Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 14

Article name
Shouldn't it theoretically be Collapses of the World Trade Center, as it involved at least three collapses, not one collapse? The first tower to fall down collapsed separately from the next one and caused a partial collapse of the Vista Hotel; 7 WTC also collapsed separately. So that's three collapses and possibly four. And don't forget that holes were poked in the smaller WTC buildings. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 03:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to miss the point that there were more than "holes poked" in the smaller wtc buildings. The collapses of the towers fully destroyed 10 other buildings (those "holes" completely destroyed wtc 3,4,5,6 and a few other buildings) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.158.199 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To me, this appears to strengthen Rickyrab's point. When I read this title, it seems like a single collapse, which - I think we're all agreed - is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.46 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of NIST Report
Sorry, but who is James Quintiere? He does not appear to be particularly notable (google doesn't bring up much) and just seems to be a standard university professor. The little info that google does bring up, indicates he is a truther.

The inclusion of his comments seems kinda weird, like bias from a conspiracy theorist. Isn't there any more notable criticism of the report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.152.173 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * to answer this question. NO there aren't really any notable criticism of the Final NIST report on wtc7.  There are plenty of CT folks who complain, but there are NO peer reviewed engineering papers which say NIST got any of the major parts of their conclusions wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.158.199 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Partially correct. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat wrote a response to NIST's draft report on the failure of WTC 7.  In this response, the CTBUH wrote "The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns." (ref)  Numerous other questions and concerns were also put forward by the CTBUH.  In its final report on WTC 7, NIST retained its column 79 collapse hypothesis.  Wildbear (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * His papers on Fire Protection Research and behaviour are highly cited; see google scholar . His back ground bio is located here; . I found google did bring up quite a bit, arguably one could consider creating a wiki page on him that satisfies notability concerns. If it hasnt already been done. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

James Quintiere is a very respected scientist, but the datamined quotes are not in context, nor are they appropriate.

Why is there a footnote section with a footnote about a 1960's whitepaper but no citation? There are blanket claims about the contents of this whitepaper, but no evidence to support it. It needs a citation or it needs to be retracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.158.199 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It did have a cite but someone deleted it. Its in the NIST so is not disputed.Wayne (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just had a look and it is cited in the section but not the note which expands on what NIST said about it. I'll add the cite to the note. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those supporting conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 should be cautious about editing this article at all...more than one 9/11 CTer has been topic banned consequently.--MONGO 07:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed in the "Investigations" Section
The Investigations section lacks clarity and includes errors.

To improve this section there should be acknowledgement that the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) were the entity most responsible for 'saving' steel pieces for further study. ASCE, which is mentioned, saved but a few of the pieces. Proof of this may be found in the World Trade Center Building Performance Study. FEMA 403 Apendix D includes a "Steel Data Collection Spreadsheet" which lists who saved and documented each piece and which entity they represented. Of the 156 saved pieces (at the time of publication), only the first 11 were saved by ASCE, and the balance were saved by SEAoNY volunteers. The balance of steel pieces saved after the publication of FEMA 403 were saved by SEAoNY volunteers with assistance from NIST representatives from Boulder CO. FEMA 403 Appendix G "Acknowledgements" lists the SEAoNY volunteers -- whose names are readily matched to those who 'saved' the steel as documented in Appendix D. 74.10.150.39 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 investigation by SINTEF
In 2011, the norwegian research institute SINTEF published a paper discussing the role of aluminium in the collapse of the towers. See http://www.aluminiumtoday.com/issue-archive/view/may-june-2011/ and http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/New-theory-explains-collapse-of-Twin-Towers/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.162.94 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a section under "other investigations" about this. Maybe there should be a sentence about the conspiracy-crushing impacts of this theory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.72.60 (talk • contribs)
 * NRK has reported on this here. I don't speak Norwegian, however. Cs32en   Talk to me  18:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Description of the collapse progression
The paragraph describing the collapse of the Twin Towers made a wrong interpretation of the cited paper. The paper describes a mathematical model of the buildings and includes some assumptions that were not necessarily true in reality, but that were needed in order to formalize the model. It does not represent an actual accurate description of how the collapse developed in reality, even if it gives that impression at some points (the author describes the model when he seems to be describing the actual buildings). The only qualitative description of the actual collapse progression I know of is that given by FEMA. Before anyone jumps the gun on how NIST disagreed with FEMA, let me point out that NIST disagreed with FEMA's collapse initiation mechanism, not progression. NIST didn't deal with collapse progression, and they talk themselves about floors "pan-caking" (sic) (NCSTAR 1-3C p.117). FEMA's section 2.2.1.5 and 2.2.2.6, however, deal with the progression of the collapse, giving descriptions based on what can be seen in videos. I've changed the text accordingly, though everyone's invited to improve the wording or add more details (I'm not a native English speaker, my main intention with this rewrite was to be sure that it was based on FEMA's description). --pgimeno (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the FEMA building performance study section.
The last paragraph of the FEMA building performance study section is not working for me.  The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.



Some problematic bits...
 * 1. Simply stating "...that thinning of the steel had occurred..." without explanation is ambiguous and implies widespread occurrence of the phenomenon.

Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. —
 * 2. The emphasis on "very unusual events" with "no clear explanation" is misleading as it omits information provided in the cited source.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term hearing in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. —

An update of the cited study...

...provides some clarifying details as to:
 * A. Where the samples were found:

The samples were collected by the FEMA forensic team from the "pile of rubble" that had been burning for many days. The samples had been exposed to the fires in the building while it remained standing as well as the fires in the rubble on the ground after the building collapsed. —
 * B. When the erosion occured:

The metal removal most probably occurred in the fire in the rubble after the building collapsed rather than during the fire while the building was standing. —
 * C. The source of the sulfur:

The source of the sulfur was most probably the materials of construction in the building (e.g., gypsum board) rather than the sulfuric acid in acid rain or the jet fuel. — The current version is just stock feed for conspiracy theorists (i.e. Jones and friends). I was tempted to just remove it but thought I'd check here first. Question: Should we just remove the existing paragraph? Obviously, if it stays it will need to be corrected per sources (in this case suggested rewrites would be appreciated). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Ps. Drop me an email if you need access to — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the Sisson & Biederman document, but from the quotations provided, it appears to introduce problems by engaging in speculation without providing any empirical evidence to back up the assertions. Specifically,
 * The metal removal most probably occurred in the fire in the rubble after the building collapsed rather than during the fire while the building was standing. —
 * This implies that the fires in the rubble had greater access to oxygen than fires in the standing buildings, in order to achieve higher temperatures. A tested and verified explanation needs to be provided as to how this occurred.
 * The source of the sulfur was most probably the materials of construction in the building (e.g., gypsum board) rather than the sulfuric acid in acid rain or the jet fuel. —
 * If building structural materials can provide sulfur to cause the kind of steel erosion which occurred, then the specific structural material needs to be identified and confirmed to cause the observed effect. This could have implications for existing buildings, and should not just be dismissed with unsubstantiated speculation.
 * If the Sisson & Biederman document can't provide a better explanation for these issues, I don't think that it should be used as grounds for removing the sourced FEMA material; which is accurate in that it documents what was observed without engaging in speculation about how it occurred. The questions raised by FEMA still await proper investigation.  Wildbear (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, is a continuation of the research they started in the "sourced FEMA material" ( is Appendix C of FEMA 403).

Preliminary results from this investigation were presented in 2001[1] and the FEMA report,[2] and this case history updates those reports. —  1. J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.: "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7," JOM-J. Min. Met. Mat. S, Dec 2001, pp. 18. 2. J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.: "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations and Recommendations," FEMA Report 403, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC, Apr 2002, Appendix C: "Limited Metallurgical Examination."
 * The "better explanation" that the erosion occurred after collapse would be the time required...

The metal removal rates from A36 steel by this liquid slag are not known and may be highly dependent on impurity content as well as oxygen and sulfur partial pressures in the atmosphere of the fire. However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble. —
 * ...and the most probable source of the sulfur...

Another frequently asked question concerns the source of the sulfur. Some of the sulfur may have come from the fuel on the airplanes or the fuel that was stored in Building 7. However, this source would have been short-lived in the fires. Sulfuric acid in acid rain or SO2 or SO3 in the atmosphere could also contribute sulfur to the slag. A more probable source of sulfur is the materials in the building, such as gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate) board or other construction materials. —
 * Unsourced claims that the authors are publishing "unsubstantiated speculation" are not helpful and have no place here. I also do not understand how you determined that "This implies that the fires in the rubble had greater access to oxygen than fires in the standing buildings, in order to achieve higher temperatures." What higher temperatures? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: "The "better explanation" that the erosion occurred after collapse would be the time required..."

