree with you.  It's uncivil and disruptive. JDoorj a m     Talk 23:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking down the NPOV tag repeatedly was wrong.


 * Making false arguments, that the poll was connected with or even mentioned the controlled demolition hypothesis, was wrong.


 * Stating that the poll only interviewed New Yorkers was wrong.


 * If you want to make a personal attack out of that, good luck. I stand by everything I say.


 * Thanks for your accusation of trolling; it goes nicely with your advice not to attack other editors just below.


 * Oh, and let's add in: Mis-stating that I said "you're all collectively liars" was also wrong. A lie in itself. Using dishonest arguments isn't very nice you know. And I'll continue to challenge it when I see it. I see it here.

Why don't you try to argue honestly, as I don't enjoy having to point out your poor behaviour any more than you enjoy having it pointed out. I mean 'you' collectively here; you, the side apparently dedicated to preventing any improvement to the article. If that is your position, let's make it explicit. If it is not, let's hear your idea for a compromise.

HTH

--Guinnog 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it to WP:RFC. This argument is dragging on infinitely. --Durin 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been through AN/I twice. I can't imagine that RFC would resolve anything that AN/I wouldn't.    --Hyperbole 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Admins here merely need to follow wiki policy (as all users must), and argue in good faith about proposed changes to the article. If we have a proposal to include a link, let's argue it on the basis of what the link actually contains rather than strawmen based on previous discussion, or on people's suppositions of other people's motives for wanting information included or suppressed. It shouldn't be too hard.
 * On my own part, I'll undertake to try to be more civil as I've fallen below my own (admittedly rather high) standards in my last few comments. Sorry.
 * I'll take as read the apologies of those editors who tried to sway this debate by misdirection and sophistry (as explained twice above). I won't mention it again, but it must not happen again either.
 * I've made several efforts to present a compromise that it seems we should all be capable of living with. By the nature of compromises it won't please everyone of course. If we are to believe that these compromises have failed to achieve consensus, can we have a suggestion from the other 'side' please? If your suggestion is to keep the status quo, (which obviously I'd be very unhappy with, as I feel the article is very bland and censored-looking at present), I would ask whether that would be forever? As User:MONGO rightly points out, new information could come out at any time which would change how this collapse is seen. If we are waiting for that new information, is it right that we should wait for that before improving the article? Surely not.
 * Durin, surely you must have something more substantive to say about this than "Take it to RFC"! That is about three four times you've proposed it. With 6 (six) admins here, we surely have enough firepower to solve this ourselves. Look at how successful you've been up until now in preventing any addition or change to the article; just think how good it could be if you worked with us on finding a solution that we could all be content with, you six and the similar number who oppose the status quo. Agreed? --Guinnog 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To update http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7_World_Trade_Center&diff=57182833&oldid=57140929 my previous statement], silence on the talk page is now being demanded as well. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) "I've made several efforts to present a compromise that it seems we should all be capable of living with. By the nature of compromises it won't please everyone of course. If we are to believe that these compromises have failed to achieve consensus, can we have a suggestion from the other 'side' please? If your suggestion is to keep the status quo, (which obviously I'd be very unhappy with, as I feel the article is very bland and censored-looking at present), I would ask whether that would be forever? As User:MONGO rightly points out, new information could come out at any time which would change how this collapse is seen. If we are waiting for that new information, is it right that we should wait for that before improving the article? Surely not."
 * No, sorry Goethean. This statement by you is just fanning the flames. What I'm pointing out is that if you want resolution to this that favors your "side", you're going to have to take it to RfC. We've been arguing this for months now, and little has changed. Surely you can see the futility of continued arguing about this? Regardless, I'm not stopping you from arguing here. Feel free. Just be advised that it's a fruitless endeavour. --Durin 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT
 * Also, I'm all for the status quo, because the article is perfect as it is right now.--DCAnderson 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, Wiki is not a crystal ball. But if a national poll, fairly well reported in news media, however flawed we think the poll was, finds a significant number of Americans have doubts about the collapse and the way the collapse has been investigated, surely we have a duty to mention that in the article? --Guinnog 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You gots to love the Freudian slip. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I like the self-contradiction: compromises won't please everyone, but the article is "perfect" (on your view) right now. By your own argument, it's not a compromise. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said I wanted a compromise.--DCAnderson 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that was me. But it should be you too. "Work toward agreement." (from WP:WQT) --Guinnog 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple guidelines and policies have been cited as to why the poll and various other sites have been excluded. Your "side" doesn't accept those. Instead, you would have us work to a compromise that violates the cited guidelines and policy. Frankly, I'm not interested. If there were some grey area, yes. But, there isn't really any grey area from my perspective; it's rather clear. For example, the poll is misleading and slanted, yet you want to include it as a reliable source. --Durin 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest:
 * instead of
 * Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some individuals and groups have presented alternate viewpoints and theories, usually as part of a larger belief in a 9/11 conspiracy.


