Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

[edit] old

Some, however, speculate that it was decided by Larry Silverstein and the FDNY to demolish the building after the damage it sustained.

Larry Silverstein, who held a seven-week-old lease on One and Two World Trade Center and who had built World Trade Center 7, claimed in an interview that he, jointly with the New York Fire Department, made the decision to "pull" Seven World Trade Center, also known as the Salomon Building, and which was then the headquarters of the crisis and disaster command center for the mayor of New York City. Although this may refer to the decision to "pull" coverage of the building by firefighters in order to concentrate work on rescue efforts and other less damaged buildings with available water supplies, some claim that it is an obscure definition of "pull" which means to intentionally demolish a building. Details of how this intentional demolition was accomplished vary widely by theory, with some claiming that the explosives were pre-set weeks before the attack on Silverstein's orders.

Well, indications are Silverstein did say it. And somewhere there's a recording of a fireman saying the same thing. You'd better ask a city fireman what "pull" means to them. (Any readers in NYC?) (Firemen do knock buildings down, even ones not actually burning, if they figure it's needed to stop the spread of fire -- that's one of a Chief's powers, at least in Nova Scotia -- and that can be done by cutting the cornerposts, attaching a cable, and "pulling". Obviously that's not the method on a 47-storey steel-frame, but the euphemism may be the same. The questions would then be -- at the least -- if the building was in such dire straits, who went in to plant the explosives; why have all other controlled demolitions taken months to "pull" off; and how come FEMA couldn't find out this was the cause?)

In other matters, here's an interesting letter from a UL guy to a NIST guy about the likelihood of the observed fires collapsing the towers. "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans." (The "Link to Original" is broken =/) Kwantus 17:56, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to Leslie E. Robertson Associates

For the record, approximately five weeks ago I invited staff of Leslie E. Robertson's company (Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P, www.lera.com) to refute the critical statements made in this article of his WTC design. The invitation has been ignored. The text of my email invitation follows.

Greetings,

I am a writer for Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia at http://www.wikipedia.org. I am about to revamp an article in the encyclopedia dealing with the collapse of the World Trade Center. The current version of the article raises questions about your founder's choices in the structural design of the towers. The revised version will futher explore those questions. In the interest of fairness, I invite Lera to comment.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, editable by anyone. Superficially, this would seem to invite great chaos in the formulation of articles and a generally low prestige in academic, journalistic and professional circles. Although there is indeed some chaos in the writing/editing process, the result, in the majority of substantial articles, has been of surprisingly high quality. There have been documented cases of major media and even academic/professional publications using Wikipedia material as reference points, if not as references. In short, Wikipedia matters in general opinion formation today. In raw numbers, use of Wikipedia is on a par with entities like The New York Times On The Web, the online edition of The Wall Street Journal and the entire websites of Harvard University, Columbia University and MIT.

I felt some responsibility to send this email because Wikipedia's influence has risen to the extent that some real damage could be caused to your firm by the critical elements in this article.

You can view the article in question in its current form at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

A bit more than halfway into it, five major criticisms of the WTC's design are listed. I would be especially interested in knowing why you feel (if you do) that these criticisms are incorrect. If you are so kind as to provide me this feedback I will be sure to incorporate your viewpoints in the revised article. If you choose to do so, please communicate with me via the email address shown below. Alternatively, you can use the "Discussion" page for the article itself.

Sincerely,

JDG 19:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inacccuracies and misunderstandings about the 1970's aircraft impact calculations and 9/11 realities have been corrected. There is a big difference between an accidental (low-speed) collision and a deliberate ramming at beyond-Vmax speeds, because the kinetic energy changes on the second power relative to speed. Regards "etomcat@freemail.hu"

[edit] Regarding Larry Silverstein

A few additions:

Regarding Silverstein: NY Post -November 7, Page 24 By Sam Smith

Here is a quote: Silverstein spokesman Howard J. Rubenstein stated that "FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] conducted a detailed study and concluded that the collapse was caused by fires ignited by falling debris."

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=999

Why is Larry Silverstein's long detailed quotes about pull-it constantly being reinserted? This is a flimsy statement that no one can construe meaning of except Silverstein himself - they cannot be used in a court of law, they cannot point to any evidence, and the source being used - inn.globalfreepress - is primarily a conspiracy site, not promoting actual science.Bov 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The pull-it remark has gotten much more play than any other aspect of the collapse of Building 7. Someone first learning that there is a controversy surrounding Building 7 will likely first come across the pull-it remark, before learning that B7 was the first-ever case of the total collapse of a steel-framed highrise blamed only on fires, or that the collapse features match controlled demolitions. Will they go on and learn those facts? Maybe not if they land on any of these pages, which all come up first on a google search for 'pull-it', and which don’t discuss the physical features:

http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

http://www.vestigialconscience.com/Pullit.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69d.html

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Sprouts_Lehman.cfm

The pull-it remark figures even more heavily in sites debunking the claims of “conspiracy theorists”:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

http://pullit.info/

Most of these would lead the reader to believe that the pull-it controversy is the only issue about Building 7 highlighted by the “conspiracy theorists”. It’s the only allegation that the State De-partment page raises and attacks in its “Identifying Misinformation” page on the book ‘9/11 Revealed’

Thus the pull-it remark serves as a straw man, allowing conspiracy debunkers to pretend it’s the only disputed issue about the collapse of Building 7.

I suggest that the remark creates a smokescreen that makes it far less likely that people will become aware of the existence of and watch the videos before moving on, concluding that the Building 7 demolition controversy is yet another mirky conspriacy theory.