The metal removal rates from A36 steel by this liquid slag are not known and may be highly dependent on impurity content as well as oxygen and sulfur partial pressures in the atmosphere of the fire. However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble. —
 * Good, I like that quote from the report. It adds useful information which is not currently presented in the article.  It mentions experiments and observations, and states that the reaction "was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h", giving the reader a better understanding of what may or may not have happened to cause the metal erosion.  I would support adding this to the article.
 * Quote: "What higher temperatures?"  With the additional information provided, suggesting that the erosion could have occurred over a prolonged period of time, an assumption that higher temperatures would be needed to erode the steel may be incorrect, and I accept that.  This illustrates how providing more information in articles, rather than less, can be beneficial to understanding the topic.  Wikipedia's 9/11 articles in general tend to be too sparse on relevant details.  In this instance, the actual cause of the erosion remains speculative (especially the hypothesis of sulfur coming from gypsum wallboard), and it illustrates how further study on the issue is needed before reliable conclusions can be drawn.  I think it's good and relevant that Wikipedia cover this issue here.  Sufficient content from the reports needs to be included so that the issue and the associated hypotheses will not be misunderstood, and will not be mistaken for proven conclusions rather than hypothetical conjectures.  Wildbear (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Should we just remove the existing paragraph?" It seems unrelated to the collapse; it's only purpose is to let conspiracists say "no clear explanation (cough..thermite...cough)"  Tom Harrison Talk 02:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed and removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom Harrison wrote: "'it's only purpose is to let conspiracists say 'no clear explanation (cough..thermite...cough)'"
 * That is a deeply offensive statement, and I request that you retract it. There is nothing inherently "conspiracy theory" about wanting to fully understand the physics (and in this instance, chemistry) of a building collapse.  Especially a trio of highly unusual and unprecedented building collapses.  The mechanisms may well be natural and benign, but the desire for knowledge and confirmation remains.
 * Tom Harrison wrote: "'It seems unrelated to the collapse'"
 * Speculation. Heat supposedly brought the buildings down; and this metal shows evidence of what might have been intense heat; source not well defined. Publish the physical data, with professional test results and opinions included, and let the readership draw it's own conclusions.  Wildbear (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Especially highly unusual and unprecedented building collapses"...in other words (hush-hush) conspiracy theories. How about the highly unusual and unprecedented direct hit high speed airliner impacts? Didn't they have something to do with the collapses?--MONGO 01:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of CT paragraphs
Two paragraphs were removed from this article on the basis of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The first one was a section specifically about controlled demolition theories and the other was a paragraph about the NIST investigation of WTC7's collapse saying they did not find to evidence to support the controlled demolition claims. It was not appropriate to remove this information from the articles as the claims were a major aspect of NIST's investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. Material about the conspiracy theories had been in the article for a long time and there was no discussion about removing the material.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The claims were not a "major aspect of NIST's investigation". If anything they were a distraction. Regardless, this article is about the actual collapse not unfounded and unsupported claims per WP:ONEWAY. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NIST spent a great deal of time addressing the conspiracy theories about explosives directly in its investigation and went into some detail on the thermite claims in its Q&A on the investigation. If it was a distraction then it was a major distraction and should therefore be mentioned. There was nothing wrong with the way it was mentioned in this article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No they didn't! The only place they even dedicated a single discussion was buried in the final WTC 7 report, where they quickly refuted the CT's.MONGO 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Controlled demolition/explosives are mentioned on page xxxviii in the summary of findings of their report on the Twin Towers. Mentioned again on page 146, alongside the claim of missiles even. Page 176 it once more gets mentioned in their principal findings. On the WTC7 report there is a paragraph in the opening summary noting their findings on "hypothetical blast scenarios" on page xxxvi. The report includes a nice long section beginning on page 26 about "hypothetical blast scenarios" and on page 49 it notes in a nice big paragraph that they dismissed blast scenarios in their principal findings with the information essentially being repeated on page 54. Now maybe you would dispute that this is a "great deal of time", but it is certainly a lot of significant space in the reports dedicated to addressing the conspiracy theories. We have reliable sources noting that NIST sought out to challenge these claims in their studies.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories are sociological phenomena, and don't really have anything to do with the acutal collapse. They're linked in the template at the bottom of this page, and in September 11 attacks. More in this article would be undue weight. Tom Harrison Talk 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to TDA, virtually no somehow equals a lot. Reports that are hundreds of pages make a brief mention and that is supposed to be "a lot". The brief mention was simply a refutation done to appease those that think fantasies are more interesting than facts.MONGO 17:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Twin Towers report it was noted as a "principal finding" so that is significant. The mention in the WTC7 report is incredibly significant. Whatever you may think about why they felt it was necessary to address the conspiracy theories, it still suggests it is significant enough to mention in this article and the mentions we had were perfectly fine.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was so incredibly significant they hardly mentioned it...only enough so they could polite show how ridiculous it is. Feel free to add those issues at one of the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles...oh nevermind, that's already been done.MONGO 20:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The featured article on the WTC7 building includes a paragraph about the conspiracy theories, and has for some time. What makes you think nary a mention belongs in the article on the collapse of the WTC buildings? In this mainstream book looking at 9/11 there is a substantial amount of material on the matter. Here is another where the controlled demolition stuff gets mentioned. Clearly it gets mentioned in many reliable sources when talking about the attacks and collapse, not just when talking about the theories themselves. Honestly, I think the level of coverage given to the controlled demolition conspiracy theories on their own is easily enough to merit mentioning them to the extent we mentioned them here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight...you come off a 6 month topic ban which was put in place because you have demonstrated tenacious editing, edit warring and POV pushing, and it was your second topic ban in this arena...and you immediately resume POV pushing of fringe nonsense? I'm sorry but I find it impossible to AGF of your intentions on any 9/11 namespace articles...that shouldn't come as a surprise...but I will confess I am surprised that you immediately and unabashedly have resumed your previous programing.--MONGO 22:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion on the article talk page, nothing more. It concerns material that has been in this article, without objection for months or even years, that was removed without discussion. Here I have given you a number of sources that directly link talk of 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC with the controlled demolition theories, including the very government investigations assigned to look into the collapse, and you are not giving a satisfactory explanation for why these sources do not merit the restoration of the material that has been removed. We had three sentences in a section on controlled demolition conspiracy theories and material on the conspiracy theories regarding WTC7 that is also included on the Featured Article on the building. The material in question was pretty plain about what mainstream academics think of the theories and it is an insubstantial amount of material. Unless you think NIST is also pushing a conspiracist POV by giving such prominent mention to the conspiracy theories your objection seems to be nothing more than WP:JDLI.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, you have been banned twice for POV pushing, first for 1 month, then again for 6 months. You were blocked during the first ban for violating the ban, then again blocked for 2 weeks for violating the second ban...your second ban ends and you immediately show up here POV pushing fringe stuff AGAIN! It's all documented...what shall our next step be ya think? An endless supply of AGF fer ya? Not based on this track record...I also would like to know if there is anything you might like to disclose now.--MONGO 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have something you think I need to "disclose" that is not directly relevant to whether the sources above support restoring the material that was removed then feel free to ask on my talk page. Are you going to explain why you think the sources above do not support any mention of the conspiracy theories here? The featured article on WTC 7 is about the building, not the collapse, yet it has a whole paragraph noting what NIST stated about the conspiracy theories. You yourself supported mentioning the conspiracy theories in the article on 9/11. Why should an article on the collapse of the World Trade Center not include material noting these conspiracy theories? It was something NIST thought needed to be mentioned three times in its official report on the collapse and considerably more in its Q&A about the study.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like 3 editors already have explained..if that isn't satisfactory to you, why not ask WGFinley to help out? He might be interested in seeing how you're spending your time since your ban expired.--MONGO 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those two have responded since I noted the sources above. The argument about WP:ONEWAY given by Artifex isn't terribly compelling given the sources I provided above showing that the most authoritative agency regarding the collapse devotes a lot of discussion to these conspiracy theories, in addition to other mainstream sources giving it considerable attention. At any rate, I would prefer to have input from people who are not extremely biased on the matter.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't devote a lot of discussion...2 pages out of 500 isn't a lot. Golly, brief mention here and anudder one over dare and lookie here, almost 1.5 pages dare....all done only to show how idiotic the CT's are.--MONGO 01:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The NIST Q&As do devote a lot of discussion to the matter.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * We don't include TimeCube theory in our physics articles. Crank nonsense does not belong here either.  See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV for more.
 * Arguments about NIST's report are a misdirection. This is not on article about the NIST report.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How many seminal investigative reports on physics issues mention TimeCube? We include material about fringe theories in all sorts of articles on mainstream subjects when they are clearly relevant or significant in relation to the subject, including a paragraph about the conspiracy theories in the featured article on WTC7. The material we are talking about did not include any "crank nonsense" as it just noted the theories, while adding that NIST's investigation did not find evidence supporting the claims.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. The principle is the same.  It doesn't belong.  Period.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that is not what WP:FRINGE says. It says: "Fringe views, products or the organizations who promote them may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." I find it hard to imagine that you could think the most extensive government reports on the collapse and the related FAQs about the reports repeatedly mentioning these conspiracy theories, at times in great detail, does not connect them to discussion of the collapse in a serious and prominent way.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But they don't connect them in a serious and prominent way. 2 pages out of 500 is not serious and prominent.
 * You're also ignoring all the sources which never mention them at all.
 * Not to mention that WP:NPOV requires that POVs be supported by prominent experts in this field. To the best of my knowledge, there are zero historians who advocate 9/11 conspiracy theories, let alone a significant minority.
 * This has all been explained to you before. I suggest that if you don't like WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE, you lobby the community to have them changed.  There is no point in continuing to explain the same things to you over and over ad nauseum.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These were "principal findings" of that investigation so the amount of content is quite irrelevant. I think 2.5% of the content in this article is not overdoing it, but if you like we could introduce a smaller amount of material to simply note NIST's findings on the matter. Really the FAQs establish a very strong case for having a similar amount of material as was previously included, but should shortening that material be necessary to get support for restoring mention of the controlled demolition claims then that's not a serious problem.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The NIST WTC reports come in at over ten-thousand pages. The coverage of "Hypothetical Blast Scenarios" is eighteen pages (NIST NCSTAR 1-9. Appendix D, pages 693-710) and was not undertaken in response to alternative hypotheses. Citing duplicate text from the summary boiler-plate material is not helpful. The text was removed per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV for being typical truther non-sense with phrases like "...because NIST did not believe...", "...rejected by NIST,...", "...considered unlikely by NIST...", etc. The NIST report is a source of the very highest quality. Among those qualified to comment...it is doubted by none. — ArtifexMayhem (talk)