 * We try
 * Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some doubt about the collapse and the way it was investigated exists among US citizens, according to a Zogby poll in May 2006 []. When asked a question that critics regard as poorly designed, 38% of 1,200 telephone interviewees indicated "I am aware of it and think the commission should have investigated it".


 * Guinnog 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable. It's using an unreliable source to buttress a position. Come up with another poll that isn't so inherently slanted, and this might work. The Zogby poll in this case is worthless. --Durin 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to give a counter example. This is an extreme case, but highlights the absurdity of including the Zogby poll. "Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that poorly inflated tires caused the 50 car pileup on I-95, some doubt about the accident and the way that it was investigated exists among US citizens, according to a Zoopy poll in May of 2006. When asked a question that critics regard as poorly designed, 38% of 1,200 telephone interviewees indicated "I am aware of the accident and think that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should have investigated the use of square wheels to prevent future accidents of this type". The notion that we should use a poll that suggests a potential solution totally at odds with reality is every bit as absurd as the analogy I've just drawn. The only thing that makes it possible is that some people have no idea what the 9/11 commission was asked to do. They were not asked to investigate the collapses of buildings any more than they were asked to investigate the possibility of the use of square wheels in the 767s that day. It's a red herring, nothing more. --Durin 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice reductio ad absurbam! It might then be worth adding in that investigation of the reasons for the collapse were outwith the remit of the commission. Nevertheless, I think the fact that the reasons for the collapse are still a matter for debate and speculation, almost five years after the atrocity and almost one year after the 9/11 report (which I've read by the way; have you?), is itself noteworthy, whatever the problems with the poll (unless you have verifiable evidence that Zogby completely faked the study, which would of course be highly noteworthy in itself!).
 * Put it this way: hypothetically, if I had been asked the question as it was asked, that would have been my response. I might have added a comment to the effect that the commission wasn't charged with investigating the collapse of the buildings, if the format of the poll allowed for that. I would have been one of the 38% who answered the question as it was asked, because it was the one which most closely fitted my opinion of how the collapse of WTC 7 has been handled.
 * That is my POV; you have stated yours. I don't demand 38% of the wordcount of the article, but I think it should be mentioned, as should our reservations about the wording of the poll.
 * Thank you for signing for me!