Bov 01:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

7 WTC was not the first time a steel frame building has collapsed from fire alone because it didn't collapse from fire alone. There was substantial damage to the south face of the building, in some areas as deep as 25% of the depth of the building. Many buildings around 1/2 were damaged from falling debris. 7 WTC was not immune. --Durin 13:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

>>There was substantial damage to the south face of the building, in some areas as deep as 25% of the depth of the building.

1) Show me the evidence of this damage. 2) Damage to one face of the building would not cause a symmetrical collapse at near free fall speeds (all columns going out simultaneously) 3) WTC7 was across the street from the other WTC buildings, most of which were only in bits and pieces by the end of the collapse event. In contrast, many photos show WTC7 virtually untouched after the collapses.Bov 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1) There's plenty of evidence in the NST studies. 2) Please provide evidence of your qualifications as a demolitions expert/structural engineer/or other field speciality that gives you basis for your conclusion in (2) above. Reality; the collapse sequence lasted nearly a minute, and was not simultaneous. 3) 7 WTC was not directly across the street from either 1 WTC or 2 WTC. A number of closer buildings suffered considerably more damage from the collapse of 1 & 2. --Durin 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Show me the visual evidence from the NIST study of damage to WTC7 showing bulging walls or huge fires -- there is none. There is one photo of a damaged CORNER that no one had previously seen, but other than that, we don't even know what information led them to conclude that there was damage in the regions they say there was. 2) My qualifications are a degree in architecture, worked previously for the firm now rebuilding the WTC, and possess common sense and a basic understanding of physics. 3) The sequence did not last nearly a minute - It is widely accepted that both towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. 3) Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. Thus, the phrase There was substantial damage to the south face of the building, in some areas as deep as 25% of the depth of the building. has no evidence. At the very least it needs an exact reference to the study it comes from. Bov 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Read :"NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster, Federal building and fire safety investigation of the world trade center disaster, Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse, April 5, 2005"...it is readily available via the internet and all you'll need to view it is Adobe Acrobat. There is a through detailed study of how it collapsed. It has plenty of accompanying images as well.--MONGO 19:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Kevin Ryan:

Kevin Ryan tests water not steel and the company has issued a responce and explained why Kevin Ryan was incorrect By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN Tribune Staff Writer

"Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires. "

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/11/22/local.20041122-sbt-FULL-A1-Area_man_stirs.sto

Also see:

Fire-induced core column shortening detected.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

Regarding the "secondary explosions" "Once movement begins the entire portion of the building above the area of impact falls in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air is pushed through the impact area, fires burning in that area are fed by new oxygen and are pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion. "

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html Italic text

[edit] Explanation of removal of 'Aircraft Considerations' rewrite

To the anon user who rewrote the section comparing the 707 with the 767, I apologize for in effect reverting your contribution, normally I would have edited and blended statements but I could not devote that much time to it today. I plan to revisit this article in the next few days and I will then incorporate some of your points in modified form. I felt it best to go back to an earlier version immediately, though, because I believe your leading points are very speculative, particularly your assertion that the WTC design team modeled aircraft at takeoff and landing speeds and considered only them in their assessments of what the Towers might need to stand up against. I have read a number of statements clearly showing that typical cruise speed was also factored into the analysis: indeed, the foremost precedent on engineers' minds was the crash of a large military plane into the Empire State Building some decades before in which the aircraft was not in either takeoff or landing mode... So, your paragraphs are there in the history and I will go back to them when I have time to do some real editing. JDG 00:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm the anon user that posted that comparison to the article. First, I know you didn't comment on the accuracy of my calculations of the kinetic forces at play. I do want to make clear though that I was very careful in my calculations and I am quite certain that my kinetic energy calculations are correct with the 707 at the speeds stated in the FEMA report vs. the speeds lowest suggested speeds of the 767s that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2. I have heard a number of people assert that members of the design team say it was designed to withstand a 707 at cruise speeds. However, to date I have yet to see any cite that confirms this. Thus your assertion is, without a cite, frankly just an uncorroborated opinion. I was careful to cite my original assertion precisely for this reason; it's generated debate in other forums before. Regarding the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building; the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building was indeed a plane lost in fog in downtown Manhattan. An account of this incident is here: http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm. As for it being a "large military plane", the size of a B-25 bomber is nothing to a 707 or 767. Both planes have more than 20 times the fuel capacity and are 10 times the physical size of the B-25. For now, I will leave your additional, uncited, commentary in the article. I beg of you to reputably cite it. If you can't provide a reputable cite that substantiates the claim, then please remove it. Durin

Fair enough. I will search for a good reference. My recollection is based on a TV interview I'm doubtful I can find a transcript of and a New Yorker article I'll probably need to go to a library to track down. Stay tuned. JDG 04:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been a month now. I'm removing your countering argument from the article. If you find supporting, citable references to support your claim, then by all means put it back in. However, without citable references, we have to go with the cited FEMA report which stated the design criteria being a 707 at a relatively low speed. --Durin 19:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this edit, but now we have an internal contradiction: on one hand the text (and accompanying table) says: a case can be made that the design team actually modeled an aircraft with greater kinetic energy than those which struck; but the next paragraph now says The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times the modeled 707 impact. Clearly both can't be true, at least as worded. I propose that the "a case can be made" paragraph and the table need to go, while the factual statements remain -- this isn't the place to advance hypotheses. Jgm 12:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove/reword it. If you don't get to it first, I'll get around to it in a few days/weeks. I've never liked the flavor of this section of the article anyways. --Durin 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll have to cede this for the moment. Haven't been able to get to the library. Please keep this article on your Watch list. JDG 21:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WTC was designed to withstand an approach speed collision.