Sorry, but in-text attribution is not "truther nonsense" in any interpretation, especially when the material is specifically talking about the NIST report. Even if that were the case it would not justify removing the totality of the material.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked the sources and saw that once more the contents of these reports are not being presented accurately. You cited the Appendix as "eighteen pages", but again there is repeated mention of the claims throughout the report. Chapter 8 states in the introduction that it considered blast events and spent three pages starting at page 355 dealing with the controlled demolition claims. In the summary of the probable collapse sequences it pops up again with pages 614-615 having about a page's worth of material and "controlled demolition" is mentioned several times in the report. Looking at the source you give about the ten-thousand pages of the report, most of it appears to be focusing on building codes and safety measures as opposed to the mechanics of the collapse.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not going in the article...there is an entire article already devoted to this stuff....this one is about the facts, not the fictions.--MONGO 17:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that we re-insert the facts. The facts about NIST's investigation of the collapse include the fact that one of their principal findings concerned the controlled demolition claims. Several reports about NIST's investigation and NIST's FAQs about the investigation give significant attention to this aspect of the investigation into the collapse. We include such material in the featured article on building 7, even though that article isn't devoted to the collapse, so I don't see any legitimate reason for keeping such material out of this article where it is actually more relevant to the general subject. I am not suggesting we give any play to the controlled demolition claims themselves, but rather suggesting we give play to the position taken by the official investigation into the collapse.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I just want to say to those that remove truthful statements about what happened on September 11th, 2001 are worthless human beings. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is so clearly a controlled demolition, but you continue to remove the information from this page as a result of your denialism. You are pathetic and unpatriotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.37.145.134 (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So a patriot is one who willingly questions the conclusions reached by the government of his/her country? Thus far, no one has stated that they believe what you said is untrue, however they have repeatedly informed you of why it was removed. I for one am sympathetic towards those who believe in this particular conspiracy, however this is not a reason for violating Wikipedia's policy, particularly WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH. Perhaps we may be able to reach a compromise if you're able to provide us with reliable sources, peer-reviewed engineering papers by renowned researchers are preferred. Though, completely rebuking conclusions reached by numerous government agencies is not a option. You also may be interested in reading the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which is linked at the bottom of this article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A patriot is someone who seeks the truth no matter where it leads them. If a homicide were caught on camera, the footage would be used as evidence to find and prosecute the suspect. The same goes for the collapse of World Trade Center 7, but for some reason empirical evidence is not good enough for you... Oh yeah, you want "reliable sources" from "experts". Meanwhile anyone with eyes and a basic understanding of physics can see that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is consistent with a controlled demolition. Instead you slap on the "conspiracy theory" pejorative and relegate it to a separate page. Nevermind that the official account of the events of September 11th is itself a conspiracy theory. Furthermore it seems like there is considerable bias as to what is considered a reliable source. Sources that support a logical account are removed while the office fire collapse theory sources thrive. I think we as historians owe it to future generations to get the story straight, and omitting empirical evidence from the page because it doesn't support your narrow conclusion is shameful... but I expect you really don't care, do you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.63.5.202 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to remove this last post, as there are no truthful statements of fact. However, it pretends to suggest improvements in the article, so it may be worthwhile to point out that the collapse is not consistent with controlled demolition, as the debris took out other buildings, not all within the World Trade Center.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging of Stairwell A to this article
Back in June, a merging of Stairwell A to September 11 attacks was performed. While most editors agree that the stairwell is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, there was debate about where its content should be merged to. A conclusion was not fully reached before the merge was performed and thus User:Jojhutton undid it, claiming the discussion has been "dismissed." However, this action conflicts with Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and from looking at this discussion, many editors believe the article should now be merged to Collapse of the World Trade Center and I agree with them. In fact, the section Collapse of the South Tower in this article is an almost exact duplicate of what exists in Stairwell A. If I do not get any objections within a month or two about merging that article into this one, I will perform it out of boldness. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

not funny to delete peoples opinions
its not funny to delete peoples opinions on a talk page that are based in pure logic and reality, no matter what your personal opinion is. you sirs are the reason why i dont trust wikipedia anymore. and its not that hard to find the truth, but apparently its so hard for some people to face it that they would step on other people like this. grow up, consider other peoples opinions. really are a bunch of children mods on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett1986 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinions are worthless...we base article content on reliable sources from peer reviewed content.--MONGO 11:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles aren't soapboxes for opinions or for fringe points of view.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Header and Mention of 4 planes
So in the header it states:

"The twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, as a result of the September 11 attacks,[1] in which terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, flying one into the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) and another into the South Tower (2 World Trade Center)."