--Guinnog 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (re: signing) Your welcome. As to the disagreement, pointing out an absurd case can often serve to shed light on the actual case. I'm not really interested in this argument, as I've repeated several times here on this page. Every...ever...attempt that has been made to show why t,u,v,x,w,y,z thing should be included should not be included has been met with resistance by your "side", and claims of dishonesty by my "side" (I'm on no one's side by the way, even if you attempt to group me with some notional "side") and lumping me with the dishonest. Further progress is, I think, impossible. We've proven that with huge amounts of dialogue here over the last couple of months. Enough already. If you want change in favor of your "side" you're going to have to take it to RfC. There, at least, people without a direct involvement can comment. Failing that, you're going to have to request mediation. Failing that, arbitration. The ongoing dispute here is resolving nothing. --Durin 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll count this as vote number 5 for taking it to RfC from you. --Guinnog 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to have a vote for RfC. If you think that there is an issue on this page that is not going to resolve itself without third-party intervention then be bold and go make a post on WP:RfC.--DCAnderson 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Durin knows this already. He's an admin after all.
 * Any substantive response to my proposal? --Guinnog 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My response? No, I don't like the proposal, because it uses an unreliable source to create the impression of controversy which doesn't really exist. (Or at least is a non-notable controversy, which as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, means it might as well not exist.)--DCAnderson 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave his a few days to let everyone think about it. So, are we finished improving this article? Does nobody see a compromise we can all live with? Is it to remain in its present state forever? Surely not. --Guinnog 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) So I imagine this is the part where you start carrying on about how "Wikipedia is being censored" because you have no policy or consensus support for your argument so instead you will appeal to emotion.--DCAnderson 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Technically no article on Wikipedia is finished, but this one seems to have settled into more or less final form.
 * 2) A compromise is unnecessary if the consensus is allready settled against the issue.
 * 3) It looks good to me.
 * Well, as you've spoken for me, I wonder if I even need to reply! (See WP:AGF btw). I would say this article looks fairly crappy, yes, and that it looks censored, yes. So you were close, I suppose. Please let's improve it, or else sling it up on FA and we'll all have a laugh, if you really think it 'looks good'! --Guinnog 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And, PS, I think you're having a laugh yourself if you really think there is a consensus on the article's present state! --Guinnog 21:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that adding the Silverstein quote or a link to a conspiracy site will move this article any closer to FA status.
 * And it's not so much that I'm not assuming good faith, it's that I'm assuming you're going to keep making the same stale arguments that you've been making for most of the length of this talk page. Which has proven to be a pretty safe assumption.--DCAnderson 21:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please show me where in my suggestion (just above) I have suggested either. Get that red herring out of here; it stinks! Sorry you think my arguments are stale; I'd be sorrier still if you showed any sign of having read them and still thought that. --Guinnog 21:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All right then, so what are your "fresh and new" suggestions for improving the article?--DCAnderson 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't accurately responded to my proposal above, but I am going to change it anyway, just to show good faith.

I suggest:
 * instead of
 * Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some individuals and groups have presented alternate viewpoints and theories, usually as part of a larger belief in a 9/11 conspiracy.


 * We try
 * Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some doubt about the collapse and the way it was investigated exists among US citizens, according to a Zogby poll in May 2006 []. When asked a question that critics regard as poorly designed, 38% of 1,200 telephone interviewees indicated "I am aware of it and think the commission should have investigated it". Critics of the poll point out that the investigation of the precise reasons for the collapse were outwith the remit of the commission.