"I have heard a number of people assert that members of the design team say it was designed to withstand a 707 at cruise speeds. However, to date I have yet to see any cite that confirms this." You http:heard wrong. The lead engineer said it was designed for a "slow flying" 707 "lost in the fog". [1] the NIST report quote Port Authority documents says the speed they calculated for was 180 mph. lenbrazil 201.9.173.206

[edit] 7X kinetic energy

Why would a plane flying twice as fast (IIRC it was estimated that the planes were flying at about 350 mph) impact with 7X more kinetic energy? lenbrazil 201.9.173.206

[edit] A few comments on featured article status

I found the article a little hard to read, probably because the bulk of the article ("1 and 2 World Trade Center") is not divided into subheadings.
The statement that an "apparently growing minority" does not feel the towers did well under the circumstance should be justified with some data. How many people (with an opinion that other people should care about) are we talking about? I realize it's very unlikely that data can be found on this (I envision monthly polls of structural engineers), but without data it's aggravating to read.
I immediately labeled as BS the speculation that "a case can be made that the design team actually modeled an aircraft with greater kinetic energy than those which struck" until I read the discussion page. To avert this reaction in other readers, the table might have an extra line with the calculated number of joules (I assume), just to show that someone has done the math to justify this line.
It is a leap to say that (a) the fact that the Boeing 747's eventual dimensions were known during the WTC planning (b) means that the performance of the towers was not admirable. It might mean at most that the planning was poor, which is still arguable.
Since this article is about the collapse, I sort of expected a timeline.

Tempshill 22:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- I agree with the above comments and would add a few of my own:
  - I am hesitant to support any article that uses the yin-yang construct (eg. "Some see [one thing]. . . others see [the opposite thing]") which is the weakest possible way to approximate NPOV. Specifically, the unreferenced calling out of the engineer by name is unfair and nearly libelous, IMO. In particular, the paragraph starting "After the aircraft impacts" is simply a mess; the kind of schizophrenic prose that is Wikipedia at its worst, not its best.
  - The word "radical" in the second paragraph is highly questionable; these buildings were, after all, designed in the 1960s and was never characterized as anything other than a solid design until after the attacks; by extension the entire article has a tone of unfair judgements in hindsight. Also, speculation on the content of an unreleased report seems questionable.
  - The section on the conspiracy theory regarding WTC7 just seems out of place and at odds with the factual tone of the rest of the article; in articles with similarly peripheral conspiracy theories (such as Space Shuttle Columbia disaster) the fringe stuff is covered in much less detail, identified explicitly as fringe thinking (with a link to conspiracy theory or moved to a different page altogether. Also, at some level this comes across as original research (that is, it seems to be one editor's analysis of material from the referenced PBS special) rather than anything directly referenceable.
  - The section comparing 707 to 767 is, by the editor's own admission on this talk page, essentially original research as well.
  - The technical description of the collapse sequence of 7 is, in contrast to the parallel description of the towers' collapse sequences, overly technical and difficult to understand. In fact, I'm not convinced that the demise of WTC7 is even within the intended scope of the article, which would seem to be better focused on the towers.
  - Minor nits: the first link in the article yields a pointless redirect; there are a few mis-usages ("their" instead of "there"); the word "Verizon" makes little sense as used; the term "hangman's drop" is, at best, unexplained jargon and at worst gobbledygook. There is no mention of the direct cause of the collapse (ie. impact by airliners) until deep into the article; part of the reason the article is difficult to read is that it does not effectively use news style.

Jgm 03:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm not going into a big defense of the article here. WikiP can take it or leave it as a FAC. I hope it's not just my ego talking, but I would have to say Jgm shouldn't be too high on anyone's list as a judge of good and bad writing. Let's just say I use WikiP as a sort of practice area and have solid credentials as a writer, including a number of awards. The paragraph he calls "simply a mess" and "schizophrenic" is actually, I feel, the best paragraph in the article. It manages to convey what I believe is the crux of the entire debate in a much clearer, concise way than is to be found almost anywhere. No, it is not standard "news style". It's more penetrating and thought provoking than that... The WTC 7 stuff is not mine and I'd prefer it be moved to its own article, but I didn't want to press for it... Gotta go, but I have to comment also on Jgm's statement: "The word "radical" in the second paragraph is highly questionable; these buildings were, after all, designed in the 1960s and was (sic) never characterized as anything other than a solid design until after the attacks". Totally wrong. Les Robertson was known as a leader in the early 60s of a new group of structural engineers proud to be mavericks and even "counter-cultural". Many an old-guard engineer shook his head over the plans for the Towers and there was open animosity between some of them and Robertson. If anyone expresses interest here, I'll back all this up. JDG 04:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Artisitic or professional rivalries aside, physics is physics. The buildings stood for 30 years and withstood one bombing. Details on the animosity you speak of, if documented somewhere, might make an interesting addition to the main article on the towers themselves; as part of this article, and in absence of any specific design criticisms pertinent to the potential for the type of damage that actually occured, it simply looks like scapegoating in hindsight. Congratulations on those awards, BTW. Jgm 05:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do I detect sarcasm about the awards, or perhaps doubt? They were far from Pulitzer Prizes, Jgm old boy, but they do serve to remind me that I know how to write (I'm one of these ppl whose entire self-confidence sometimes goes bon voyage unannounced and for no apparent reason, so it's good to have something outside of the floundering self to grab hold of). I bring them up because they back my dismissal of your criticism of the prose itself, and that leaves your real problem with the article: its questioning of the structural engineering work done on the WTC. I can understand that. I was taken aback when I began getting into heavy reading about this in early `02. Structural/Civil Engineers aren't supposed to be whipping theories around like a bunch of campus philosophers or avante-garde artists. And yet, since the early `60s, those at the top of the field have been doing just that. And these theories don't go into final exam questions or hang on the wall of some boho gallery, they go into tremendous structures wherein we live and work. You wanna be scared and there's no thriller movie on cable tonight? Google the history of Citicorp Center (now CitiGroup) at Lex. and 53rd in Manhattan... My health and prior commitments are keeping me from doing a real piece on these issues for publication. Fate willing, I'll get to it a ways down the road... So no hard feelings I hope, Jgm. But if you have problems with the assertions or tone of an article, focus on that rather than a supposed poor prose quality. Of course, you're right that the prose here is not standard reportage (and, now that I think of it, there's barely a sentence I've written in it that has gone unaltered by others), and many might agree with you that classic "news style" is best for this sort of topic. I happen to feel that a more exploratory style is best. But let's understand we're debating prose type and not prose quality. We could all do with less insults around here and it's more productive anyhoo without the egos flying. JDG