Okay so what happened with the other two planes? It says they hijacked four planes. One crashed into one tower, another crashed into the other tower, but wait, it just said there were four. I mean obviously I know what happened to them, but if I was a reader, had no idea about anything on 9/11 and read this, I would be a little confused as to why it says four planes were hijacked here but only says what happened to two of them. Why doesn't it at least say in parenthesis "(with the other two crashing in Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania)". I understand this is an article about the collapse of the world trade center, but since you choose to write that "four planes were hijacked", perhaps you make a minor note of what happened to the other two rather then just say this happened with no explanation.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, you go to the main article on the 9/11 attacks. No other explanation is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it sounds pretty stupid to tell you the truth. I see little explanations inside quotations written all over Wikipedia, some explaining some pretty useless things that have nothing to do with the article, however explaining very briefly in 10 words why it says "four planes" seems pretty useful to clear things up. So putting "(with the other two crashing in Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania)" seems pretty reasonable and useful to put there. So either that in quotations should be added, or the sentence should be reworded.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not listening, the main article explain all this. As above, no explanation is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I reworded it. It makes more sense now and is a little clearer.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Safety Concerns Regarding Aircraft Impacts Section
I have seen a few documentaries about the collapse of the towers that Leslie Robertson was interviewed in, and he states that the fuel load was not considered when planning for a potential aircraft impact when designing the building, but there is no mention of this. Any reason?Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources that can illuminate the issue better, but I can state from professional experience that the design efforts of individual disciplines tend to be compartmentalized, so the structural engineer would stick to his own area of competency, which in Robertson's case would not include modeling a fire. If such a study had been desired it would have been up to Yamasaki, the architect, to engage the appropriate consultants. Since it appears to have been a speculative "what-if?" exercise on Robertson's part, I have the impression that the study never went outside Robertson's office, and I've never heard of any indication that Yamasaki's office was aware of it. In any case, fire modeling was in its infancy at the time, and without extensive mainframe computer time and specialized programming, I doubt the effort would have yielded anything very useful. Unlike the structural calcs, a fire model can't be simulated using slide rules.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw or read a snippet of this, but it wasn't substantiated enough to use it as a referenced fact. The designers did look at the potential damage from the impact of a 707 at approach or takeoff speeds that were about one third to one fourth the impacts the buildings actually sustained...but I might be off on that a bit too.--MONGO 00:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the analysis took the B-25 Empire State Building crash as a model, and assumed a 707 lost in bad visibility, at mandated 200 kt max airspeed for operations below 10,000 ft, as the NYT reference notes (page 13). It appears from the article, now that I re-read it, that somebody at Yamasaki or Emery Roth's offices heard a garbled version. The article also points out on the following page that nobody considered the fire, as Zdawg notes: there's no discussion of why, though I suspect my theory is close to the mark. Studies of that kind are expensive, and if Robertson wanted to do the structural calcs on his own dime, that didn't mean that the owner or architect would ante up for a full study of an airplane-induced fire.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is a documentary where Robertson says that although the impact of a 707 was considered in the design of the building (and as you said the architects only considered this under the assumption it was going slow and lost in the fog), but while the plane was considered, the fuel aboard was not taken into account by the architects going under the assumption it would be low on fuel trying to land? Seems like it would be worth adding a quick note about that.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All I see in a cursory web-glance is unreliable website info (like from PrisonPlanet) and youtube videos, neither of which are suitable for the article. I did find a BBC interview link to video which may be sufficient. The BBC apparently interviewed Robertson two months after the event...video Impact of a plane also has a dropdown box with the video transcript....lets see what others say.--MONGO 04:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not to pressed about it, I just thought it might be worth mentioning, we'll see if anyone else has a thought. The clip I was talking about is actually the one that you gave the link to (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/), the "impact of a plane" video that's 1:02 long. Towards the end of the clip he says how with the 707, the fuel load was not considered. I recall another documentary where he said the same thing. These are all documentaries made by networks rather then an amateur though.Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC video with trasncript is a good enough resource to include with the external links, and probably should be cited in the first paragraph of Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts. Reading just now, we might want to consider some edits to that paragraph. Tom Harrison Talk 11:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would reluctant to add it here only because it's not been established that there are anything beyond "normal" accidents that would be considered. Even today, I'm not sure buildings would be designed to withstand attacks using aircraft or missiles.  Even nuclear reactors which had design criteria changed as a result of 9/11 aren't required to withstand attacks that would be beyond their structural ability.  Rather they need only to mitigate it and document it.  Today a new skyscraper would mitigate an aircraft collision and fire and do it by estimating it as a load on the structure.  There are too many variables to design against.  What they changed are things that may feed a fire like local pipes for fuel oil in the building, strengthening evacuation stairwells, sprinkler system improvements, etc.  Whether the fuel was considered or not may or may not have been a factor as I believe the structural failure was time and temperature along with damage to fireproofing.  The time and temperature sustainability was reduced completely by the physical impact, not the fuel.  A fire, while all different, would be rate limited by oxygen and have fuel in the building.  In short, the building would be designed to withstand a fire for a certain amount of time before it fails.  It's not clear to me that the fuel on the plane played a significant role (other than burning first) or that the fuel left on a landing airplane would not be sufficient to have created the failing conditions.  Once the fireproofing was damaged, the building itself may have been able to provide the combustible fuel for the amount of time necessary for it to collapse.  The result is that building codes are being revised to improve fireproofing the steel, strengthening exits, improving sprinklers systems all in a bid to gain time, not save the building from being destroyed by fully fueled Airbus A380's.  For that reason, I'd like a reliable source that can assess what the jet fuel contributed and what amount of jet fuel would have been below the minimum amount for failure given the normal building fuel available.  Otherwise, it's OR to speculate or presume the jet fuel played a significant role or the sprinkler/fireproofing damage was sufficient.   To wit, if a small Cessna 172 runs out of fuel and crashes into a house that then catches fire due to a broken gas line and burns to the ground, an interview with the builder about whether he designed it to withstand fully fueled or empty airplanes is rather moot if both cases end up with a house that burns to the ground.  I haven't seen any studies that the WTC would have survived an internal fire after the physical damage it suffered and I think that needs to be found first (it may already exist, I just haven't seen it).  --DHeyward (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DHeyward makes a useful point. Any study, now or then, would have a starting set of assumptions, and the study would be valid only for those assumptions. WTC did withstand the impact of airplanes similar in size to a 707, moving at even higher speed than assumed,but succumbed to the effects of fire, which for better or worse were not considered. The buildings survived long enough to allow those occupants who could to escape. The "aftermath" section doesn't discuss the changes to building codes and design practices that were subsequently made to address the problems that prevented those trapped above the impacts from escaping, the failure of fire suppression systems, and issues of control in firefighting operations. We ought to have a short discussion of the changes to building design and construction practice (and perhaps fire-fighting practice) as a result. I note that the Oklahoma City bombing led to significant changes in structural engineering practice to prevent or limit progressive structural failure, but the article hardly mentions them. I wrote the article on Winecoff Hotel fire in part to discuss the impact that that disaster had on design practice.  I'll look into a few resources for design consequences.   Acroterion   (talk)   13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From the article, references #8, #9 and #12 all provide information regarding aircraft impacts, with #9 being a statement by Robertson. They are all in the Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts section near the beginning of the article. The BBC link I provided doesn't really help expand the section much. We may be able to use the existing references to expand on the issue, but like DHeyward has shown, there will always be only so much engineers can do to increase the structural integrity of any building if its faced with a catastrophic disaster scenario. Its inportant to avoid speculation and original research...the studies if any that were performed to see what kind of survivability the buildings had if they were struck by an aircraft flying at modest speeds and lost in the fog don't seem to have been documented well...probably because the discussion never went far as it was a less likely scenario than most that a high rise might face in the same environment. I don't know if they ever looked at the potential damage that might be caused by someone driving a bomb laden truck into the basement levels either, but thats what happened in 1993 of course.--MONGO 16:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say tack the BBC video onto the end of the first paragraph, after those now numbered 8 and 9. Also and separately, the "claimed...however" should be re-worded, and maybe details taken out including "lost in the fog...low speed...seeking to land" to shorten that paragraph. But, it's not really critical and I can be content either way. Tom Harrison Talk 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we are over thinking it a bit. Adding a line such as "while the impact of a 707 was considered during the design phase of the buildings, designers did not take into account the fuel that would have been aboard". Or we can just add Robertsons actual quote. So it's more of a "lets point out what they didnt consider" addition which would fit because of the curcumstances that the buildings did come down from. I mean I'm not fanatical about adding it, but considering Leslie Robertson literally said, "the fuel loads were not considered, I don't know how they could be", and combine that with the fact the buildings did indeed collapse because of the fires which were mostly started from the jet fuel, then I think it makes a valid reason to add that quote or line to the article. Just a thought.66.87.128.208 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's my paragraph above. Zdawg1029, doing this on my phone and not logged in.66.87.128.208 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One other point: the fires were started by the jet fuel: they were sustained by the contents and furnishings, as the kerosene burned away relatively quickly. I believe NIST deals with some of those issues.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm posting simply to correct some claims made above. Leslie Robertson did not do an official study into the affects of an aircraft impact. His study was the "lost in fog looking to land" scenario with a speed of 180 mph Acroterion mentioned above. According to Robertson, he did the study on his own time to satisfy his curiosity. Considering Robertson is the only source for this study as he claimed that he had lost it and that no one else had ever seen it or even heard of it's existence before 2001 I cant see him being a RS. Skilling did the official study. NIST found a three page white paper discussing the parameters of the full 20,000 page impact study, a fully laden 707 hitting the tower travelling at 600mph. In 2001, Skilling said the study included the expected fires although he could not remember to what degree they were modeled. Skilling's study was destroyed in the collapse of WTC1 and the copy was destroyed in the collapse of WT7 so the white paper is the only evidence for the studies contents. Unless I'm mistaken NIST discussed the white paper in NCSTAR 1-2 p302. All this is already in the article although I think Robertson is given too much weight. Wayne (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NIST doesn't mention Skilling but did say they had a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stating that impact of a 707 flying at 600mph was considered in the original design phase and that such an impact would not have caused the buildings to collapse...but the full report wasn't available for them to reexamine it for its accuracy. This is a common conspiracy theory ploy to suggest that the building collapse was due to more than the aircraft impacts and the resultant fires. NIST wasn't able to reevaluate the original documents for their accuracy or integrity and its likely they would have found the reports to be lacking in engineering understanding, possibly due to improvements in various disciplines since the early 60s that would have allowed current engineers to do a more accurate assessment. NIST qualifies the one paragragh they devote to this with the caveat "Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial aircraft, and building codes in the United States do not require building designs to consider aircraft impacts."--MONGO 19:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also always wondering why the CTers always talk about controlled demolition...wouldn't the easier way to take the buildings down be by way of uncontrolled demolition? Like flying fully fueled commercial airliners into the buildings broadsides? Or using a bomb laden vehicle parked in basement levels...--MONGO 20:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theorists talk about controlled demolition because they believe what people on YouTube say. They watch a video that they think is convincing and accurate, but in reality, everything the conspiracy folk do are twist facts, take statements out of context, and flat out deny other evidence. They obviously don't know anything about how controlled demolitions work. I could go on for hours and point out a million reasons why it wasn't a controlled demolition, but that's not what we're here for, so as for adding the Robertson quote, it's up to you all. If you don't think it is reliable enough or worth mentioning then we can leave it out. My proposal at this point is just adding the quote he says in the BBC documentary though.Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur...that seems fine to me.--MONGO 22:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Zdawg1029 and MONGO's comments above. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay so just to clarify, are we concurring to adding Roberton's quote? Or that conspiracy theorists are crazy?Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify - yes add the quote, although still think the conspiracy theorists are crazy! Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Agreed. I'll add it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright I added it, if anyone has any better way of doing it then what I did then by all means go for it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur for adding for historical purposes and not keep it out because of CT nonsense. I wanted to be sure that the account and reasoning are in line historically and not as some failure of diligence by engineer/architects (like the skyscrapers in Spain that forgot to include lifts).  I didn't want it added just like adding a statement on whether or not the government has "magic thermite" is irrelevant as why they collapsed.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Article poorly written
This article is poorly written and not up to the usual WP standards. The intro is one languorous long sentence with too many second/ third order details that need not be in this sentence if at all.

Then there are numerous cases of poor choice of words such as "peeling off and separating away" and "remained standing for some seconds":
 * "The result was the walls peeling off and separating away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[53] Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for some seconds before they also collapsed themselves.[12]"

I would gladly work on this, but in my experience, pages are locked for a reason - invariably they have owners that monitor and revert whatever they don't like so I am staying away. There are many more passionate than I about this subject who can effect the necessary changes. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hardly call something that is displaced by 500 feet "peeling away"
 * A few seconds does not qualify as "remaining standing"


 * I disagree about the opening sentence, it sums up what the article is pretty well which is the purpose of it. And the core of the North Tower is visible after the rest of the building collapsed for between 10-15 seconds, so it is accurate that it remained standing for seconds. However I do agree some things could be written better.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition of an "Other Investigation" that is not a "conspiracy theory"
user:MONGO deleted an addition of mine, contributed on October 27, 2013, calling it a "conspiracy theory." My addition, under the subheading "Other Investigations," was this:
 * "Although the NIST report states that the agency "did not look for evidence of explosives" being used in the World Trade Center catastrophe, a team of chemists and physicists headed by Niels H. Harrit of the University of Copenhagen published in 2009 the finding of the pyrotechnic material nanothermite in dust samples from the World Trade Center site.  The editor of the publication at the time was Marie-Paule Pileni, an international expert in nanometric materials."
 * user:MONGO labeled his/her reason for deletion, "Conspiracy Theory," but when asked would not explain it further and referred me to this page. Just as the NIST investigators, I think people who don't want to examine (and further test) the evidence of the Harrit team have taken absence of explosives (better called "pyrotechnic materials," because they are not necessarily loud) as a premise and have sought (creatively) to explain the rapid collapse of the three WTC buildings soley by other factors.  They refuse to question their initial assumption that "there were no explosives," calling any other assumption out-of-hand "impossible."  There is nothing conspiratorial about asking a scientific study to examine its assumptions.
 * Yes, the scientific integrity of Bentham Science Publishers has been called into question. The article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories cites an article in Library Journal by Norman Oder (footnote 11), but I have read this article and it has nothing to do with Marie-Paule Pileni's reasons for resignation as editor.  See Neils Harrit's interpretation.
 * Yes, NIST addressed pyrotechnic material in response to comments, but only after their "Final Report," and not in their investigation.
 * A brief word about motives: I have little doubt that most of you (and those using other mass media) who want to suppress the 9/11 "conspiracy" theories believe you are being sensible and patriotic. The USA could convulse in a political crisis if this evidence were taken seriously.  I do not seek political crisis for its own sake.  (Take the French Revolution, for example: I think the world emerged better off, but that was after some serious chaos.)  I want future generations to live in a world where powerful interest groups -- apparently with some degree of consent by elected leaders -- know they cannot sacrifice thousands of US civilians to instill the fear necessary to make them take their assigned role on the world stage. However, in my addition to the Wipikedia article, I'm addressing scientific evidence, not motives.  We must understand what happened on 9/11, and not let other questions about who, how, and why blind us to what.
 * The information I added added on October 27 to Collapse of the World Trade Center does belong there under the subheading, "Other Investigations." I'd like to hear other thoughts.Stickler4accuracy2 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a conspiracy theory from a self published source...it only costs an average of 800 dollars to publish in that "journal"...if they can get it published in a real engineering journal then it might be room for inclusion.--MONGO 00:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with MONGO's comments. Provide a reliable source and not from a "journal" with paid entries. David J Johnson (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if the source isn't as objective and reliable as CNN it just isn't allowed in Wikipedia, mkay. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Fails to include expert opinion and evidence contrary to NIST
This article implies that all competent engineers, architects and fire officials believe the conclusions of the NIST report. That is simply not so. Check for example AE911Truth.org.

