Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 8

Proposed change
Remove the paragraphs "In its progress report, NIST released..." and "The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004.", as briefly discussed above. Unless there's just overwhelming support for this, I'd like to wait til after the coming weekend so we can hear from people. Tom Harrison Talk 12:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support streamlining section. Aside from possible mentioning that FEMA did an early investigation and NIST did some preliminary work, the final report is all we need to have referenced essentially. Besides, the article discusses 2 different buildings which aren't similar aside from their location and that the share the WTC 7 designation. The lengthy details about the collapse of the original building should stick to the final report and discuss who the findings from the engineering studies influenced the design for the new structure, fire code enhancements and related matters.MONGO 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, important to detail the recommendations. That helps lead into the section on the new wtc 7, which I know little about. Tom Harrison Talk 18:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the importance of including a section that deals with NIST's recommendations. Can you explain how it will lead to the next section though? Wasn't the new building completed before NIST published it's report? Smitty121981 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
 * I am fine with removing those two paragraphs. The structural damage is already detailed earlier, it doesn't help much to list it again here.  I do think, however, that it is still important to include a paragraph about the observed collapse (i.e. timing).  To list my proposal again:
 * "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was captured on video from the north by CBS News and other news media, allowing NIST to put together a clear timeline of collapse. The first visible sign of collapse to the naked eye is the descent of the East Penthouse. However, using advanced analysis NIST was able to detect small vibrations in the building which lasted for about 6 seconds leading up to this point. Approximately 7 seconds after the East Penthouse first moved, global collapse initiated and the entire visible portion of the building began to fall downward as a single unit. After moving downwards a distance of 7 feet, the building entered a period of free fall acceleration which lasted for 2.25 seconds. After this period the building encountered resistance and the acceleration decreased as the building disappeared from view. "
 * The first part, about the vibrations, can be found in Volume 1 of NCSTAR 1-9 on pg. 329 and it is important because it indicates the internal failures that happened prior to column 79 buckling. The rest of the timings, including the 3 phases of global collapse, are sourced from Section 3.6 of NCSTAR 1-A.  Smitty121981 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

You think collapse times should be emphasized, and the article should include "free fall acceleration?" Astonishing. I oppose includeing your paragraphs. That kind of skewed selection of factoids gives undue weight to the elements of fringe theories. We should rely on the summary of the report to determine what's important. Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree; the less cherrypicking we do of these hundreds of pages of documents, the better. That's why I support drawing from the executive summary only. There is little value in these minutiae. The detection of six seconds of vibrations, and what parts of the building were determined to experience free fall acceleration and for how long, are not necessary in a general encyclopedia article on the two buildings that have been named 7 World Trade Center. The five-page NCSTAR1A executive summary does not mention these details, so the brief collapse section in this article shouldn't, either. If someone is looking for the precise timing sequence of the collapse, they can find it in the source. -Jordgette (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since when is a resource subject to only allowing inclusion of information in the summary? Can someone please post a link to a WP best practices that recommends this? Tom, your link about trains was amusing, but it does not pertain to the subject at hand and your insinuation that I am pushing "fringe theories" is absurd. Are you saying NIST is on the "fringe"?  My entire post was pulled from NCSTAR 1-A and NCSTAR 1-9.  The six seconds of vibration is pertinent and interesting, and it is one of the pieces of real world data that NIST used to verify its computer data.  You can read a more brief summary in NCSTAR 1-A on pg. 42. If you want to leave this detail out, that's fine.  However, I state strongly that the three stages of collapse are important enough to include because this is the part of collapse that is actually visible to people. You can't possibly justify ignoring the actual visible collapse.  In fact, it is important enough for NIST to include in their FAQ page.  However, for the best accuracy I believe we should cite NCSTAR 1-A rather than the FAQ.
 * Additionally, the wiki article currently contains original research when it comes to the collapse timings. You cannnot defend what is there.  It must be updated to reflect the current source. Smitty121981 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981