FWIW, I do think you have the makings of an interesting magazine article, as much about the politics and drama in the architecture world as about the WTC. The problem is in trying to make an interesting magazine article into a useful and fair encyclopedia entry. I am aware that the WTC design was controversial at the time of its construction (as much or more for asthetics than function, though); it's the concomitance of these issues with the collapse of the towers -- implying that the designers were somehow negligent -- that is beyond the pale for an encyclopedia article, let alone an FA. But, anyway, my intention was not to debate you, only to help improve the article and the 'pedia using the existing processes (although once the article goes off FAC status I may make a few edits to resolve my own points). You put the article up for FA status, which implies a certain willingness to address the issues raised, and at least two of us have raised such issues. If your response is going to be "take it or leave it, your concerns are not valid because I am an Award-Winning Writer", then we don't have much else to discuss. Jgm 20:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New information

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal:

"The hijacked airplanes that struck the World Trade Center hit with such force that the resulting explosions blew the fireproofing off the steel columns, accelerating heat buildup and weakening the structural core -- contributing to the towers' eventual collapse, according to a report issued Tuesday." [2]

The article should probably be updated to reflect this. →Raul654 03:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FEMA Report on building 7

"Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of 7 WTC. The study was released in May of 2002. The study specifically concluded:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in 7 WTC and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."[7]" (added emphasis)

It seems self evident to me that if they admitted themselves that the best hypothesis they could come up with had "a low probability of occurrence" then the investigation was not as "extensive" as it needed to be. --Blackcats 23:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been easier, then, to just remove the word "extensive" rather than adding the "dubious" tag without any discussion or attempt to address here; an action which weakens the article rather than improving it. Jgm 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Touche! Next time I shall be more bold. Blackcats 04:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] www.serendipity.li

I've removed the link to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm because the page at that URL is disingenuous at best. That page makes no attempt to compare construction techniques of the various buildings and any studies that were done regarding the structures before/after the fires. Furthermore, later in the page the page attempts to separate damage to the buildings and the resulting fires from each other as joint causal factors. It is blatantly obvious that the WTC towers would have withstood the fires they endured, or the crashes they endured. Trying to separate these causal factors is, in the least, intellectually dishonest. This is not uncommon for conspiracy sites, which is precisely what the above URL is. I do not see how it contributes to the article. If you think it does, then show how. --Durin 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Until a reason is given (This is about the collapse; 7WTC collapsed; why should it be removed and merged into another article?) for a merge, I'm removing the TWO merge statements from this article. --Golbez 13:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm for creating an entire article devoted to the 7WTC collapse. I'll be frank: I consider the material on the possible design flaws of WTC 1 and 2 to be a serious consideration of a serious question with serious ramifications. To have that material followed by a discussion of what is in all probability an empty "urban legend" diminishes the former. The WTC 1 and 2 material is strictly about engineering issues while the 7WTC material is about purported nefarious human plots. These are two separate themes and belong in two separate articles. I'll be back to do the surgery in a few days. If someone posts a real argument for keeping the current arrangement, I'll discuss before doing anything. JDG 04:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jones paper

I've cleaned up and integrated the newly-added information on the Jones/BYU paper to the existing "conspiracy theory" section; in doing so I've had to broaden the scope of the section beyond just WTC7 (since Jones starts there and moves on to 1&2). Not sure whether this is the right thing but I am loath to have two such sections in the article. Glad to discuss. Jgm 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well youve certainly managed to change Jones into a looney conspiracy dissident, congratulations on that twist! What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory? I find it totally misplaced. --87.72.52.192 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I "twisted" things beyond correcting the horrible grammar and spelling; can you elaborate? Jgm 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

yes i'm not good at spelling and my native language is not english. But can you answer my question: What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory? --87.72.52.192 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For your information this is what I wrote:

Other Hypothesises

In september 2005 physichs ph.d. Steven E. Jones from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, released a paper titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"[3]. In it he goes through the demolition hypothesis, and among many other qestions, he askes why this hypothesis hasn't been investigated at all. This paper is now accepted for publication.