The only mention of significant disagreement with the NIST report conclusions is summarized in "Conspiracy Theories" with this dismissal:


 * According to a 2006 poll, 16 percent of American adults believed that the World Trade Center may have been destroyed by controlled demolition rather than resulting from the plane impacts.[102] This idea has been rejected by NIST, which concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers. "When asked why NIST did not test for explosive residues, NIST spokesman Michael Newman responded that NIST saw "no evidence saying to go that way."[103][clarification needed]"

One of the Twin Towers had been previously attacked in 1993 with explosives planted in the basement by terrorists. That prior attack is more than enough reason to investigate the possibility of explosive residues. The reported failure to do so undermines the credibility of the NIST investigation and it's conclusions. Such an omission in the investigation justifies the inclusion of opposing analysis and additional documented evidence such as reported at AE911Truth.org and other sources.

This article is highly biased toward the correctness of the NIST report and ignores many of the serious criticisms. It also implies that only non-expert members of general public believe that their may be an alternative explanation for the building collapses. Explosives could very well have been planted ahead of time by the terrorists. After all, the attack was a carefully planned conspiracy. Carl Hitchon (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * AE911 Truth is a fringe organization in the architectural and engineering professions; Wikipedia gives fringe views due weight, which in this case must amount to very little, given the absence of published, peer-reviewed research by conspiracy theory activists.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The "fringe" characterization seems pejorative. Do you mean that it is fringe because the majority of architectural and engineering professions are not signers of the petition demanding a competent investigation? That is simple to explain. Professionals are very likely to be attacked as insane or even traitors if they disagree with the NIST report. Few professionals will take that risk, but nevertheless many have. Calling AE911Truth.org "conspiracy theory activists" is a simply using another pejorative to discredit alternate theories. In fact they promote no theory except that the buildings were in part destroyed by explosives. Such explosives may have very well been planted by terrorists as part of the attack. At the very least the article should include some statements concerning the existence of professionals such as architects, engineers, scientists and demolition experts who disagree with the NIST conclusions.

One would have to believe that the NIST investigators are psychic to rule out of the possibility of explosives without even testing for them. That in itself casts serious doubt on the competence of that investigation which this article cites repeatedly. There is at least one scientific paper claiming the detection of "nano thermite" and byproducts in samples collected from various places nearby. It is not even mentioned.

Are all references included in this article "peer-reviewed research"? If not, according to your stated criterion, they should be removed. The NIST investigators refused to release their computer model of the structural failure. So can the NIST report itself be considered peer-reviewed?

This article undermines the concept that Wikipedia can discuss controversial topics fairly. Carl Hitchon (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum: it presents information in proportion to its coverage in mainstream, reliable sources according to the guidelines and policies above. The Bentham "paper" is a letter, and Bentham is not a reliable source.The NIST report remains the most rigorous investigation of the structural events associated with the WTC; whether or not the model has been reviewed does not change that. There is nothing remotely comparable from the Truther camp.This is no differen t from Wikipedia's coverage of autism, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, or any other matter in which there are controversies, conspiracy theories or fringe views. We do have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That response does not address the issue at hand - the weakness of the NIST investigation as a "reliable source" when it failed to even test for explosives (according the article itself) and also refused to allow peer-review (actually any review) of it's computer model.

In your argument above (which apparently proposes exclusion of any references to sources in disagreement with the NIST report) you state that "the NIST report remains the most rigorous investigation of the structural events". However, the NIST report does not address any part of the collapse following the "initiation of the collapse". Thus the report is at best incomplete. It leaves important unanswered questions about the collapse. The term "rigorous" is not a reasonable characterization, even if NIST is the only formal report.

Other experts claim that the NIST explanation of the collapse is inadequate and that explosives must have been involved; these sources identify shortcomings in the NIST theory. That is certainly worthy of mention and references, considering the failure of the NIST investigation to even test for explosives and the unprecedented completeness and speed of the collapse of these steel buildings.

Classification of planted explosives as a "fringe view" or a radically different "conspiracy theory" from the widely accepted one is not justified when the investigation that this article primarily relies upon failed to test for explosives in spite of the fact that one building had previously been attacked by terrorists using planted explosives. This article does not meet Wikipedia standards because it fails to mention and provide links to sources that question the NIST report's conclusions in spite of that report's clear failure (as outlined) to qualify as peer-reviewed or rigorous. Carl Hitchon (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you mind sharing with us any reliable sources that criticize the NIST report? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly who are these "experts"?  Acroterion   (talk)   13:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You are asking for a straw man to hack at. I will not engage in such a debate. I will simply say this: there are copious documents written by professionals in various fields available on the internet that cast doubt the conclusions of the NIST report. Many can be found via AE911Truth.org. If you want to find more, type 911 into Google search. Their are numerous interviews with experts who describe weaknesses in the collapse theory. The section on "conspiracy theories" is currently a dead end. It does not even provide a link to another article in the Wikipedia itself that addresses what those theories might be. Even if you declare all such theories as unsubstantiated, their existence and the fact that 16% percent of Americans believe them is relevant to this article and that section in particular.

The failure to even mention and provide a link to the large body of disagreement makes this article fail to meet Wikipedia standards and suggests undue bias. Carl Hitchon (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The section on conspiracy theories does provide links, to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Then it goes on to say, "According to a 2006 poll, 16 percent of American adults believed..." Tom Harrison Talk 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I noticed those links this morning. I don't believe they were present yesterday and I see note of an edit which occurred late last night. Is there any way to determine what was changed by an edit? Thanks. Carl Hitchon (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At the top of the article's page there's a link labeled View history. From there you can view and compare older versions. Tom Harrison Talk 20:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Those links minimally satisfy my complaint. However, I was a bit shocked at the credence that this article bestows on the NIST investigation when it failed to even test for explosives and only claimed to explain the failure of the structure at and above the fire zone and concluded that led to the "inevitable collapse". That is surely not to be considered a complete or rigorous investigation but is sadly the only one we have save FEMA. The article strongly marginalizes any views in disagreement with NIST as "conspiracy theories". In fact, the discussions at AE911Truth.org do not present any specific new theory about conspirators but simply assert that explosives were also required to account for the collapses. Carl Hitchon (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless you're going to say what you want to see in the article, and produce citations to reliable sources to support that, there's not much more to be said. Tom Harrison Talk 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * AE911Truth.org...is a conspiracy theory promoting organization.--MONGO 03:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a pejorative to dismiss criticism of the NIST report. There are many professionals who have criticized the investigation and it's conclusions. As I have amply argued, the NIST report is neither complete nor rigorous. Many failings of the report have been pointed out. Yet this article completely dismisses all criticism as from "conspiracy theorists" which in the public vernacular these days means "nut jobs". I'm going to propose a new, brief and conservatively worded section that points out that the report has been criticized and provides a direct link to said criticism. I need a little time to compose something.

Regarding requirements for validity of referenced material: This article references material that has been discredited. One example is this reference ("How the World Trade Center fell". BBC News. 2001-09-13. Retrieved 2006-07-28.) which states "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." The theory that fire "melted" steel is not supported by science and is contrary to the conclusion of the NIST investigation itself. Moreover, this article points to several different theories of the collapses, the most recent of which is the aluminum/water theory. Each of these theories is different. The NIST report itself purports to prove that a collapse was initiated by fire, but provides scant information to explain how that collapse could progress through the intact structure of 80% of the towers at nearly free fall speed. It also provides no physical evidence from the building components to confirm the claimed steel temperatures were reached in the fire. An absolutely obvious alternative explanation is that the buildings were in part brought down by planted explosives, such as what was attempted by terrorist in 1993. It is quite clear that a theory that explosives were involved is plausible and was never ruled out by actual evidence in the NIST report. Thus theories that explosives were involved and evidence supporting that conclusion are not a priori incorrect and deserve fair mention in this article. Carl Hitchon (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and propose whatever you want. Some editors have explained to you why the article doesn't dwelve into ridiculous and preposterous fables about controlled demolition at the WTC. You have all the appearances of being here to do little other than to promote fringe nonsense...perhaps another venue would be a better place to push such issues, but here at Wikipedia, we don't give much room to such stupidities.--MONGO 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are demonstrating substantial bias which reflects the point I am making about this article. In science no possibility is ruled out a priori; evidence, analysis and confirmation are required. Your belief that something is "ridiculous" or a "preposterous fable" has no place in a balanced presentation of views and no weight whatsoever as evidence. Yet you argue that the opinions and analysis of many architects, engineers, demolition experts and scientists should be forbidden direct mention or, must be mentioned only in the context of ridicule. That type of argument for the suppression of dissenting expert opinion is fallacious and contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. Carl Hitchon (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for a new section to precede the "Conspiracy Theories" section.
 * Criticism of the NIST Report
 * Some professionals have criticized the NIST report and propose that pre-planted explosives are required to fully explain the collapses. They point out that the NIST investigation did not test for explosive residues, in spite of a prior terrorist attack with explosives in 1993 on one of towers. They suggest that the NIST explanation of the collapse is incomplete since the detailed analysis in the report ends with the initiation of the collapse. They also propose that evidence of explosives has been overlooked. Some such critical articles and papers can be found at AE911Truth.org.

The proposed section does not suggest that such theories are correct. It only indicates that such dissenting professional opinions exist and where some can be found.