 * Yes, you've stated your position strongly indeed. However, others seem to disagree, don't they? That's why we have a talk page. If we're going to list what was actually visible to people, then we should include when specific windows broke and what direction and color the smoke/dust was going. But we aren't, because they're unnecessary details. (If you want to distance yourself from conspiracy theorists, perhaps you shouldn't keep insisting on including the extremely minor bit about free fall acceleration of the north face. You may not know this, but "NIST admits freefall!" is a common rallying cry used by "Truthers.") We aren't ignoring the visible collapse; it is and will continue to be in the article...don't quite know what you meant by that. As for your last point, yes, you've emphasized that previously as well, and we are trying to deal with inaccuracies now. In a careful and deliberate manner. This is not a video game, and we are not on a clock. -Jordgette (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not my job to "distance" myself from any group. Let me remind you that it is your job to assume good faith.  My only goal is to remain neutral, as in not taking any sides at all.  You and Tom have further proven with your emotional comments that the collapse timing is indeed a relevant topic to discuss, and should therefore be addressed in the article.  Let me also remind you that the more general WTC collapse article has many fewer details about WTC7 but it does include the period of free fall.  Clearly though, the current paragraph isn't going to fly as is.  I accept this and I will take your feedback into consideration and think on it. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
 * "the more general...article has many fewer details about WTC7 but it does include the period of free fall." Yes, that will need to be dealt with at some point too. Tom Harrison Talk 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"You and Tom have further proven with your emotional comments that the collapse timing is indeed a relevant topic to discuss, and should therefore be addressed in the article." All right, I'm done with you. When it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, even the best Wikipedia editor cannot assume it isn't a duck. We're the emotional ones, check. You're the neutral one and we're the biased ones, check. You're being ganged up upon, check. Free fall acceleration, check. "Allegedly," check. Interested in the collapse of 7WTC and apparently no other topic in the world, check. Given this evidence, it is my opinion that Smitty121981 is editing 9/11-related articles with the specific intent to skew their POV toward fringe conspiracy theories, and is hiding behind the AGF guideline in order to accomplish these goals. Perhaps sanctions ought to be considered at this point. At any rate, from here on I will ignore this editor's comments. -Jordgette (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really not fair. Hiding behind guidelines?  I'm new here - I'm simply trying to follow the guidelines.  And I never said I wasn't emotional.  I was emotional when my edit was removed without review because I am new to wikipedia and you know what?  It's scary to edit a page.  That's why the be bold motto exists, is it not?  I overreacted to the reception that I perceived (and continue to perceive) as unduly negative and I am sorry.  Since that point I have made every effort to maintain the "sober and patient" qualities that you recommended.  I am not perfect.  I really am a newb that jumped in the deep end, and sure I thrashed around a bit - but did nothing deserving of sanctions!  And since I am new to wikipedia I have not had the time to write on 50 different subjects or whatever you require as the requisite amount.  But you may want to check out the two sentences I added to the (rather short) Centroidal Voronoi Tesselation page, complete with wikilinks and sources.  I am trying to work with you here - did you miss the part where I said I would consider your recommendations? Smitty121981 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
 * For being a "newbie" you sure did learn fast...--MONGO 03:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote marks seem to imply sarcasm, but I'll take it as a huge compliment anyways because I really am new here and you seem to be an accomplished and respected editor. Thanks! :) *blush*   I am striving to be a valuable addition to the community, hopefully you will see that my actions continue to improve because I am working hard to do so.  As I told Tom on his talk page, I am taking a short break from this conversation to give others a chance to weigh in, and to contemplate the various feedback from the community.  Thanks everybody for your patience with my less-than-graceful entrance. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Here's a draft of the change I propose, and its diff from the existing version. Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Definitely improved the article. -Jordgette (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. Please make this change. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2
I've made the change. Next, we might remove the paragraph about thermate, and switch the order of the last two paragraphs so the section ends with the recommendations. Tom Harrison Talk 11:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs to mention, if only briefly, the conspiracy theories with the link to that page. There are an awful lot of people who know WTC7 only from this allegation and who will end up at the article for that reason. However the thermate mention (or nanothermite, or nanothermate or whatever is the "dark incendiary" of the moment) is superfluous. Does anyone know of any reliable sources at all that mention thermate in the context of this conspiracy theory? I mean reliable sources, not things written or sponsored by Steven E. Jones. -Jordgette (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the proposed change. The paragraph "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say..." is still there, moved up from last to next-to-last. It's likely there is a reliable source that mentions at least thermite, but we should be sure it's a source about 7 WTC - in which case it might go here - and not a source about the conspiracy theories or Dr. Jones, and so belongs on one of those pages. Tom Harrison Talk 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a source for it. The NIST FAQ about the collapse of WTC7 talks about "thermite or thermate" in this context (the NIST FAQ is the source of the information currently in the article).  Here in the FAQ it is given equal weight as the hypothetical blast scenario.  I'd rather let you all decide if it's kept or not, I'm just pointing out the source. If it is decided to be kept I would move it up to be part of the preceding paragraph. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
 * We could either expand it a bit, or shorten it. Here are longer and shorter versions. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the longer version, actually -- it eliminates the "but what about...?" factor. Perhaps though we can say "an incendiary such as thermite" rather than "thermate"; the NIST FAQ mentions both incendiaries in the question, but only thermite in the answer. -Jordgette (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That suits me. Here's my current proposed change:. Tom Harrison Talk 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it, with one minor change to the existing hypothetical blast scenario sentence. I think we should remove "window breakages" so the sentence would read "The draft NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used was not observed."  While it is true that NIST did perform a window breakage analysis, they did not use this data for their conclusion because the relevant windows were not visible after 4:00 pm. (NCSTAR 1-A) Smitty121981 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981
 * Editors, again, please use page numbers so we don't have to go searching for the reference. NCSTAR1A p. 27 reads, "The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7. The visual evidence did not show such a breakage pattern on any floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse initiation." I can find no mention of what would be considered the "relevant windows" or the fact that NIST did not use the data in the end. In fact, predicted window breakage was part of the sound analysis (top of p.28). The paragraph should go in as Tom has written it. -Jordgette (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of comprehensive citation, I was trying to keep my post succinct. Yes, the window breakage analysis was used indirectly, as part of the sound simulation.  However, read your quote again.  They only had record of the windows "...as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor".  We are concerned with the area of the building below the 25th floor and after 4:00.  Specifically, on pg. 26 of NCSTAR 1-A they state "Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario" involving "two shaped charges applied to Column 79 on a tenant floor that was highly partitioned, such as Floor 12" (emphasis added).  Floor 12 is obviously well below Floor 25, so it could not be observed at the time of collapse.  So yes, it is true that NIST analyzed the window breakage, and yes it is true that this breakage was not observed.  However, if the breakage had occurred it still would not have been observed, therefore making this data unsuitable for any conclusive statement.  You will notice that NIST does not talk about the window breakage when drawing their conclusion other than to introduce the sound simulation data, which they were able to match against empirical data, and there was not any empirical data that matched so they concluded that explosives could not have been used.  The broken windows were mentioned because they made the sound louder.  Considering the resistance to adding any small minutae to the wiki, I do not think this should be in the article.  If it is kept in the article, it will need to be rewritten. Basically NIST is saying, there was no sound therefore there were no explosives:
 * "The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building... the sound level emanating from the WTC7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km... However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast. Therefore the investigation team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC7 on September 11, 2001." NCSTAR 1-a pg 28 Smitty121981 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981


 * "The draft NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed" accurately summarizes the source. Other than changing our sourcing to the final report (ncstar1a, Section 3.3, Hypothetical Blast Scenarios, pages 26-28), I don't see the need to change anything. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of sentence structure. According to NCSTAR 1-A, NIST did not reject the hypothesis based on window breakage observations, because these observations were not available for the area around Floor 12 at the time of collapse, as my above post pointed out in verbose detail. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

I've made the change. Tom Harrison Talk 17:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the logic for keeping "window breakages"... but I accept that this is what the community wants at this time.Smitty121981 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Fuel Oil
Given that Con Ed is suing the Port Authority on the basis that the stored fuel oil contributed to the fire that destroyed 7 WTC, is the denial in this article that the fuel had anything to do with the destruction too sweeping? FEMA also speculated that the fuel oil might have been responsible; I don't know whether they've ever withdrawn that claim. Nareek (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If Con Ed gets a trial and if their claims get any traction via WP:RS we might have something to report. Until then claims are just claims (not to be confused with clams). Regardless, stating that the "NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role..." is not what I would call a denial much less one with a broom. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a better way to put it. Nareek (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

1967?
The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[5] I really wonder where that 1967 year came from. I´ve seen many photos of WTC construction from the end of 1960s and there was definitely nothing standing on the future 7 WTC site in 1967! Just an empty plot as of September 1967. The earliest photo with some construction is early 1970 and looks finished around late 1971, early 1972. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1967 date comes from NIST NCSTAR 1A - Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 - section 1.2.1. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok then I guess all those photographs are part of some conspiracy, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you could provide a reliable source that would be helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Interim to Final
Seeing where the link goes now, it looks like we need to change the citations from the Interim Report to the Final Report - which makes sense really. Tom Harrison Talk 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Given the controversy and conspiracy theories, I think that the second sentence of the opening paragraph should read "The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed on the day of the September 11 attacks." This is more neutral, and recognizes the controversy of teh subject.Jonnyboy5 (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against give undue weight to the conspiracy theories, which are rejected in in major media or scholarly sources. Besides, the third sentence says much the same as you propose.  Acroterion   (talk)   10:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Related merge proposal
At Talk:5 World Trade Center there's a proposal to merge Five World Trade Center and 5 World Trade Center and Four/4 using this article as a pattern. Tom Harrison Talk 01:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of CT mention in "9/11 and collapse"
In an attempt to adhere more closely to how NIST refers to the CTs about controlled demolition, I think this would be an improvement:

From this - "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say the buildings that collapsed on September 11, including building seven, were felled by controlled demolition.[53][54][55][56] The NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed."

To this - "The NIST report rejects the hypothesis put forward by conspiracy theorists that building seven was felled by controlled demolition, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed."