On 22th of september, he presented his conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) "to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology. After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed." --87.72.52.192 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You se, Jgm, because many people associate conspiracy theories with eccentric individuals and faulty reasoning, labelling an argument a conspiracy theory may be an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it, leading some to consider the term pejorative and controversial in application. So when you put Jones paper under the headline "Conspiracy Theorys ..." you will have to convince me that his paper is a conpiracy. Otherwise it should go under a different headline, such as "Critique of the official investigation" or as I wrote "Other Hypothesises" (If there is a spelling mistake, I'll be happy if you help me out). --87.72.52.192 19:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so your concern wasn't with my rewrite but where I put it? OK, I think I agree that heading the section "conspiracy theory" is POV, but it also must be mentioned that such views are out of the mainstream. Take a look at the new section title and intro paragraph and tell me what you think. . . Jgm 19:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, its a better heading, but Jones paper is not presented with the right focus as it is. Youre still putting him into the same group as other dissidents, and this frase "Although the obvious cause of the buildings' destruction -- the result of damage and fire due to the impact of the hijacked jetliners -- is widely accepted, some alternative theories have been proposed, particularly regarding the collapse of WTC 7. Since many of these alternative hypotheses imply collusion and/or coverup on the part of a significant number of parties, they are generally considered fringe or even conspiracy theories." is not especially NPOV to alternative hypothesis, do you think?

I also miss something about this: On 22th of september, he presented his conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) "to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology. After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed."You se, that's a strong OK from the academic society --87.72.52.192 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He is, in my view, right in line with the "other dissidents". In fact the list of key points made by dissidents (already in the article) fits right in with the points made in his paper. NPOV means stating the facts without commentary, not giving all possible theories equal stature -- in this case it is important to frame the information by indicating the fact that the vast majority of experts accept the standard hypothesis. As to the "total agreement" thing, that was the interpretation of a fringe website report of a talk the guy did and therefore not encyclopedic -- now, if an actual academic society came out with a published position on his work, that would be another story. I am open to changes in wording or approach here (and in fact would welcome help from other editors experienced in working controversial issues). . . Jgm 21:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly dont want Jones paper to have as much space as the official explanation, and it never was the issue here. But you've removed the essence of the statement of his paper. And even though his paper is stil listed as a conpiracy theory, as stated in the frase below the heading, you haven't answered my first question: What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory? To have a peer-review, as he did, and find that strong agreement to have another investigation of the WTC incident, among a large number of academics and professors of enginering, mathematics and physicists, is a point worth mentioning. (if it's a fact that vast majorities of experts accept the official explanation, I would like a link to that, cause I've mainly found that there are a lot of it who is still being debated).--87.72.52.192 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jones paper is linked and summarized, there is no need to repeat it in point-py-point detail here. Jgm 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And that is not what I ask for. Why wont you answer my question?--87.72.52.192 14:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What question? Jgm 14:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What makes physics professor Steven E. Jones' paper a conspiracy theory?--87.72.52.192 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thought I had answered this via this edit: Since many of these alternative hypotheses imply collusion and/or coverup on the part of a significant number of parties, they are generally considered fringe or even conspiracy theories. Jones' paper implies collusion and/or coverup on the part of a significant number of parties; that's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory. Jgm 16:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So does the official hypothesis. But I don't agree. Jones paper does not implies anything. He just list the facts, and askes questions. You have to be more specific than that, or else every hypothesis regarding 911 could be labeled conspiracy theory. --87.72.52.192 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Jones proposes the ". . . hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives." Of course such a claim implies conspiracy. Jgm 20:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me se if I've understood you correctly: Jones paper is a conspiracy theory because his hypothesis implies collusion and/or cover-up on the part of a significant number of parties. And what then differs his hypothesis from the NIST hypothesis?--87.72.52.192 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow - how do you think the NIST report/hypothesis implies conspiracy/coverup? Jgm 22:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Doesn't both the Jones and the NIST hypothesis base these on the conspiracy of some terrorists, who covered up their plans before acting them out? Or do you think that NIST operates with a hypothesis where nobody conspired and everything was out in the open?--87.72.52.192 08:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuts to Controlled Demolition section

I made some significant cuts to this section, which was becoming as long as the remainder of the article, and which had devolved into a debate without references. There is no reason to try to argue both sides here, simply stating facts is sufficient (there are links to the reports on both sides for those who would like to form their own conclusions). Jgm 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with most of these, reinstated two key items (but condensed them in accordance with your approach), hope you are OK with this. They seem relevant factually, but I have tried to avoid making them appear advocative as well, and kept it brief, as you comment above. FT2 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice one, Jgm, I'm happy now. One tiny change I don't think is very controversial -- the fact they footprinted is not considered implausible (it's well documented). Rather, its the idea they would all have footprinted unaided which theorists consider implausible. I've added 3 words to fix that diff. Hopefully thats that. Nice edits on the other stuff BTW, and I agree with your removal of my term "pancaked", it's better to describe it that way, and the term "squibs" that might be disputed. FT2 03:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps you (or someone) can take a look at the recently-inserted description of the Jones paper as "peer-reviewed". I think the academic world uses this term in a pretty specific way, a vetting of final versions of papers prior to publication. The Jones paper appears to be in a state of almost constant flux and was claimed some time ago to have been accepted for publication, a claim that has since disappeared, not typical attributes of an academically peer-reviewed paper; moreover, I've read and reviewed enough papers to find it difficult to believe that any academic peer review would let major portions of the Jones paper survive as written. I'm willing to discuss here first, but unless someone can cite a particular Journal review or other formal peer-review process that this paper survived, I plan to remove the qualifier "peer reviewed". Jgm 12:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Be bold and remove it. Conspiracy theory enthusiasts have, are, and will continue to try to force various conspiracy theory connected articles on Wikipedia to show their pet theory. We must hold the line, insist on reputable cites, and remove uncited, speculative garbage. --Durin 15:09, 9 December 2005