--Guinnog 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You already sugested that before, and the answer was no then and you could probably safely say it is going to be no this time.--DCAnderson 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I amended my proposal, as a cursory read of what I wrote would reveal. Would it be asking too much to suggest giving your reasons for your "no"? --Guinnog 23:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Chnaging a couple of words around doesn't fix it. I disagree with it for the same reasons I and other users gave the first time.--DCAnderson 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which was, let me remind us: I don't think it shold be mentioned in this article at all. More appropriate for 9/11 conspiracy theories, because that was what the poll was actually about. Which was rather thoroughly debunked by User:Hyperbole, after which you said nothing. But OK, that's your POV, it is noted. --Guinnog 23:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that's still how I feel, even though I was "thouroughly debunked" by Hyperbole.--DCAnderson 23:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If I remember, including the link to 9/11 conspiracy theories was the result of an earlier compromise. I do not think having it here has improved the article. It would be better to drop the paragraph entirely and link to the conspiracy theories only from September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. There are specific problems with the collapse of this building, as I hope I have already made clear. I was not a part of the previous compromise; do you have any specific reason against or counter-proposal to my suggested compromise above? --Guinnog 23:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing that hasn't already been said. I don't expect you find repetition any more persuasive than I do. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. Some actual, verifiable, substantive reasons why you think this info is non-notable would be great though. Your gut-feeling we can take as read, but without actual reasons is just a POV. --Guinnog 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The British Minister for Trade and Foreign Affairs says WTC7 was pulled down; in a letter to a constituent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.43.145 (talk • contribs).
 * So? --Durin 12:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the letter says that 7 WTC was not attacked, and that a number of buildings were torn down afterwards. It doesn't specify which buildings were torn down.  (With that said, Durin's response is probably more relevant.) JDoorj a m     Talk 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Since it is going to have to happen eventually:--DCAnderson 23:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I know for a fact that Guinnog is capable of excellent work in Wikipedia, so I will tone this down, especially for him. The poll was solicited by a conspiracy theory group that specified the wording of questions to be asked. The answers to those questions indicate that a large number of respondants feel the government needed to do a better job investigating what happened...from what I gathered, that is all and I don't think this is noteworthy, especially for this article..maybe elsewhere, but not here.--MONGO 07:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In reading over the link Guinnog provided above, Zogby claims they wrote the questions and they were approved...but the results only indicate that 48% of respondants feel the government isn't covering anything up, while 42% feel the opposite, 47% feel the WTC disaster was investigated well enough and 45% would like to see a reinvestigation, 43% know nothing about the WTC7 collapse and 38% know about it and think the 9/11 commission should have investigated it....14% said the feds were fine in just investigating the main towers. I simply don't understand why the poll is interesting to anyone...they don't indicate much of anything to me.--MONGO 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lastly, why doesn't Zogby show us the results of the entire poll? I see only the questions and their reports of what the respondants stated for questions 23-27. Where is the rest of the poll?--MONGO 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't care about the poll. The numbers are completely meaningless becuase of the intentionally misleading nature of the questions. It's like reading one of the dihydrogen monoxide scams. Image the question, "Dihydrogen monoxide is one of the leading causes of death in children under the age of 10, yet the federal government refuses to investigate the usage of this chemical. Do you think the FDA should be required to investigate the use of this chemical?". The Zogby poll isn't any different. It's worthless, except maybe for its humor value. But, that doesn't matter. Reality; we'll keep spinning this over and over and over again, restating the same arguments a zillion times and we're still going to disagree. --Durin 12:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Collapse Video & Silverstein's Account
Why has this been removed:


 * Silverstein was quoted in a 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds:


 * I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'And I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is. . .is pull it. Ah, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..

Larry Silverstein is the leasee of 7WTC. This is his account of what happened. Larry Silverstein is probably more involved with 7WTC than any other person. Surely his account of the building's collapse should be included in the section about the building's collapse. Kernow 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here it is: 9/11_conspiracy_theories. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the leasee's account of what happened, not some conspiracy theorist's. Why is the leasee's account of what happened to his building being censored from the article about that building. The fact that people have created conspiracies theories based on it does not make it a less valid account of what happened. I have just been reading some of the archived discussions about this video. They seem to focus on whether he says "pull it" or something else. The words seem clear to me but if there is conrtoversy over what he says then that should be documented in the transcript.


 * From WP:NOR:


 * "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy"


 * Kernow 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Its selective inclusion is intended to advance the conspiracy theory (He said "Pull it!") that Silverstein blew it up on purpose. It belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories, not here. Tom Harrison Talk 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversy is a conspiracy theory -- that Silverstein conspired with government and non-governmental entities to cause the destruction of 7 WTC by controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
 * The quote is not controversial. The quote is also not noteworthy or notable.  According to the source of the quote, he acquiesced to letting the building collapse.
 * This nonsense has been going on the article page since May 2004 and not a new fact about it has come forward since then to support it.
 * Silverstein was the owner of the former 7 World Trade Center, not a leaseholder. patsw 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the controversy I am refering to is over what Larry Silverstein says in the video.
 * How is the owner's account not notable? No matter what account he gave, his account of what happened is surely relevant to this article.
 * A new fact to support what? Do you not belive that it's Larry Silverstein in the video?
 * So you are trying to say that the owner's account of what happened to the building this article about is not suitable in this article? Kernow 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kmf164
I saw talk. I didn't see any valid reasons for deleting this info. Can you explain why you deleted it, with respect to wiki policy rather than gut feeling? --Guinnog 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See, , and . -Aude ( talk contribs ) 18:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guinnog, you do not see the reasons as valid. Those of us opposed to the poll are already well aware of that. Those of us opposed to the poll do not consider your reasons for including it as valid. You are well aware of this dispute as you have been party to it. --Durin 22:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. So, if that is the best you can come up with, I take it you are in agreement with restoring the deleted content? If not, please supply actual reasons (not gut feelings) why you think thiscontent does not meet our standards. Thanks in advance. --Guinnog 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not put words into my mouth. You know very well that I am opposed to the inclusion of the Zogby poll for reasons I have stated repeatedly before. If you're bent on repeating this argument over again, please read all that has gone before on this talk page. The arguments remain unchanged. --Durin 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And do not put words into mine, please. I have seen no credible reasons in your and your friends' many restatements of your gut feelings. I have seen only an attempt to hold the line and prevent any mention of the doubt people feel about the collapse, as evidenced in the poll. I have seen dishonesty, shifting of goalposts, argument by repetition. I have not seen a properly argued case for why my suggested compromise cannot (in your opinion) be included. Please provide that, or else stop obstructing improvement to the article. Thank you.