Thoughts? Shirt waist &#9742;  07:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In general I like conpsiracy theory better than conspiracy theorist. Not that there aren't people reliable sources say are conspiracy theorists, but talking about the theory avoids any potential issue in talking about the men. How about "The NIST report rejects the conspiracy theory that building seven was felled by controlled demolition, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed." But both are improvements, and either should be fine. Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, Tom. I say we use your version. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How about we say "The NIST report rejected claims that building seven was felled by controlled demolition, based on a contention that window breakage and blast sounds that it expects would occur if explosives were used were not observed."  I believe this wording is neutral and accurate. Coastwise (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Or maybe: The NIST report found no evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001, based on the contention that the expected window breakage and blast sounds resulting from the use of explosives were not observed." Although, it may be too "cut-and-paste" from the report. Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, guess I'll run it up the flagpole and see who spits. Shirt  waist &#9742;  00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Seems to me like a retrograde step. In general we should not just make a negative statement; it looks weird on its own. Before we had the alternate thesis then the rebuttal, which did make sense. I think that was better. --John (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Shirtwaist's looks good - succinct while still summarizing the facts. Tom Harrison Talk 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why editors like John always replace what should be the word "conspiracy" with "alternate"...jus cuz....Shirtwaist, your last version looks fine to me.--MONGO 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't let this pass, four suggestions and all are grammatical nightmares. Try The NIST report rejected claims that building seven may have been felled by controlled demolition as the pattern of window breakage observed and sounds recorded were not consistent with the use of explosives. It is informative, avoids any POV pushing from both sides of the fence and flows. Wayne (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

See Also?
Any objections to removing the link to Larry Silverstein in the See also section? His name is linked three out of four times it's used in the article, and is also linked in the navigation box at the bottom. Per WP:ALSO, I would think he can therefore be safely removed from the See Also section. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections at all: Silverstein should only be linked in the lead and at the next mention.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might as well remove it. Tom Harrison Talk 23:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

'Conspiracy Theories'
It's definitely worth noting that this building has more conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks than any other, especially given the UHF recordings of detonation orders that were passed around the net that appeared to be of a controlled demolition of the building. Whilst all of these conspiracy theoriest probably are far fetched nonsense, they are however note worthy, just as we note alternate views of say, for example, crack pot alternative medicine that causes tens of thousands of deaths every year; we as Wikipedians are FORCED to note with neutrality that a lot of people believe they work and even kow tow to views that we know are patently absurd.


 * By policy we can not take some sort of count of theories floating around and ourselves conclude this is significant. Instead, we must find a source that states these theories are significant, that "a lot of people" believe them, and so on. If we find such sources from reliable, verifiable, sources, then we'll have the appropriate rationale to include mention of them in this article. That's how it works here. Rklawton (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Would the opinions of the 1500+ architechs and engineers over at http://www.ae911truth.org/ count as valid sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.91.249 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's a fringe movement among the several hundred thousand architects and engineers in the United States. All professions have people who believe in odd things, certainly medicine and law have some unusual ideas. Why would architecture and engineering be any different?  Acroterion   (talk)   16:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And those supporting the theory of evolution were a fringe at one point, too. The argument above is not persuasive. That 1,500 architects and engineers have found inconsistencies in the official government conspiracy theory and have put their names on the line is very significant. In fact, the organization does not present a conspiracy theory at all, but merely calls for fresh investigation based on evidence that is significant and inconsistent with the government's story and NIST's report. AE-911-Truth's findings should be reported in the article, by referencing news stories, etc. about the organization's claims and activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A specious analogy: I could equally reply that many reputable people used to believe in spontaneous generation and transmutation of species, to much the same effect. A/E911 has no findings, just a series of suspicions and half-baked theories, and certainly no reputable scholarship or influence in either profession. For new stories about the organization's claims and activities (they haven't come up with anything new in four years or so), see current stories in the Guardian, and Slate .   Acroterion   (talk)   03:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * > "A specious analogy" (not). Both such would deserve coverage, while the matter is unsettled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.114.174 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Acroterion, I believe you missed my point, but am glad to see that you agree (as evidenced by your links to the WP pages on spontaneous generation and transmutation of species) that theories regardeless of their credibility or lack of same are welcome to coverage in WP articles. Spontaneous generation and transmutation of species have been well refuted, yet have a place here. Nonetheless it seems that you believe the points raised by a number of experts in the fields of architecture, engineering and building demolition - as well as by scientists in peer reviewed papers - that are contrary to the official theory must be excised from this article. With all due respect, your logic is internally inconsistent. Substantive evidence raised by these experts and scientists has never been addressed by our government or NIST - and in fact this evidence identifies critical gaps in the NIST report on WTC-7. Wikipedia should operate at a higher standard than what you suggest, and this article should neutrally report substantive evidence that has been publicly raised; especially evidence that has not been refuted convincingly if at all. Moreover, the section heading "Conspiracy Theories" is pejorative and has no place here. Something like "Other Theories" is (in contrast) neutral, and readers can make up their own minds as to which theory of what happened is credible, based not only on the content of the article but its documentation (both of which will hopefully be more complete and balanced in the future). Coastwise (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these things have been published in reliable sources that are peer reviewed...sources such as engineering journals and the like. A theory has some support amongst reliable witness, so these conspiracy theories cannot be alternate since they provide false and or misleading evidence to support their claims....they oftentimes do this to make a buck since much of this misinformation is only available by going to "seminars" or buying a book they peddle or by subscribing to their self published websites. The "theories" aren't considered worthy fo significant discussion by NIST and experts and that is why they don't do so.--MONGO 07:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not true that "[n]one of these things have been published in reliable sources that are peer reviewed," and it is simply your opinion that the evidence is false or misleading. There is battle of experts here (NIST, etc. on one side, those that have found additional evidence on the other side) -- the article should not choose sides, and instead present both. Coastwise (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true that "[n]one of these things have been published in reliable sources that are peer reviewed," if you exclude "peer reviewed" articles where the "peers" are truthers. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these theories, innuendos, surmises or suppositions have ever been taken seriously by scholarly sources. There are no peer-reviewed sources for technical examination of 9/11 conspiracy theories, merely press releases and deceptive letters to open-source scientific journals, in stark contrast with the NIST report, for instance. By Wikipedia policy, we do choose sides: we deal with the mainstream content and mention fringe theories in due proportion. There is no battle of experts: none of the people prominently associated with A/E911 have completed scholarly studies on the subject,n or have any standing to do so. Jones has never published his material in a peer-reviewed journal: Gage has no special standing among architects. It is not my opinion: it is the finding as verified in mainstream thought, which is what Wikipedia does. We have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories which discuss this in great detail: it is not un-covered by WP, it is presented here in the context of its acceptance or rejection by reliable sources.   Acroterion   (talk)   13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Also WP:WEIGHT Rklawton (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a misquote. The correct quote is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," by Carl Sagan.  What you are suggesting is the evidence doesn't matter, only the source of supposed evidence matters.  This is probably the worst fallacy of all history (Ad Verecundiam); that something is true because the "authority" said it is; end of story.  Remember, this is Wikipedia, not StackExchange where truth is decided by popularity poll. 67.6.202.243 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia where we are guided by WP:RS and WP:V. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