Agreed with Durin. The statement of the demolition case is done. It's either peer reviewed or not. If it is peer reviewed, we should be able to see who and where by, and if not then remove it or at least reduce it to a "claims to be". Neutrality over all..... FT2 23:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's peer-revieved and approved for publishing at Elsevier, Amsterdam, according to Prof. Jones hinmself on fx BYUNews http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724. The server is down at the moment but the cached version is here http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:-rvGs4qEea4J:newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724+censor+rumors+quelled&hl=en

He states in the article “My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.” --87.72.52.192 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jones claims to believe a lot of things. His peers and superiors at BYU seem to disagree, having released a statement[4] saying in part: Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." As someone else said, we'd need to be able to reference when, where, and by whom this supposed peer-review occurred to be able to present it as fact. Jgm 13:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect your motives jgm :) You write: "Jones claims to believe a lot of things." Why on earth should he lie about that on BYUs own NewsNet? I find it hard to believe that a professor who have been so for the last 20 years, would go and make a false statement like that. He is actually saying that NOW (december 5.) "The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate". To know when, where, and by whom, well isn't that a bit unessescary? --87.72.52.192 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't speculate on Jones' motives. As I wrote above, "peer reviewed" has a particular meaning in academic circles, and, in this case, those who are in a position to judge have explicitly declared that Jones' work has not been peer reviewed. By the way, I suggest you create an account to aid in collaboration. Jgm 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What you are claiming above is not accurate. Two men from Fulton College said they where not not convinced Jones analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues [5]. They said so in november 2005. They NEVER said it had not been peer reviewed.

On the 5. of december it is said that the peer-review "has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." [6]. So why cant we mention that the paper - and that's a paper - not a page by the way (why do you keep refering to it as a page??) has been peer-reveiwed - and certainly now is going to get peer-reviewed for one more publishing? --87.72.52.192 07:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the current explaination of Jones' paper is accurate (that is, it doesn't make any unverifiable claims). It's not at all clear to me that the paper posted online is in fact the same paper he says was peer reviewed. I suspect it's not; the paper online doesn't read like a journal submission at all. BYU, at least, thinks he submitted the paper somewhere where it would not recieve enough scrutiny. Therefore, it's prudent to wait so that we can say exactly was peer-reviewed and through what journal. We're not trying to cover anything up here; he and his page remain in the article. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is actually quite amusing, you are both neglecting that the peer-review has now been found appropriate, and that in the first paragraph of the paper it says "In this paper ...". --87.72.52.192 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The commonsense reading of a professor stating his paper has been peer reviewed, and a university saying they are "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review" is quite possibly that:

The paper has been peer reviewed, but the university, aware of the controversial nature of its findings do not wish to seem to back it. They want to slightly dissociate from it.
The university, either genuinely, or as a manouver, is claiming "okay it was peer reviewed but it wasn't peer reviewed to the standard we set." This can either be genuine (if it was published by a second-rate source), or faux (because anyone can claim "well the review wasn't good enough so it doesn't count"), or that because of the controversial claims the university wants it to have a higher standard of review than it presently has.
The professor is mistaken, misled or lying. Given observations above and the styling of his statement, plus the fact such a lie would obviously be found out, a lie seems less likely, but the mistaken belief it is reviewed and passed is not unheard of academically.

It's worth noting that much of his paper is a summary of points from sources that are credible and peer reviewed. For example, his observations on molten metal, the citations on the temperatures reached and inadequacy of jet or diesel as a source, the citation that the report calls this a less-than-adequate explanation itself, and the testimony of explosions or similar at the base of the buildings, and much of the actual paper, is third party sourced and verifiable. FT2 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And? Whats the conclusion? To me its obviously a paper, released on BYU website. Referring to it as a page (as it is done in the article here), is simply incorrect. And it has been peer-reviewed, so why cant we mention it? --87.72.52.192 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (reinserted - why was it removed? --87.72.52.192 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Split

I plan to move all 7WTC detail to a new article soon. Any objections? JDG 07:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree: I don't se why it should be split away from this article. Building Seven was part of WTC, namely the 7th building of the WTC complex.--EyesAllMine 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands is not too long. Maybe it would be better to expand the section in place. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just read Professor Steven E. Jones paper entitled: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" located at : http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm

I assume as he is so well received here, as a reliable source I should perhaps start reading the book of Mormon, due to the fact he also pushes the theory Jesus Christ walked in North America.

[edit] Asbestos Coating

I see no coverage in this article of the issue concerning the asbestos coating of the structural steel in the building, which was cancelled after some floor in the 60's, as the environmental problems with asbestos became pressing. The engineer who designed that particular coating system was quoted in the press as saying that if the coating had been in place, he would have expected the buildings to stand. Whether that's self-serving or not, I think it merits coverage. Any reason it's not already there? Was it pulled?
--Baylink 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it was removed because it would show a reason for the whole event, since it would be impossibly expensive to remove the asbestos, and unthinkable to openly demolish the building, hence, if there were someone groping for a reason that the WTC would have been 'attacked by other than foreign terrorists', then that would provide a reason. If you get my drift... Pedant 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing these lines again. "and several experts including NIST (2005, pp. 176-177) concluded that such fires would have reached only a small fraction of the high temperatures needed for collapse. "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not..." (Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle, working with NIST: reported by Field, 2005)."