Concerning the "Conspiracy Theory" section, it would be more appropriate to include some truly unfounded theories such as the "energy beam" theory, the theory that a missle rather than an airplane hit the Pentagon, the theory that flight 93 was shot down and the like under that pejorative heading. Carl Hitchon (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That would require citation to a reliable source. Tom Harrison Talk 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These "professionals" have no standing in the engineering community and their opinions have been universally refuted by reputable engineers. Repeat...AE911Truth.org is a conspiracy theory organization.--MONGO 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are giving considerable credibility to a fringe organization that enjoys no credibility within the architectural or engineering professions, nor in reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on coverage in mainstream media and sources to establish weight and credibility. You seek to water down "conspiracy theory" to "criticism," implying that the critics have standing within their professional communities. They do not.   Acroterion   (talk)   04:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand slightly, since you appear to be relying on assertions of professional credentials, there appear to be no members of AE911 Truth who claim significant experience or professional standing in the design, structural performance or fire performance of tall buildings. In particular, there appears to be a general misunderstanding in their writings of the critical differences between static loading and dynamic loading, which is not surprising, since architectural and general civil engineering studies focus on statics, leaving detailed study of dynamics to mechanical and aeronautical engineering. This means that AE911 is attempting to interpret phenomena that are near or beyond the limits of normal professional training and experience, while claiming no more than a basic level of professional qualification.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your evidence is that they have "no standing in the engineering community". Are you saying Rich Gage is not an architect who designs fire proof steel buildings and is not a member of the American Institute of Architects? Are you saying that Steven Jones is not a physicist? On the other hand you credit Zdeněk Bažan who is a Civil Engineer with special expertise on dynamics even though you dismiss that same training as insufficient?

I don't believe there is a misunderstanding about dynamics versus statics at AE911Truth.org. They are well aware of that argument but very far from convinced that it explains what happened. The generality of your condemnation of other experts amounts to declaring that anyone who disagrees with collapse theories referenced in this article is incompetent. You claim that you rely of "mainsteam media and sources to establish weight and credibility" and then include an article stating that the fires would have melted beams and floors. That has zero credibility.

One must conclude that this article is heavily biased defense of a flawed investigation and it's conclusions. The presumed editors utterly refuse to lend any credence whatsoever to any expert opinion or any evidence that is contrary to the conclusions of the article. What are you so afraid of that you must slander all disagreement with your designated experts? Carl Hitchon (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these "experts" have had their work published in reliable peer reviewed scientific and or engineering literature...its all self published and self vetted on that website you keep promoting...in other words...unless you can show where their misinformation has been substantiated by reputable peers, you're simply wasting everyones timeMONGO 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation of "How the World Trade Center fell". BBC News. 2001-09-13. is used in support of "This is because the fires were originally said to have "melted" the floors and columns." and is 100% credible as source for the statement. If the members of AE911Truth.org et al. ever produce any findings that are reported via WP:RS then we shall include them. To date they have produced only speculation. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's heavily biased toward reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. Zdeněk Bažan, in fact, is an expert, and has published numerous peer-reviewed papers on the subject of the static and dynamic performance of materials and structures. I don't question the professional competency of the members of AE911 (despite your attempt to put words in my mouth). I am pointing out that the subjects on which they comment lie outside the boundaries of normal professional practice on which professional certifications are based. To take an example from other professions, cardiologists do not normally comment on endocrinology, yet both are medical doctors, and patent lawyers will not undertake a criminal defense case, yet patent lawyers and criminal defense attorneys are members of the bar. You ask that "expert" status be awarded on the basis of a general professional qualification. You provide no sources beyond self-published analysis, which are not admissible here.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And Bazan must then be a specialist in "fire induced collapse of steel buildings"? Bazan has written several papers (which are cited) that claim to explain a progressive collapse. (You don't site a couple of rebuttals submitted as comments on the paper.) It appears that NIST relies on the Bazan explanation for the collapse. In the references I see no evidence that his explanation is endorsed by an overwhelming majority of experts. I cannot find a reference to an independent analysis that supports Bazan's. It seems to come back to that single source who published, only two days after 9/11, an explanation of a collapse that fire officials thought impossible (steel building totally collapses due to a 1 hour fire and near the top).

This is not really going anywhere since it is clear that any direct reference to a dissenting opinion will be excluded and smeared as a "conspiracy theory". It's just a disappointment to find that Wikipedia cannot be counted on for some semblance of neutrality. Carl Hitchon (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See....World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories...that is where the information you which to see on Wikipedia is already at.--MONGO 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You could try this template, it can work wonders sometimes! Template:Toofewopinions, produces tnis:

74.110.232.82 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As a longtime skeptic of dubious claims (particularly claims made concerning scientific issues), when I see a remarkable claim being made, I often want to dig deeper to find out if substantiation exists, or if the evidence indicates that it's more likely just nonsense or error. The recent claim that neutrinos were observed to have traveled faster than light is a good example of an extraordinary claim; I've been watching that one closely and studying the issues involved. Many improbable claims have been made in association with 9/11, coming from a wide variety of sources; some official and some independent. The extraordinary claim which raised my eyebrows more than any other was the claim that Building 7, a 47 story steel and concrete high-rise, fell in its entirety from office fires alone. "Extraordinary" in that this is something which has never happened before to any high-rise building of similar construction(ref), despite many cases of fires occurring in such buildings; some far more intense and/or prolonged than the fire in Building 7. In contrast, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about a hypothesis that such a building was destroyed deliberately; such demolitions are routine. What is troubling in this Wikipedia context is that the extraordinary claim is being treated essentially as gospel, while a non-extraordinary competing hypothesis is treated in a very derogatory manner; largely excluded from the article and branded with the pejorative term "conspiracy theory". I have no objection to the "official" explanation being given prominence in the article; this is in conformance with due weight. However, in the interest of neutrality and encyclopedic practice, I propose that Wikipedia should not present (what is in effect) strong condemnation of a non-extraordinary hypothesis while giving complete favor to an extraordinary one. Improving the balance does not require much change to the articles, and does not require any violation of conformance to Wikipedia policy. Nothing requires that the alternative hypothesis be labeled "conspiracy theory" here; it would be perfectly acceptable to simply document it as "alternative", and present the pros and cons as given by reliable sources. Wildbear (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the buildings collapsed solely due to fires...all were compromised by high speed jet impacts and or thousands of tons of falling debris. There are no reliable sources which the conspiracy theorists have gotten their viewpoints published in a reputable engineering or scientific journal...calling these idiocies "alternative" would indicate that they have some verifiability and they don't. The conspiracy theorists who are promoting this nonsense range from hucksters trying to make a buck by creating websites and advertising their non peer reviewed books for sale, to downright uneducated buffoons. We're not here to promote fringe nonsense in a mainstream fact based article and if you persist in such an effort then you need to be topic banned.MONGO 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence the building was destroyed deliberately and, other than good science, there is nothing strange or extraordinary in the NIST report. Given the evidence, the fact that WTC 7 was the first failure from fire alone is not very extraordinary and several previous incidents are discussed in the report. For example: One Meridian Plaza suffered significant structural damage from fire in 1991 and was never re-occupied...

 Fire-resistance rated construction features, particularly floor-ceiling assemblies and shaft enclosures (including stair shafts), failed when exposed to continuous fire of unusual intensity and duration. ..snip.. Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. ref: TR-049, U.S. Fire Administration.
 * Being a fully constraned space-frame it was saved from collapse. WTC 7 was not of the same construction...

 If the fires in First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, the Cardington Test Building and WTC 7 generated comparable gas temperatures, and of the four buildings cited only the WTC 7 building collapsed, the reason for the different outcomes likely lay in differences in the structural systems and the details of how the steel frames were constructed. Although all four buildings have been described as “steel frame structures,” comparison of construction features between the three buildings that did not collapse in an uncontrolled fire and WTC 7 revealed the following differences: ref: NIST NCSTAR - 1-9, pg 341.
 * Simple framing connections for girders in WTC 7 vs. fully restrained moment connections of girders-to-columns in the One Meridian Plaza and First Interstate Bank buildings;
 * Floor beam spans up to 16 m (52 ft) in WTC 7, rather than a maximum of 9 m (30 ft) in the other structures;
 * Asymmetric framing in WTC 7 (providing one-sided lateral support to girders) rather than regular floor framing (providing two-sided lateral support to girders) in the other three structures (Section 8.6);
 * Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in two of the other three structures; and
 * Seated connections used for girder-to-column connections in WTC 7; NIST found no evidence that such connections were used in the First Interstate Bank and Cardington buildings.
 * The facts are actually pretty simple. Alternative speculation devoid of WP:RS is accorded zero WP:WEIGHT. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, I can only say that the uniformity of the WTC 7 collapse (following the penthouse crease) and the 105 feet of free fall are extraordinary. It is indeed very difficult to explain and that explanation is of tremendous importance in building design. It would be nice to see the NIST computer model and an independent simulation that can make this convincing. That however is not provided.

Wildbear, it's clear what is going on here. No one can challenge the official explanation without being labeled an "uneducated buffoon". For every piece of evidence presented and opinion asserted contrary to the NIST report you can find this type of name calling. The purpose of course is to discredit any rational difference of opinion altogether. It nearly always comes down to name calling, although sometimes only milder claims are made that amount to "anyone who disagrees is unqualified". In fairness, non-emotional arguments are made above to bolster the NIST claims about WTC 7.

Extremely important evidence is completely ignored by NIST. It is a transparently shabby investigation that concludes that it is "unnecessary to test for explosives" because "this is no evidence that explosives were used". A very strange circular argument. In fact fire investigation standards require looking for evidence of explosives whenever this degree of destruction occurs.

Because I express the complaint that the article lacks neutrality, I am threatened with being "topic banned", even though I have made no attempt to edit the article itself. There is obviously a lot of emotional attachment to the theories presented in the article. Any suggestion that they are incorrect leads to a torrent defensiveness, rather like that which occurs when religious beliefs are challenged. Well for my own part, I understand that it will not be possible to argue against the bias in this article.