For Petes sake, I cannot understand why these fools waste their life with consipiracy theories - 9/11, JFK, Fake moon landings. I really hope that one day they look back at their lives and see what they could have done with the time and efforts rather than chasing their BS fringe theories.121.218.67.123 (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that many commentators in this section have not taken a basic logic course. For, if they did, they would realize all of the various fallacies they are committing with reckless disregard (Ad Populum; Ad Hominem, both circumstantial and abusive; Ad Verecundium; Fallacy of Inconsistency, Special Pleading, etc.). I suggest the debunkers use the tools of logic; it's what they were invented for. Wikipedia is not a source of Propaganda or to tell the reader what to believe; it should only disseminate facts and leave the conclusions up to the reader. If the subject is complicated or even muddled; oh well, that's not your concern. 67.6.202.243 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lee Hamilton quote added in several places
I notice that Coastwise added a quote from Rep. Lee Hamilton regarding WTC7 on a number of pages. I'm reverting the addition here. The video used as the source promotes a conspiracy organization and depicts a reporter confronting the congressman and accusing the 9/11 Commission of not conducting an investigation. I find that this gives undue weight to a fringe POV under the pretense of a simple "neutral" interview, which it was not. I'd like to hear others' thoughts, and whether the additions to the other articles ought to be scrutinized as well.  -Jord gette  [talk]  19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What is of interest here is what the vice-chairman said, twice in different ways that he does not believe the NIST report is necessarily conclusive. Because the cited documentation is both audio and video, Mr. Hamilton speaks for himself, and what person (or oranization) is doing the interviewing is therefore immaterial. Also immaterial is whether the reporter's style is abraisive. Readers who view the video can make their own judgments about the interview and Mr. Hamilton's statement. Also, the "weight" here is not at all to an organization but to the opinion expressed by a very important figure -- the vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Accordingly, I have reverted the deletion. Coastwise (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This remains fringe material, unreported in reliable sources, and provided here without context as if the quote was some form of official statement, rather than an ambush by someone with an agenda. As such, it's inappropriate in the other places where it's been spammed. The congressman noting that the report is not the last word (which I don't think anybody, including the report, claims) is a very far cry from some kind of admission that some startling truth is waiting to be revealed.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the slightly revised version, which still provides only minimal context and is getting into areas of synthesis and original research, erecting a strawman to discuss doubts about the conclusions concerning 7 WTC when no party claims certitude to begin with. Unless this quote is discussed in reliable sources, it's misuse of a primary source and undue emphasis. The same objections apply to the other insertions, as they appear to be trying to indicate through synthesis that there is some kind of support on the part of Hamilton for conspiracy theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Acroterion. I wrote a reason for the revision of my text that I made a couple of hours ago (the material indented below), and which you have now removed; however, I now see that it didn't post. So here I will answer the points in both of your posts above. (1) Your claim : "This remains fringe material, unreported in reliable sources."  Response : The material is not fringe, because it is a direct statement by an important official who was involved in the investigation. The meda source in this instance is reliable because the entire, clearly unedited interview is presented, and the actual source of quoted material, Mr. Hamilton, is both an appointed and elected public figure of some stature. (2) Your claim : "... provided here without context as if the quote was some form of official statement ...".  Response : I agree with you on this, and made the changes below in my last article post. (3) Your claim : "... an ambush by someone with an agenda ...".  Response : Mr. Hamilton turned and began to leave. Then the question about Buildin 7 was asked, and he turned back to answer it. He could have continued leaving; therefore this wasn't an ambush. He answered willingly. Whether or not the interviewer had an agenda is immaterial; Hamilton answered calmly and said the phrase I quoted twice. He expressed his opinion, and it is his opinion that is relevant to the article. (4) Your claim : "The congressman noting that the report is not the last word (which I don't think anybody, including the report, claims)..."  Response : This is bull. The paragraph above where I inserted mine (beginning "In November 2008") in about what "NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse." Hamilton says that NIST's conclusions on that are not necessarily "the final truth." Whether or not anyone else has said that is beside the point; the information of interest for the article is that here is a key official in the investigation saying that. His statement is a reflection on the report, not a response what others have said about it - nor did I portray it otherwise in my text. (5) Your claim : Hamilton's statement "is a very far cry from some kind of admission that some startling truth is waiting to be revealed."  Response : This is a false criterion for admission of information into an article. The important fact is that a key official has now indicated (for the first time I have seen) that the final truth of the matter could end up being different than the report's conclusions. That he does not necessarily consider the report the final word, is a notable fact. Because the NIST report and what it determined are part of the article, high caliber documented commentary on it is important (regardless of the perspective on the report). (6) You said : "I've reverted the slightly revised version, which still provides only minimal context ..."  Response : I believe the context is adequate, appropriate and complete. What additional context do you suggest? (7) Your claim : The challenged text "is getting into areas of synthesis and original research, erecting a strawman to discuss doubts about the conclusions concerning 7 WTC when no party claims certitude to begin with."  Response : My text is not in conflict with the synthesis rule. See the second sentence in synthesis; here C is explicit in B, not implied by it; it is a direct commentary on A. A "reliable source (Hamilton) has combined the material in this way," in audio and video that all can observe, as reported in toto from a publicly accessible source which also is reliable because the interview is obviously complete and unedited. My text is not original research because "a reliable, published source exists," and  "[t]he appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Here, the source is "the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book)", the video, in accordance with one of the three WP definitions of "a source." Here, "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (see prior link) is not at issue because the interview is complete and unedited. (8) Your claim : "... erecting a strawman to discuss doubts about the conclusions concerning 7 WTC when no party claims certitude to begin with."  Response : A presumption of certitude surrounds a report of the stature of NIST's. A statement from a responsible official who was involved in the process surrounding the report concerning such presumption is not a strawman, because the statement exists it is  part of a balanced discussion of the report. In Sum : I believe inclusion of Mr. Hamilton's statement in some fashion is appropriate. I await your views on how it should be written, and if you suggest a timely edit I will consider that before making a further post in the article. Coastwise (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (My prior post to the article): In an unoffical, on-the-spot interview in September 2011, 9/11 Commission vice-chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton said: "Building 7 was a very special problem. We do not claim in this report to have written the final truth. The consulting engineers, we consulted with them. They studied it for three or four years. They've come out with their conclusion, and I respect that. ... I know what the - I think it's called the American Society of Consulting Engineers - said. I'm not an engineer. I can't figure all that out, so I respect their judgment. Is it the final truth? We'll have to see." (As was posted to the article by me, Coastwise (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC))


 * You're conflating the term "final report" with the notion that it represents, or is intended to represent the last word on what happened at WTC 7: the report makes no such pretense, it simply states what the authors believed to be the most likely case, together with a methodology for arriving at their conclusions. Hamilton says as much in your quote. It does represent the most complete and rigorous study yet made on the subject, but the fact that one congressman, a layman where engineering is concerned, confessed that he didn't fully understand the report when confronted by an aggressive interviewer with an agenda does not materially add to the encyclopedia article. Your strawman is your implication that the report is a statement of certitude which is doubted by the congressman. Your admitted premise of finality or certitude is false, and you are inappropriately using a primary source to construct a synthesis concerning what you apparently misunderstand, spinning the congressman's words as a statement of doubt and implying some untold story. We write articles from secondary sources, not primary sources, as primary sources can be misused as they are being misused here to advance a fringe viewpoint as undue weight.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Acroterion and Jordgette. Drive-by "interviews" by agenda-heavy "interviewers" that are later used for blatant POV pushing are a poor excuse for WP:RS and have no place here.  Shirt  waist &#9742;  06:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Audio halted due to fringe dispute above
I am pausing on creating a spoken version of this article until the above fringe dispute is finished. I intend to continue in 24 hours, and that is assuming the dispute has been resolved. As for the content itself, I am of no opinion. Phearson (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I will strive for resolution of this within your timeframe. Coastwise (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Timeframe will be extended another 24 if not finished. Phearson (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Audio Canceled for now. Phearson (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

10/19/11 edits
Editor The Devil's Advocate made some edits that I have partially reverted. These edits were significant and not uncontroversial, and this being a Featured Article on a controversial topic, they should be discussed here before the article is changed.