First of all they don't have to do with Building 7. Second NIST did not "conclude that such fires would have reached only a small fraction of the high temperatures needed for collapse", In fact NIST stated "Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires." If you want to add Dr. Frank Gayle comments somewhere else go ahead. ScottS

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"--EyesAllMine 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. As NIST also states "Over 170 areas associated with 21 exterior panels were analyzed, and the results may be found in app E of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. "These 21 panels represent only 3 percent of the panels on the floors involved with the fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors." On the core columns tested they stated "Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of the general conditions in the core." Also see my other post from the South Bend Tribune article from November 22 ScottS67.126.201.177 19:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So the only thing we and NIST knows for certain is that there is no evidence off temperatures beyond 600 degrees celsius, and because of missing material it is not possible to conclude much about the temperature on the basis of the samples. So that is surely why NIST is stating ”At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)--EyesAllMine 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Gayle quote

ScottS removed a quote from Frank Gayle, even though it was cited - saying it was "incorrect." I have restored it and provided a direct link to the article where he is quoted, so there can be no justification for removal now. Blackcats 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I see no supporting claims for this statment "concluded that such fires would have reached only a small fraction of the high temperatures needed for collapse" from Gayles quotes or pp. 176-177 of NIST report, see my previous talk under the Asbestos Coating section, regarding temp claimsScottS 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Removed comments considering they don't support claims. Also see previous talk. I have no problem with added the quotes themselves. Just put them in the right spot, and don't make unsupported claims about them.ScottS 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)The "hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence" seems to be refering the the total diesel hypothesis, NOT the fire/collapse. If you read the FEMA report its states that fire (started by debris) was the likely cause.ScottS 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory

All attempts to malign "non-official" theories of the WTC "collapses" as "conspiracy theories" violate NPOV. ALL theories of the WTC are conspiracy theories. To single out and brand certain well-founded scientific criticisms of the official theory with perjorative monikers is yellow journalism at its most obvious. It is an unarguable fact that 9-11 was a conspiracy, it is only a matter WHO exactly, and HOW and WHY. PLease clean this up, and either remove all mentions of "conspiracy theory" or identify the story about 19 hijackers as a "conspiracy". 69.238.209.182 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see no evidence based on fact that would lead me to believe that there was any conspiracy regarding the events of 9/11.--MONGO 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

mongo, you're kidding right? supposdedly osama b laden masterminded a conspiracy of 19 or 20 hijackers, right?

No, I'm not kidding...it is already clear Osama was behind the embassy bombings in Africa, so we are only talking about a difference of locations.--MONGO 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the actual report?

In the article this sentence is missing a link to the actual report an a description of the findings:

"The final report from the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July of 2005 [7]."

--EyesAllMine 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse not studied

Niether the FEMA, nor the NIST, nor the 911 commission studied the collapse of the WTC towers. They all have studied events up to the point when the towers "were poised for collpase", but NOT the collapses themselves. I have removed sentences which claim that the collapses have been "studied by structural engineers" etc. These claims need to be referenced.

69.238.209.182 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the following -

[quote]However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic as the temperature rises.

Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way. This is something of a tautological argument, however, because the lightness and hollowness of the towers were prime factors allowing the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate so far inside in the first place. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts. Debates between engineers have looped along this circular cause-and-effect chain: collapse certainly would not have occurred without the fires, but the fires may not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft— debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings and/or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which themselves would not have been unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers may have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[/quote]

This lacks foundation, no references. It would be much better to enhance phrases like "intense heat" with some actual temperatures, with references. The statement "Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way." is just wrong, sorry. No steel framed building has EVER collapsed from fire, except on 9-11. Please, save the bald-faced assertions for some rag, not Wikipedia.

69.238.209.182 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory article. Those porporting that there was some controlled demolition to the buildings are so much in the minority that it would have required the coverup of hundreds of people to have pulled this thing out. Your dealing with a fantasy on your part.--MONGO 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

zsing, tom harrison, sorry. The FEMA and NIST absolutely do NOT study the collapse itself. The planes, the fires, the heating, the trusses, YES. The collapse, no. Big difference. Please supply references.

And the statement that "any steel of any building would have degraded the same way" is just plain wrong. There are many examples of far worse fires that do not collapse steel buildings. It has NEVER occured outside 9-11. This is wholly improper, and Zsing, you are out of line.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6, in the abstract, says one of their objectives was to determine why and how the WTC collapsed. Later in the report in chapter nine, the sequence of events includes the collapse itself, with extensive detail about how it happened and what caused it. I cannot easily copy and paste because of security restrictions in the document (pdf), but anyone can read it and draw his own conclusion. The NIST did study the collapse itself. Any steel of any comparable building would have responded about the same to the same kind of damage. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why is NIST stating "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.)

So I am missing references for this statement from the article

Structural engineers and architects in the United States and elsewhere have extensively analyzed the collapse, sometimes contentiously, to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault.

Who has "extensively analysed the collapse" ? Sources please. --EyesAllMine 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading NIST NCSTAR 1-6 from NIST and the World Trade Center, it is clear to me that NIST did study the collapse itself in detail. The FAQs about NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster confirm this:

The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the World Trade Center disaster are to determine:

why and how the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft...

The statement on the page, that "Structural engineers and architects in the United States and elsewhere have extensively analyzed the collapse, sometimes contentiously, to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault," is entirely accurate and well supported by citation. I invite everyone to read the report and make up his mind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you find they have met their own objectives then, when in the final report NIST are stating:

"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.)