It is pointless to continue. I have learned something however. There is a powerful campaign afoot to squelch independent analysis of the events of 911. Perhaps the source of this campaign is innocent anger from people who think critics are denying that we were attacked by terrorists. Indeed I personally have no doubt that this was a terrorist attack and that it was planned by Islamic terrorists. However, the evidence reveals that there was more to it than planes hitting buildings. On the other hand, the campaign of slanderous remarks may not be innocent, but rather part of a funded effort to suppress investigation and support the government's version of what happened on that day. It is very hard to tell. Perhaps it is a combination. In any case, I must give the people who have contributed to this discussion the benefit doubt and assume they are simply so emotional about the events that they have lost their objectivity. Carl Hitchon (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing you want to add is going to be added because you won't/can't produce reliable sources for it. Tom Harrison Talk 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Carl, this isn't a playground...this is a serious encyclopedia effort...we're not going to turn this article into a joke to accomodate preposterous fables...there are other articles that do discuss these fruitcake ideas...I even linked one above.MONGO 19:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you will determine that any source I give you is unreliable (based on your previous statements).

MONGO, it is very serious when you ridicule all contrary evidence; that is childish. Editors here appear to welcome any theory that comes along, e.g. the new aluminum/water explosion one, so long as it does not involve explosives per se. The aluminum/water theorist states this: "I believe that it is overwhelmingly probable that the theories regarding the cause of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 are wrong." But it's OK to reference that in this article, right MONGO? You allow this new theory that NIST is wrong and powerful explosions are in fact required to explain the collapse? What's not OK to say is that there is any possibility that explosives were planted. Your neutrality is fake and the criteria for admittance of references are firmly biased against one particular theory.

To make one final point. Pressures applied to prevent publication in journals of theories involving explosives are enormous. Even the attempt to publish such theories is career threatening and possibly worse. Similarly, pressure is applied here to maintain the bias of this article. That these pressures are so high is itself thought provoking. Carl Hitchon (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:VNT. While you're at it, review WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAPBOX. Unless you can provide citations to reliable, verifiable, neutral sources, your "theories" remain exactly that: theories. Therefore, they have no place in an encyclopedic article. Now, please drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. It was beaten to death years ago...severely enough that ArbCom imposed general sanctions regarding the editing of articles related to September 11, broadly defined. Consider this your first, final and only caution regarding this matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how the controlled demolition theory is a conspiracy theory. Yes, it is a fringe theory. I suggest to list it as such. "Fringe" does not equal "conspiracy." To label it as "conspiracy" only indulges the fantasies of conspiracy theorists. The articles on the ae911truth website might be self published, this however does not invalidate them as conspiracy theories see: WP:FRINGE - the methods used in, for example, the article "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis" by G. MacQueen and T. Szamboti, appear to be falsifiable, (fairly easily) reproducible, and based on existent, and valid theories. Does this not make them reliable in the minimum required sense? justpassingby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.169.47 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this does not make them reliable...


 * A few of the problems...
 * 1. The source is "published" in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which has no reliable publication process, peer-review, etc, etc.
 * The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis by G. MacQueen and T. Szamboti
 * 2. Tony Szamboti is not regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.
 * Tony Szamboti, Bachelor’s degree, Mechanical Engineering, Villanova University. Prior to that he worked as a machinist and manufacturing engineer in industry, and as an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy. Since 1990 he has worked as a design engineer in industry, performing structural and thermal design, analysis, and testing to ensure survivability of antennas and equipment for use on ships, aircraft, spacecraft, and communication towers. Member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
 * 3. Graeme MacQueen is not regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject (not even in the same field).
 * Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D. in Asian religion and literature, Harvard University. Now retired, he taught at McMaster University in Canada for almost thirty years. He was founding Director of McMaster’s Centre for Peace Studies and directed peace-building projects in several war zones, including Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.
 * 4. Zdenek P. Bažant is, by any measure, regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.
 * Professor Zdenek P. Bažant, C.E. ("Civil Engineer"), 1960, Civil Engineering Czech Technical University; Ph.D., 1963, Engineering Mechanics Czechoslovak Academy of Science; Postgraduate Diploma, 1966, Theoretical Physics Charles University; Docent (habilitatis), 1967, Concrete Structures Czech Technical University; 7 honorary doctorates (TU Prague, TU Karlsruhe, UC Boulder, Milan Poly, INSA, TU Vienne, Ohio State); ASME Timoshenko, Nadai & Warner Medals; ASCE von Karman, Newmark, Biot and Croes Medals; SES Prager Medal (amongst others); Registered Structural Engineer (S.E.), since 1971; Author of more than 450 articles in refereed journals; ISI award of Highly Cited Researcher; Currently McCormick Institute Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Material Science and Engineering at Northwestern University.
 * 5. Fringe does equal conspiracy...


 * —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is over, and perhaps I shouldn't chime in so late, but Carl Hitchon's edits here strike me as a quintessential example of how Wikipedia policy is misused. 9/11 was an extraordinary event.  The obvious response is that WTC7 is the only building in history to have to support 47 stories of weight after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building by falling debris, and then left to burn for 7 hours.  But most high rises also have a concrete inner core or concrete-encased outer columns, or both.  The WTC did not have either.  There are countless examples of steel-framed structures collapsing from fire, even without tons of debris or airplanes being crashed into them.  In April 2007, sections of Interstate 580 collapsed from fire alone.  In 1997, three several-story buildings at the Kader toy factory in Singapore collapsed completely, from fire alone, in less than 2 hours.  In 2000, the fire-affected parts of Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia collapsed in 20 minutes.  In 2005, fires broke out on the steel-framed Mumbai High North Platform, causing it to completely collapse in less than 2 hours.  In 2005, the 32-story Windsor building in Madrid caught fire; all 11 steel-framed floors totally collapsed from fire alone (even though the rest of it did not!).  9/11 was certainly the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed from fire, but it is also the only time that a steel-framed skyscraper with unprotected steel burned unchecked for a prolonged period of time.  Thus, you could say that 100% of steel-framed skyscrapers with unprotected steel that burned unchecked for a prolonged period of time collapsed.  And even more important is the fact that the New York City Fire Department predicted WTC7 would collapse, as did media all over the world, and they said so on camera many times.  The very idea that anything was "suspicious" or "surprising" about the collapse is an absurdity.  It's a transparent attempt to rewrite history by ignoring the laws of physics, but the firemen had no time to indulge in such fantasies.  Even though a controlled demolition is quite literally impossible, given that the explosions resulting from one can be heard many miles away and there's no possibility that enough explosives could have gotten past security and everyone working in the building (and first responders did not find even the slightest trace of such explosives), to Carl Hitchon that is irrelevant.  He doesn't need to provide evidence for his theory; it's up to everyone else to convince him that he's wrong.  9/11 was just too incredible an event for him to accept, so he finds ways to simplify and rationalize it, which he assumes are automatically more plausible.  The same thing is true of Holocaust deniers.  The most amazing thing about Carl Hitchon's rant is the simple fact that it is a microcosm for all the flaws of Wikipedia:  The way he tries to appear neutral, while advancing a radical agenda; the way he agrees to make "concessions;" the way he asserts that the real extraordinary claim is that controlled demolition was not the cause; the argument he makes that any opinion on the Internet deserves equal respect and has equal validity; the refusal to specify "the many sources" that support his perspective.  I cannot tell you how grandly Wikipedia's most obscure fringe articles have been misused by comparable extremists citing "reputable journals" that turn out to be neo-Nazi blogs, or how widespread pseudoscience like Carl Hitchon's is on some Wikipedia articles.  There are editors who are incapable of neutrality and balance, and who pretend to pass off their baseless assertions as undisputed fact, and this is a major problem on Wikipedia.  Until some point in 2012, for example, the Wikipedia article on CIA activities in Iran stated that the US and UK orchestrated the Iranian Revolution of 1979 to get a better oil deal and surround the USSR with hostile Islamic states.  I find the warped logic and pseudoscience on display here to be a chilling look into the mental acrobatics and psychology of those that make such edits.  And I love the way justpassingby innocently asks why his beliefs qualify as a conspiracy theory.  Few conspiracy theorists consciously think of themselves as conspiracy theorists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "This discussion is over"... why is that? Because you don't like the way it's going? You criticize someone for providing references that meet the requirements of Wikipedia policies (even when other content in the article is referenced dubiously) and yet you waffle on about why you think he's wrong without any references yourself. Morons like you are why Wikipedia is losing it's credibility as an true and objective information resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @ TheTimesAreAChanging. Giving strawman arguements is not helpful and serves to invite arguements rather inform editors regarding what they can use in an article. Equating people who believe conspiracy theories with Holocaust deniers is simply a WP:PA. Several steel-framed skyscrapers with unprotected steel have burned unchecked for far longer periods of time than the WTCs did without collapsing. There is only a single example of a burning steel-framed skyscraper collapsing that I'm aware of, and that collapsed due to construction defects. It is quite within the realms of possibility that this was the case with the WTC but the lack of an adequate investigation makes this impossible to determine now. That the Fire Department or media predicted WTC7 would collapse is irrelevant as they are not engineers. The fact remains that real engineers were surprised that the buildings collapsed and there were a host of suspicious aspects that can easily be misinterpreted. The fact that NIST have declined to be peer reviewed is suspicious as such a review should invalidate many of the conspiracy theories. They may have an innocent reason for not being peer reviewed, we dont know. Many engineers have declined to comment on what they think because they fear the implications on their jobs and have said so. They are not pushing "conspiracy theories" unless asking for a proper independant investigation can be called one. There is at least one peer reviewed engineering journal that has heavily critisized the NIST and argued that other factors may have been involved. Those engineers that have publicly commented are in fact a minority.
 * @ Carl Hitchon et al. Regardless of the inadequacies of the official account, conspiracy theories such as demolition are fringe and belong in the 911 conspiracy theories article. This page is for what is known and per due weight should have no more than a short paragraph stating the fact that conspiracy theories exist and perhaps a see also link. Instead of trying to add conspiracy theories to this article perhaps look at improving the conspiracy article. Wayne (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Regardless of the inadequacies of the official account"... "perhaps look at improving the conspiracy article". Or, I dunno... perhaps look at addressing the inadequacies of the official account. If the official account was as bulletproof as many here claim there would be no conspiracy theories in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, on two points.
 * Carl is correct. Unless some reliable source comments on inadequacies of the "official" account, we may not.  In articles about conspiracy theories, we can comment on the content of those theories, provided a reliable source reports on them.
 * If the official account as "bulletproof" as the reports on the Apollo program, there would be no conspiracy theories? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are people out there with ideologically fanatical hatred of government that will make up any story they can to try to peddle their beliefs (just as there are those with ideologically fanatical hatred of anyone who questions the official 9/11 story), but there are also sane experts that are trying to answer questions using scientific approach and justified reasoning. The whole problem with 9/11 is the lack of what you would consider to be reliable sources that address the inadequacies of the official account. Nobody wants to touch 9/11 with a ten foot pole because it is a political and legal hot potato. Everyone knows that things don't all add up, but as soon as anyone merely asks a question they are accused of being an unamerican unpatriotic conspiracy nut terrorist. Your comparison with Apollo is just stupid for two reasons; 1 - Apollo occurred in the height of the cold war, and anyone who thinks that it was a purely scientific endeavour is an idiot. 2 - The evidence is almost 400,000 km away out of range of pretty much every non-government controlled optical telescope. At the end of the day, 9/11 was an act of terror, and as such should have been treated as a crime scene, and it wasn't. Due process wasn't followed, and everyone, including the families of the victims, deserve for the holes in the official account to be filled. If you or some other government agency can't fill them, at least there are some out there (call them conspiracy nutters if you want) that are making an effort. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point 2 on Apollo is faulty. There were no (US) "government-controlled" optical telescopes (Hubble is the first); there are private telescopes which could verify that something is on the moon, even if they can't image it; and there are definitely private radios which could (and did) determine that the Apollo broadcasts were coming from the Moon.  And you seem to be implying that Wikipedia is a government agency.  I don't fully agree with the rest of your reasoning, but I can see your point, although there are still no reliable sources even discussing any anomalies in the mainstream reports.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Having read the long-winded comments above, I think it is time to state the obivious. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, which relies on well sourced facts from respected sources and not fringe theory persons and publications.  The various articles on the 9/11 attacks are balanced, there is even a page on "conspiracy theories" and that is where the most of the fringe comments above should be.  I now wait for someone to state that I am a agent of the CIA, MI6 etc: sorry folks - I'm not, but don't let that stop you. David J Johnson (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is that this article does not even include NIST's own statements regarding conspiracy theories, even though they were included in the official reports as part of the key findings of the investigations and were noted prominently in NIST's FAQs on the reports. Per WP:FRINGE, such interest from the most widely-publicized investigation into the collapse would make it apt to include something about it, but the long-standing material covering the CTs was deleted a year ago without any prior discussion. There was no credible concern about POV, just much shouting of WP:UNDUE because a small group of editors wanted to enforce their own biased views on what WP:FRINGE allows.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Convenience Break
I read both the Bezant and the MacQueen/Szamboti arguments and neither give conclusive proof. Bezant in "What Did and Did Not Collapse in WTC Twin Towers in New York" argues that TNT wasn't possible, but doesn't consider nano-termite and says evidence of it is "anecdotal." MacQueen/Szamboti argue that the impacted section of the WTC towers would have had to fall as a block and with a jolt would've caused the larger, undamaged portion of the building to collapse. But, analyzing video of the collapse of the North Tower, there was no sign of a jolt, which would've involved a deceleration of the fall. In this manner, Bezant's argument is refuted.