I removed the pov-dispute tag. It's not as if we can leave a tag on the article until the conspiracy theories are presented. Tom Harrison Talk 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That'll be 'conspiracy theories' as in a properly referenced opinion poll? By bringing in red herrings like that, you make your arguments (if you have any, I await any evidence of this) look weak and shallow. And removing the tag while a content dispute is in progress is just plain old wrong. Shame on you. --Guinnog 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I put no words into your mouth. This argument has gone on for months. I carefully laid out the argument before and apparently it fell on deaf ears. I repeated it several times. You willfully disregard it as being a properly argued case against it. That is your choice. What is not your choice is the fact that the poll (intentionally or no) is misleading and disingenuous. To cite it as a resource regarding public opinion in an encyclopedia is absolutely absurd. As I have stated over and over and over again, I am NOT opposed to having the article showing the controlled demolition if and only if there are reputable sources that support it, that are not rife with copyright violations and are not trying to hawk something. To date, nobody has produced any such cites. I am not opposed to the viewpoint. I am opposed to garbage editing being introduced into the article. We are an encyclopedia, not a front for marginal theories being espoused by people trying to sell a book propped up by polls that are ridiculously misleading. Five other admins in addition to myself have chimed in on this and have agreed with this general stance. Since the request for comment failed to produce _any_ shift in opinion on this matter, your next step is to take it to Requests for mediation. If that fails to produce the result you want, then the next step is Requests for arbitration. What is most decidedly NOT the next step is to attempt to reinsert the Zogby poll back into the article, potentially inducing an edit war, and making like there is no argument against it. --Durin 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your putting words into my mouth consists of your spurious suggestion that the compromise form I inserted relates in any way to the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. It doesn't. I'll be charitable and accept this was a mistake on your part rather than the dishonesty it looks like.
 * Your contention that the poll was misleading is really just your POV, and I recognised that POV in the form of words I inserted.
 * Your points about copyright, marginal theories etc are irrelevant. I would encourage you to read the content you are talking about; your arguments will then have more credibility.
 * The fact you have several admins willing to back up your POV has already been noted by me. I would be far more impressed by your argument though if you were able to point me to a specific Wiki policy that my suggestion contravenes, or even provide a coherent argument against the addition, beyond your gut feeling or POV.
 * I consider your allegations of edit-warring and "garbage editing" offensive. You should really be ashamed of yourself; I am trying to improve the article, and you have no right to accuse me in this way. --Guinnog 15:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So you keep saying, yet you keep doing it. Would it be ridiculous to suggest that you follow wiki policies and try to work towards a compromise? --Guinnog 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Guinnog, these arguments have continued endlessly. If you insert the Zogby poll as a citable reference for any portion of this article, it will be removed. Period. End of discussion. If you do not like this result, then I strongly suggest you take it up at requests for mediation as you have been directed to do. If, as I strongly expect, you do not get the result there that you would like, you make take it to requests for arbitration. I will not argue with you about this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. --Durin 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)