In the first edit, details about the collapse in the intro were replaced with "the original 7 WTC suffered a catastrophic structural failure because of damage stemming from the attacks...." NIST found that physical damage likely did not play a major role in the collapse, and that the collapse was primarily due to fire. I have reverted this edit but removed some of the excessive detail from the previous version of the intro.

In the second edit, there is the addition of, "though [NIST] added that even if a test could have been performed on the rubble it would not have necessarily ruled out the use of thermite because its composition is similar to that of the debris." In my opinion, calling out this detail constitutes an undue weight violation. The thermite hypothesis is highly fringe and does not warrant more mention in this Featured Article than already existed.  -Jord gette  [talk]  23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically the fires would have been covered under damage stemming from the attacks. As for the edit about thermite, I think it is important that the article be neutral. Mentioning NIST discounting the use of thermite without clarifying that they could not rule it out biases the article. Controlled demolition being considered a fringe theory is not a free pass to exclude important information on the study just because some might find it favorable towards such a theory. If you are going to mention the conspiracy theories in this article, reasonable given the building's prominence in such theories, then it has to be done in a way that presents the facts objectively.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion regarding undue weight stands. But the source says, "Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive." That's not quite the same as, "would not have necessarily ruled out the use of thermite." I will now step aside.  -Jord gette  [talk]  06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being able to conclusively determine whether there was thermite used is the same as not being able to rule it out. However, if you want to put in something closer to the wording in the study then I have no objection. Either way, Undue weight does not mean leaving out facts because they create a different impression than the one desired. Some may not like noting the fact NIST kept the door slightly open for the possibility of thermite being used, but if a government research body is not able to say for certain that it was not used you have to mention it. By only mentioning that they discounted it the article is creating an impression of certainty that is not accurate. Such an impression is solely meant to bias the reader towards a preferred viewpoint and this is a violation of policy. Wikipedia is not Snopes.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certain that there is no evidence thermite/thermate was used. If something different is ever reported via WP:RS then we will include it. We do not report speculation. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except I did not include something saying it was used or any sort of speculation about its use. All I did was include details from the NIST study saying that a test for thermite would not be able to rule out its use.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though I have only used the NIST study's own words my edits keep getting reversed. The fact is that NIST actually used the word unlikely not "discounted" or "discarded" so there should be no reason to substitute the word I used for either of those. I am acceptant of the idea that saying they could not conclusively rule out the use of thermite is being tossed out, despite again just noting what the government's own study said. However, when even using the exact word NIST used is being rejected I can only conclude that a number of editors (most likely self-declared "skeptics") are letting their bias get in the way. There is also no need to double-up on the conspiracy label. A wikilink over the word "theories" to the page titled controlled demolition conspiracy theories is more than enough, especially since anyone who gets so far as to read this one paragraph would understand that controlled demolition is not an accepted theory.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Split
This article covers two different buildings. Logically this article should be split into two - one for the original building, and one for the new building. I'm assuming we have additional articles for the original building's destruction and the associated conspiracy theories. Rklawton (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are already pages to discuss the collapse and controlled demolition, though only the latter goes into much detail concerning building 7 so there probably does need to be some change regarding those articles. I agree with the idea that each building should have its own article. Both are distinct in design and construction so it is not like they simply rebuilt the old one. It is a new building that just so happens to be named 7 World Trade Center. I imagine the best way to split them would be to have one article titled "7 World Trade Center (1983-2001)" and another titled "7 World Trade Center (2002 - Present)" while having "7 World Trade Center" go to a disambiguation page. Unless there is some history for having two distinct buildings covered by the same article due to their common location and name I would support splitting.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be better to have these combined on one page, as suggested at Talk:5 World Trade Center. In any case, there's more to the organization of these pages than it looks like at first. However we do it, we should make sure we understand how all the articles fit together. Tom Harrison Talk 17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, aside from being distinctly different buildings the article is also large enough for a split to be conceived. Of course, one way to trim the size would be to have most of the information concerning 9-11 and the collapse moved to another article. It seems kind of ridiculous that this article would have several times the information on the WTC 7 collapse then the article about the trade center collapse.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of this Article
I think 7 World Trade Center should be renamed to Seven World Trade Center, to match One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six World Trade Center. Secret Agent Julio (My Talk Page) 13:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed 9-11 section
After the discussion above on splitting the article I felt that it would be a good idea to move most of the material in the section of the article concerning 9-11 to the page on the collapse of the World Trade Center. I believe this should end much of the controversy concerning the amount of material covering the conspiracy theories since what is left only covers the most salient points on the collapse and investigation, with the real area to dispute such questions about fairness towards conspiracy theories being the page on the collapse. That is more appropriate, in my opinion, given that this is an article about the building in general and not the 9-11 attacks.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit is unacceptable. This (Featured) article has a long history of controversy and discussion. This edit strips the article of details that are important to the explanation of the collapse. For example, this article was the first place I had ever read of firefighters measuring a visual bulge on Building 7 before its collapse, and that led me to read more about NIST's findings. The explanation in this article, as it reads now, comes off as almost flippant. The reader should get an idea of why the building actually collapsed, without having to download multi-hundred-page PDFs from NIST, and not just told, "this is what NIST decided, you're on your own from here." It is okay that the material exists in both articles, but it definitely needs to be in this one.  -Jord gette  [talk]  18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does this article need to be where this information is placed? It makes more sense to have detailed information on the collapse go in the article devoted to the collapse. Someone looking into the collapse of building 7 is more likely to look at that page than this one in the first place. So long as people are prominently directed towards that article there is no reason to prevent this article from being shortened to get closer to a reasonable size. You are using this article's status as a Featured article as an argument for obstructing this edit, but when it became a Featured Article this page was over 12% smaller. I did not in any way dispute that the material was important, only that it was more than necessary for a page about the building. Also, while the example you gave was not mentioned in detail it was included as a source for the statement about firefighters seeing signs suggesting the building would collapse.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the version of the article on the day it was promoted to Featured Article, the collapse section was actually slightly longer than it is now (and this was before the release of the NIST findings). There was a trim effort earlier this year involving several editors working in collaboration and as I recall it turned out quite well. The article on the Collapse of the World Trade Center is primarily about WTC 1 and 2; if someone were interested in 7, they would likely come to this article first, and here is where they should be able to read the salient details without getting the run-around. The collapse was obviously a huge event in the history of the structure; to remove the explanation of why it collapsed does not seem like the right idea. Can anyone present a reason for cutting this material, other than just to make the section shorter? Shorter isn't necessarily better.  -Jord gette  [talk]  23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I recognize that it is an important part of the building's history but there are other considerations and I mentioned several besides the length of the section. There is simply no reason why this article should go into heavy detail on how the building collapsed and the process of investigation when an article to touch on those issues in greater detail already exists. Just because that article presently pays greater attention to the twin towers does not mean that weakens the argument for moving the information. In fact, that there was a dearth of information concerning building 7's collapse on that article make the argument for expanding the information there even more compelling. As far as giving people the "run-around" as you say, the see also wikilink now goes directly to the sections of the article on the collapse of the WTC that deal with building 7. So, if someone wants greater detail they can just click on that link and get it. No one wanting to look into the collapse of building 7 would be disserved by the changes I made.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree. If the details were to go in just one article, they belong in this one, and the gloss should go in the more general Trade Center Collapse article.  -Jord gette  [talk]  02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to give more than that. So far I have given a lot of reasons for why this information should not be included to the extent it was, but you have yet to give a good reason for why this should remain the same. The claim you make here also is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia policy suggests in a case like this. Details given here are more suitable for a page on the collapse, not on the building itself.