Despite MacQueen and Szamboti's lack of credentials, their refutations are sound. Can someone produce evidence to the contrary? If not, then why are Bezant's arguments allowed so much weight?

Despite Bezant's heavily mathematical arguments and credentials, he doesn't clearly demonstrate his point and is somewhat easily refuted. This Wikipedia article relies on him heavily and it appears that the NIST does as well. I think that this Wikipedia article should be rewritten so that it is clear that at the present time, there is no clear proof or consensus. Doing less is biased and gives an incorrect impression to the millions of people who are reading and will read this article that the progressive collapse theory is sound. AllxMxPx (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)AllxMxPx


 * So without reading this giant textbook of a TALK page section, what are you proposing? That this entire page be rewritten to basically say "there is no real clear proof or consensus as to how the Twin Towers collapsed"? Is this what you are trying to say? And your reasoning for this is that there are some people who say it didn't happen the way we've been told?Zdawg1029 (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "there is no real clear proof or consensus as to how the Twin Towers collapsed" is possibly the most objective outcome that can be drawn from the source. I realize that synthesis is not permitted, but if we are trying to put together an intro for a notable article with multiple conflicting reliable sources, what else can you state but that the sources are conflicting? I second a motion to include some kind of statement in the lead regarding conflicting sources. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly the above contribution from 203.129.23.146 is nonsense and just another attempt to insert conspiracy theories into a Wikipedia article. Until there is creditable evidence from recognised bodies, rather than self appointed "researchers", the article should remain exactly as it is. David J Johnson (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly the above contribution from David J Johnson is nonsense and just another attempt to insert his own agenda into a Wikipedia article and suppress objective and reliably sourced information. As there is already creditable evidence from recognised bodies (as discussed above), the article should be revised to cite those sources objectively rather than picking and choosing snippets to suit the agenda of Mr Johnson (amongst others). 203.129.23.146 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we supposed to write encyclopedia articles based solely on authority? If that's the case, we had might as well begin writing entries for the catechism of the Catholic church. Even though Bezant has more authority, he doesn't prove his case. Our Wikipedia article, on the other hand, gives a very strong impression that he has. This isn't acceptable. AllxMxPx (talk)AllxMxPx —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bažant is but one of the authorities that have proved their case. Please feel free to improve the article by citing any of them. Here's the short list for your reading pleasure...

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST)

 * NIST Leads
 * S. Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. (NIST) — Lead Investigator
 * Richard G. Gann, Ph.D. (NIST) — Final Report Editor; Project Leader, Project 5: Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment
 * William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D. (NIST) — Associate Lead Investigator; Project Leader, Project 4: Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems
 * H.S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) — Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices
 * Richard W. Bukowski, P.E. (NIST) — Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices
 * Fahim Sadek, Ph.D. (NIST) — Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
 * Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D. (NIST) — Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
 * John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) — Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis
 * Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) — Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis
 * Jason D. Averill (NIST) — Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications
 * J. Randall Lawson (NIST) — Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines
 * Harold E. Nelson, P.E. — Fire Protection Engineering Expert
 * Stephen A. Cauffman (NIST) — Program Manager


 * NIST Citations













































































































Steven KirkpatrickRobert T. BocchieriRobert W. CilkeMarsh HardySamuel HolmesRobert A. MacNeillClaudia NavarroBrian D. PetersonJustin Y-T. Wu; Martin Klain; Peter BarrettMichael BakDaniel FridlineJames J. Kosloski; John Wivaag; Marcello Oliveira; Ramon Gilsanz; Ed BudnickMike FerreiraMark HopkinsMatt HulcherAlwin KellyChris MealyJohn SchoenrockSteven StregeKaren Dawn Tooren; Ajmal AbbasiEduardo KauselDavid ParksDavid SharpDaniele VenezianoJosef Van DyckKaspar Willam; Paulette Kaminski; Norman Groner; William J. FaschanRichard B. GarlockWilliam C. HowellRaymond C. Lai; Rita FaheyNorma CandeloroJoseph Molis; Guylene ProulxAmber Walker; Johanna ZmudCarlos ArceHeather ContrinoChristopher FryeNancy McGuckinSandra RodriguezDella SantosRobert Santos; Ray GrillEd ArmmTom BrownDuane JohnsonBob KeoughJoseph Razz; Jacob GrossmanCraig LeechArthur Seigel; John EichnerCheri SawyerLori AckmanMarina BogatineSydel CavanaughKathleen ClarkPamela CurryJohn DiMarzioHeather DuvallMark HuffmanCharlotte JohnsonMichael KalmarMark MadaraWalter SoverowPaul UpdikeYvonne Zagadou; Mehdi ZarghameeGlenn BellSaid BolourchiDaniel W. EggersÖmer O. ErbayRon HamburgerFrank KanYasuo KitaneAtis LiepinsMichael MudlockWassim I. NaguibRasko P. OjdrovicAndrew T. SarawitPedro Sifre; S. K. GhoshAnaldo DerechoDave FanellaXumei Liang; Bill BakerBob SinnJohn Zils; Shankar Nair; Fred HerveyJoseph TreadwayMark IzydorekAldo JimenezWilliam JoyJohn Mammoser; Andrew WhitakerAndrei ReinhornJoshua Repp; Virginia BartotMartha van Haitsma; Dennis Mileti; Jamie Abelson; Ray TideJim HauckConrad Paulson;
 * NIST CONTRACTORS
 * Applied Research Associates, Inc.
 * Baseline, Inc.
 * Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
 * DataSource, Inc.
 * GeoStats, Inc.
 * Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
 * Hughes Associates, Inc.
 * Independent Contractors
 * Isolatek International, Inc.
 * John Jay College
 * Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P.
 * National Fire Protection Association
 * National Research Council, Canada
 * NuStats, Inc.
 * Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
 * Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.
 * Science Applications International Corporation
 * Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
 * S. K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.
 * Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP
 * Teng & Associates, Inc.
 * Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
 * University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
 * University of Chicago Survey Lab
 * University of Colorado
 * University of Michigan
 * Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles



 * Enjoy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles like these is the reason why college students can't use Wikipedia.
The fact that you boldly state "The planes were hijacked by Arabs and the towers fell from fire alone and not by explosives" is such an abomination. At the very least, write "NIST reports that The planes were hijacked by Arabs and the towers fell from fire alone". The fact that we college students can't use Wikipedia as a viable source because pages are biased is such a disgrace. Of course, that's not all Wikipedia's fault, but it's articles like these that got us here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.209.14.25 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * College students can't use Wikipedia because college students have no business sourcing their work to any encyclopedia, period. At that level you need to use secondary or primary sources, not a tertiary source like Wikipedia. As for your concerns about the lead article, Wikipedia states and reflects mainstream sources and mainstream media. Neutral point of view includes description of fringe theories for what they are. However, I do think that the lead protesteth too much.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)