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jordgette. It's a good article that's been stable for a while. There should be a consensus for major dramatic changes like this. This particular change removes too much neccessary material. Tom Harrison Talk 12:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Jordgette's concerns I trimmed it without removing the things that editor expressed a desire to keep. Yet apparently you disagree with even those changes. Tell me what is so essential about the material you put back in that it simply cannot be removed? Why do people need to know every organization that was involved in an investigation, what software they used, and about some other building that was demolished because of the collapse when there is an article specifically devoted to the collapse of the WTC buildings? Rather than just immediately resorting to a wholesale revert of any change you do not completely like how about you try and discuss it or try to accommodate the concerns of another editor?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that in your rush to revert any changes you don't like you, like Jordgette before, reverted uncontroversial edits.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's highly valuable for the article to include the list of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST. You might be aware of a group of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that flaunts its self-proclaimed expertise on the matter of Building 7's collapse. I'm sure they would be thrilled to see the article expunged of the list of professional organizations that consider their claims professionally unsupportable, especially considering that they have few if any structural engineers, fire engineers, or tall steel-building architects onboard. I'm sure they would also be thrilled to see the removal of the image of Fiterman Hall, which was partially destroyed in the collapse and proving that WTC7 didn't collapse "into its own footprint" as routinely claimed. In other words, these aren't extraneous details but facts that have considerable value in a world of misinformation.  -Jord gette   [talk]  20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I do not question that these details have value as it concerns the collapse of building 7 and the investigation into said collapse, but that does not mean that including this information in an article on the building itself improves the article's quality. Second, I have said already this is not Snopes. Wikipedia is not your personal platform for debunking pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. Including information in this article for the sole purpose of weakening support for conspiracy theories is you letting a personal cause get in the way of improving the article. This battle mentality you are demonstrating with regards to efforts to manage the size of this article is not helpful. Every last bit of information you believe is important would still be included in a page on the actual collapse that is linked to directly from this page.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are blatantly disregarding WP:AGF with the above accusations. I will say it one last time: The collapse of WTC7 is a historical event of much interest. The collapse is what the original WTC7 is best known for, and people coming to this article should get all the facts involving how it happened, and how the matter was investigated, in this article — not hidden away within a general article on multiple building collapses. If you want to shorten this article, surely there are other ways it can be tightened besides removing factual content from the section with the highest level of controversy and public interest. But really, it's silly to say this article is unmanageably large and needs to be cut down. Even though it comprehensively covers two different buildings, it is not long by any means — the Collapse of the World Trade Center article that you added material to is considerably longer.  -Jord gette  [talk]  00:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not disregarding the asumption of good faith to say you are pushing a POV when you make it plainly obvious that this is exactly what you are doing. You are defending this edit warring by claiming all of the information is necessary to target some claim of conspiracy theorists that are not even given any voice in this article. Maybe you do not realize that was an admission of what I said above, but it was regardless. Your word usage suggests you think that I am pushing a POV by moving this material. I am not attempting to hide material that is damaging to conspiracy theories. One of my edits changed the wikilink so that it takes the reader directly to the section of the collapse article that concerns the building 7 collapse. As far as the Collapse article I would like to see that trimmed as well, though that would likely be a more complicated task. That building 7 is notable for the collapse is something I understand very well, but I also understand that it has notability beyond just that instant and that, either way, such a notable event does not require the level of detail you insist on. Having a paragraph devoted to some buildings that collapsed because of building 7 in an article that is supposed to be about building 7 in general is ridiculous. However, since you say there are other ways to trim the article how about you mention some.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once more I have attempted to shorten the article giving consideration to the objections raised by other editors. This time I would ask that if any editors object to some of the changes that they only undo those changes rather than simply reverting the entire edit.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This material is central to the topic, and needs to remain in the article. Moreover, changes of this extent should have consensus first. Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you completely ignored my request above, unless you disagree with every last change that was made. Should that be the case I would really love to know what you think should be trimmed.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I kept the changes you made that improved the article. Why should anything be "trimmed?" The length isn't excessive, and the scope and weighting are appropriate. Certainly large portions shouldn't be unilaterally taken out. Tom Harrison Talk 01:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, how about you explain why this page, and not another page like the article on the actual collapse of the buildings, absolutely needs to include a detailed list of problems with the sprinkler systems and play-by-play of the fires that burned in building 7? What essential purpose for this specific article about building seven is served by including a drawn-out explanation of why the NIST investigation faced delays? Do we honestly need to mention in this article what specific kind of software NIST used? Finally do you really think that NIST's conclusion that lack of water was a key reason for the collapse needs to be mentioned twice in the same paragraph? Did you even consider that something like that might actually be an appropriate change? Not to mention that none of this material was removed from Wikipedia altogether. Everything you insist on keeping here is also included in the article on the collapse that is linked to directly from here under sections explicitly including building 7 in their headings. No information is being hidden away. Logically speaking, detailed information on the collapse belongs in the article specifically devoted to the collapse of the buildings, not an article that is about the building in general.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The building is notable because it failed as a result of fire. As such, this article is where the failure should be covered. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The building was notable in its own right before the collapse. Its collapse is only another notable aspect of the subject and said collapse is specifically covered by a different article. Having details like the list of organizations participating in the NIST investigation or buildings that collapse as a result of building 7's collapse in this article makes little sense when an article to cover the collapse in detail exists, never mind listing every single floor that had fires or describing all the problems with the sprinkler system. I am curious, do you agree with what Jordgette said about it being important to include this information so as to counter conspiracy theorists?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the case that detailed information about the collapse logically belongs elsewhere. This page developed over time in the way it has and includes the material it does becuase this is where people expected to find the information, and where they came to write about it. It's been stable for some time, so the content and structure are clearly not inappropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I posed several specific questions that you have not bothered to answer. Do you really think all the material I removed was absolutely necessary for this article? At no point in this discussion have you provided a legitimate reason for reverting my attempts to shorten the article. Essentially your argument is that you don't like shortening the article and so it should not be shortened. Do you agree with Jordgette's argument about this information being necessary to counter conspiracy theorists?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The material belongs in the article because it's central to the topic - 7 WTC. That there are conspiracy theories about the collapse is another issue. The conspiracy theories are a social/physiological phenomenon. The material about the collapse is about the building as a structure in the physical world. The material you keep removing against the long-established consensus is central to the article's topic, appropriate to the scope and organization of the article, and is something readers would expect to find here. It needs to remain in the the article. Removing it does not improve the article, but impairs it. Tom Harrison Talk 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you done misrepresenting what I wrote yet? You asked if I had a better reason for keeping the list of engineering and fire-safety organizations, for example, other than just not liking your deletions. So I gave you one possible reason: If a person just watched Loose Change and came here for more information about the 7WTC investigation, it would be useful to learn that the study was serious, extensive, and peer-reviewed by numerous professional organizations. But there are other reasons as well, for example it was an important and notable role for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. But I'll stop there, lest I be accused of using Wikipedia as a personal platform to commercially promote CTBUH.  -Jord gette  [talk]  23:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not misrepresent what you said at all. That your mind immediately went to how it might affect people's perception of conspiracy theories is quite revealing. In any event do you, Tom, or Artifex have any legitimate reason for keeping the material I removed in my most recent attempt at trimming the article? Saying the article is good enough as it is does not constitute a legitimate argument. I would also like to know what any of you think could be trimmed if the article were to be shortened.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First "known" collapse from fire
Tom and Jordgette seem to believe WP:RS does not require them to pay attention to any other rules. However, their insistence on having this comment from NIST asserted as undisputed fact in the article is giving undue weight to one part of the source at the exclusion of another part of the source they appear to wish did not exist. Here is what NIST said in the very same source:

""NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely. . . Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. . .Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive"."

So why exactly is this article asserting as fact a claim from NIST that this is the first building felled by uncontrolled fires when NIST itself clearly indicates with words like "unlikely" and "believe" that it does not really know for a fact that it was felled by uncontrolled fires? If the very people being cited are not certain that some other action did not cause the collapse, insisting that we should let the statement stand as though it was an unquestionable fact is violating WP:NPOV.

I would also like to add that I think the inclusion of "according to NIST" or a similar comment improves the general flow of the paragraph as well.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it's about thermite. I should have seen that coming. Well, I oppose rewording the article to legitimize the conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about what NIST itself said. What I presented above is a direct quote from the very source you and Jordgette have referred to when reverting my edit. Do you think the above quotations really indicate that NIST "knows" beyond any doubt what brought down building 7? It seems they are pretty certain about their conclusion, but that is far from "knowing" to any extent necessary for us to repeat it as fact. So, noting that this is only what NIST claims, as opposed to what it could objectively prove, is important for maintaining the sentence's neutrality. Like it or not, so long as there is detailed information in this article about the collapse (something that, I may remind you, I actually oppose) you are going to have to allow some information that will keep people's minds open to the possibility that the official story may not be proven beyond all doubt. That you think allowing even slightly for the possibility that the official story might be wrong is akin to "legitimizing" conspiracy theories says a lot about your motive for reverting the edit.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NIST uses the words "unlikely" and "does not believe" because that is the language of science. In science we do not claim theories to be absolute, definitive, or infallible. You will find the same standard applied in the literature to evolution, germ theory, and gravity. However, this standard should not be taken as ambivalence or insufficient information. NIST would also say it is unlikely that WTC7 was felled by termite damage, but doing so would not give any credence to the notion that termites might have been involved. To borrow a phrase used in an earlier discussion, scientists "leave the door open" to other possibilities as part of the scientific protocol. This shouldn't be interpreted as "frankly, we don't know what to conclude" or "we admit there is a valid controversy here." See intelligent design.  -Jord gette  [talk]  00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Hell has not been adequately explored in the physical realm, we can not conclusively rule out the possibility that it might indeed one day freeze over. (NIST) Rklawton (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a leap of synthesis to use NIST's "unlikely" as positive grounds for inclusion of the Truther thermite hobbyhorse, which has never had any traction outside conspiracy theorist circles.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with what you are saying Jordgette is that the language NIST used with regards to the use of explosives was more definitive. On explosives they "concluded" that explosions "did not occur" and that is much more definite than what was said about thermite. Not to mention their argument for why thermite use was unlikely is flimsier in general. I am not suggesting the article argue anything on that, only that it make clear this is NIST's claim. Doing so does not suggest anything other than the fact NIST is making the claim.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually...
 * Is what the scientists, engineers, architects, et al. from inside and outside the NIST (the humans that created the report) have objectively proven. There is no "official version". There is only the one based on real, published, actual science. Got an RS better than that? Bring it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, things are objectively proven only in logic and mathematics, but you make a great point about there being only one actual scientific version of this "story" in the real world.  -Jord gette  [talk]  02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hip but I'd like to think "objectively" modifies "proof" away from "absolutely" sufficiently in this context (considering the amount of logic and math that was used). But I could be wrong. Not that being wrong would mean thermite modifies proof (or bananas for that matter). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in debating the merits of the NIST case and I respect your opinion that only the official version is the one that should be considered legitimate, but none of that is relevant to the edit I made. NIST's declaration that building 7 is the first "known" case of a tall building collapsing due to uncontrolled fires should not be restated as though collapse due to fire is unquestionable fact when NIST in the very same source (no WP:SYNTH issue there) says it cannot reasonably rule out another explanation. Saying only that this is "according to NIST" avoids the problem of misrepresenting the source and prejudicing the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget FEMA, the American Society of Civil Engineers and this from the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research Council of Canada...
 * Also your quote from the NIST above seems in error. From Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation I get (emphasis mine)...
 * If you have sources that claim WTC 7 was not the first fire induced failure of a building of its type...please present them. Lastly, I am not of the opinion "that only the official version is the one that should be considered legitimate" and don't care much for the accusation. -ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My quote from NIST was not in error at all, you are going off a more recent version with that appearing to be the only change of note in the section. In other words, it appears there was no new evidence that caused them to change the wording. I do not really care whether this or that organization concurs with NIST's impropriety in stating that it knows what happened when it freely admits not being to able to rule out an entirely different scenario. What matters is that NIST says it could not rule out an alternative explanation for the collapse and so its statement should not be treated as objective fact. This is not the equivalent of saying you cannot absolutely rule out Young Earth Creationism and therefore it should be mentioned as a viable alternative theory to evolution. It is more like saying that because the evidence allows that another suspect may have killed a person you should only refer to the accepted perpetrator as an alleged murderer even if the evidence against said person is really good.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jordgette's reversion of most recent change
As you did not provide an explanation in the edit summary I have no way of knowing what precise issues that were perceived with the edit. So Jordgette was your revert in response to my changes regarding the sentence disputed in the discussion directly above or was it a problem with the entirety of my edit? If it is the latter then I think you need to provide a good explanation because I felt the shortening of the Fiterman and SEC paragraphs were similar to two previous efforts I made that received no objections, and were edits you even endorsed, so claiming I was acting against consensus is a bit incredulous, but if it is the former then please state as much so I can restore the other changes allowing us to focus on that sentence.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing you once again attempted to delete the Fiterman Hall image, without any indication of why it was an improvement to do so, and without asking for opinion on the matter, even though the deletion had previously been reverted. I'm tired of this ongoing disruption and I've taken it to the edit warring noticeboard .  -Jord gette  [talk]  02:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is your only objection to the Fiterman Hall image being removed? Did you have any issue with me moving the "known" sentence to the intro with this wording?:
 * "An investigation involving numerous major research institutes described it as the first known case of a tall building collapsing primarily due to fire."


 * I think that type of statement reasonably belongs in the intro and it manages to sum up the facts in a way that could be compelling to readers, without trying to force it down their throats. While an absolute statement is likely to only be accepted or rejected absolutely, no one is really going to reject the phrase above instead only agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion of those cited. That should be the desired response for any edit we make on a controversial subject.


 * Now, as Tom appears to agree with shortening the information concerning Fiterman Hall, and no one appears to object to changes on the SEC, would you object to reinserting this wording?:
 * "While no casualties were associated with the collapse, the debris did cause substantial damage to other buildings including the Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building. Fiterman Hall was found not to be salvageable and was demolished in 2009 with plans for reconstruction, while the Verizon Building was able to be restored in 2005. Files relating to numerous federal investigations had been housed in 7 World Trade Center and all the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed, including files relating to Citigroup's connection to the WorldCom scandal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimated over 10,000 cases were affected. Investigative files in the Secret Service's largest field office were also lost in the collapse of WTC 7 with one Secret Service agent saying, “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”"


 * On your objections to removing the Fiterman Hall image, I can't help but find your insistence on including it here a bit silly. The section of the collapse article that people are taken to by the see also wikilink includes the image, and the wikilink on Fiterman Hall takes people to a section of the BMCC page that also includes this image. Your reasoning that including the image here is necessary to target the claims of conspiracy theorists is weak and coatracky given that the specific claim is not that some debris did not spread over a larger area, but that the building fell straight down rather than falling at a tilt. Fiterman Hall is used an example in some obscure objections by skeptics to contest the claim, but the only conspiracy theories that even treat it as an issue of interest is some small-time Youtube videos that appear to make implications about earthquake weapons or some other such nonsense. Your insistence on keeping this image for the reason you give means your intent is to push an uncited conclusion in this article that favors your POV. In the immortal words of Sonic the Hedgehog: "That is no good!"--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom harrison's revert
In my absence Tom apparently decided to revert a number of changes I made that had been standing without objection for a week and had been explicitly endorsed by another editor. No explanation is given in the edit summary or on the talk page for why Tom objected to those changes. Here are a few problems have with this material:


 * 1) This is a general problem I only recently noticed and that is the citation does not appear to include any of the information concerning institutions involved in the NIST report on building 7. It appears this is because of a change on the site and so an editor should locate a new source that includes this information.
 * 2) Even if such a source is included there is no reason why this article on building 7 needs to mention all of the groups involved. As it stands two structural engineering groups and two fire protection groups are included. While AISC would be a legitimate keep, the Council on Tall Buildings does not seem to be worthy of mentioning.
 * 3) All this information about preliminary reports, all the reasons for the investigation's delay, the factors that were ruled out (the most important factor ruled out being the diesel generator that is already mentioned as having been ruled out further up in the article), and the recurring mentions of lack of water is excessive. We can include such information in the collapse article, but for this page it just seems ridiculous to be elaborating on these things.
 * 4) Tom also appears to think we need to mention three times that these fires were not under control as he inserted material at the beginning of the section mentioning this when it is already mentioned in the following paragraph. I am pretty sure saying there is no water to fight the fires, as the previous change had stated, and mentioning it once at the beginning of the section is enough to insure people understand that the fires were out of control.
 * 5) My efforts to trim down the rather wordy explanation of the collapse were also undone and there appears to be no legitimate reason for this. The change I made to that paragraph made it much more tolerable to read, in my opinion, without altering its meaning in any way. If people want to know what floor this or that happened on they can go to the collapse article or go straight to the source. All they need here is to get the basic idea.
 * 6) Lastly I have to contest the reinsertion of this non-free image. While included on the basis of fair use it does not appear to provide any useful purpose for the article. We already have an image of the building on fire and the gash said to be visible in the picture is not really discernible. I cannot see it and I doubt many will without straining themselves. So it's sole reason for inclusion does not appear justified.

Maybe some of the changes I made could have been done somewhat differently, but the bulk of the changes Tom reverted without explanation improved the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think they did improve the article. On balance they slanted the article toward legitimizing controlled demolition. Even if they didn't, you should get consensus on the talk page before making major changes. You can't expect to unilaterally reorganize and rewrite an article on a contentious topic that's been stable for some time. Tom Harrison Talk 14:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "On balance"? So what part of the balance did you think slanted the article? Points 3 through 6 above constitute the bulk of the changes you reverted and I fail to see how they slanted the article in any direction. The first point I raised here doesn't concern the revert directly, but does involve a problem with some of the disputed material, and you do not appear to address it. We have a list of institutions said to be involved that does not appear to be supported by the current citation. Even the source the citation is supposed to go to, the NIST twin towers report (not the building 7 report), fails to include this information. It mentions the organizations, but does not suggest they were providing advice to NIST's investigation as the current wording seems to say. Point 2 is directly affected by that, but even if a citation was provided to back up the claim it would still not explain how only specifically mentioning the most significant institutions involved would slant the article towards controlled demolition.
 * Since you said "on balance" what parts did you think were not slanting the article and why did you undo those changes?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "on balance" because the cumulative result of your edits was not to improve the article, but to make controlled demolition seem less unreasonable. You need to stop that, and stop trying to rewrite the article against consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mind explaining how the edits you reverted during my block made controlled demolition seem more reasonable?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a pointless exercise. I'm content to leave it to anyone who wants to, to look at the result of your changes make up his own mind. Tom Harrison Talk 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, how about you address points one and six in my statement above? We have material that is not backed by the citation and a non-free image that does not appear to serve any important purpose (the gash is not discernible in the photo). What is your response to those issues?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally rewriting the page isn't going to work. Propose and get consensus for the changes you want to make. Tom Harrison Talk 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I pointed to two specific issues in my last comment that are apparent conflicts with policy. Are you going to say anything about those issues?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what is your opinion about what I said in the talk section above this one?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Already said, but again, please propose and get consensus for the changes you want to make. Fiterman Hall likewise - get consensus for the changes you want to make. Tom Harrison Talk 21:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to those issues I pointed out with information not being in the citation given and the questionable use of a non-free image?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I don't accept your characterizations, those are two of the changes you want to make for which you should get consensus. Trying to force them in against consensus is disruptive. Tom Harrison Talk 21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)