And who are the "Structural engineers and architects (...) elsewhere" that have "extensively analyzed the collapse"?

I'm sorry, I've read the reports and I can't find a reference for that statement at all. --EyesAllMine 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm questioning the integrity of your argument. You're asking that we believe the work of pohysics professors and not of structural engineers and metalurlists. I am inclined to believe that you have a political agenda with your arguments, but am willing to admit that this may come across as rude, please don't take it that way.--MONGO 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's amusing actually ... you can't obviously not come up with quotes, so you're asking about my political agenda instead? All I want here is facts. Verifiable facts. I don't know much about pohysics though ;) --EyesAllMine 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I have to say that I find your lack of knowledge of physics to make me wonder why the word of one physics professor from BYU would have somehow pursuaded you that there was some coverup. You want me to spend time providing evidence that 95 percent of the world believes at least overall, compared to the 5 percent of folks that think there was actually some kind of controlled demolition. I don't have to prove substantiated evidence, it is up to you to prove the unsubstantiated and have yet to do so.--MONGO 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While the focus was right up until the collapse, NIST did study the collapse itself to gather data for the probable collapse sequence. If you look elsewhere in other sections you can see that indeed NIST did study the collapse. I would start with chapter 6 p153. This also refutes some of Steven Jones information regarding the sinking of the antenna.

"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." When I have more time I'll go over and read the various new edits to the main article. Best ScottScottS 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I would rest in peace if I could find anything that convinced me that not only NIST but also engineering experts elsewhere studied the collapse extensively. Really. And then we could include their findings to. So what are their findings?

NIST chapter 6, as ScottS kindly pointed to me states again:

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. Cases B and D accomplished this in a manner that was consistent with the principal observables and the governing physics."

And:

"The south side bowed and weakened. The analysis stopped as the initiation of global instability was imminent. (Table 6–10. Comparison of global structural model predictions and observations for WTC 1, Case B. Page 141, NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation)"

Where in chapter six (or in the report) are NIST studying the collapse extensively, from the collaps start til it ends? And who are the experts form "elsewhere"? --EyesAllMine 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out the information that NIST did indeed study the collapse itself. Which was shown. If you want to discuss the results of a simulation within the study I won't stop you. Or what "extensively analyzed" means. Or even "from the collapse start til it ends" But the statement at the top "studied by structural engineers" has been supported within the NIST document. If you would like numerous other examples just read chapter 6. Free free to also look at pages 163-183 with regard to the observations during the collapse. Scott67.126.199.119 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I've also added back the link from 911myths. Disputed topics within the linked page include. Free fall (or almost freefall), debris, and the so called squibs.

:: Well, interestingly, F. R. Greenning has written to Nist, as the latest report is still a draft, and is in this e-mail he states "While I belive NIST has done an excellent job in covering many key areas of the tragic event surrounding the collapse ofthe Twin Towers, I also believe that a number of crucial issues have not been adressed" So I agree with F. R. Greening there. Is it the same Greenning that Steven E. jones is thanking in his paper? (You mentioned F.R. Grenning in your third edit: “If you want an expert from "elsewhere" see Frank Greenings paper on the collapse during the event. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf”, but then you deleted it). Who is he by the way? And what does he do for a living?

I’ve read the chapter six, and NIST are pretty consistent in limiting the research in the timespan between the impact and the collapse.--EyesAllMine 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Free free to read his observations, but I removed it because after re-reading your information I thought you were only looking for a structual engineer. But feel free to read his information. http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html With regards to the report just reread the information I provided or see http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf Chapter 6 see the comments regarding the fall starting on 163. See the large pictures of the collapse with comments 165,166 has some good observations regarding tiltScottS 00:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically the structural response and collapse analysis intended to: (…) Develop and evaluate failure hypotheses, resulting in the probable sequence of structural analyses leading to collapse for each tower. (page 41 of the pdf)

Probable collapse sequence (…) The probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the inititation of the global building collapse. (page 66 of the pdf)

(…) * the collapse then ensued (page 68 of the pdf)

The change in potential energy (…) Global collapse then ensued. (page 71 of the pdf)

NIST are still pretty consistent in limiting the research to the timespan from impact to inititaion of collapse. Now … could we agree that NIST did not “extensively ” study the collapse? Or could you verify in some way that the actual collapse was studied, with a source?

And if we could determine who mr. Greenning is, and if his paper has been peer-revieved, we could conclude his findings as an researcher from “elsewhere” (we need to know where elsewhere is located - don‘t you agree?). His finding is quite astonishing: He is comming to the conclusion that the Towers would have fallen in spite of the fires. Had there been no fires they would have collapsed, even though he don't come up with an explanstion of why they did withstand the impact for 56 and 100something minutes respectively. And he doesn't mentions building seven.--EyesAllMine 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have established that NIST did study aspects of the actual collapse. You can also read more information from the Popular Mechanics 9/11 article where NIST and ASCE members discuss aspects of the collapse. Or you can read information from http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html. Or here disussing the energy from the collapse http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4 I can continue posting more links if you would like. Establishing how “extensively ” seems to be a strongly opinion based comment. If you want to reincert the paragraph without that claim, honestly I won't stop you. As for Greening I've given a link which shows who he is and his qualifications. http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html He does mention building 7 but doesn't not go into detail. I'm not sure about any peer review. But as I mentioned before I wouldn't use him if you are looking for a structual engineer. Scott ScottS 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have missed the link to the bio of Greenning, and I can see, that it is the same man who made the interesting e-maile to NIST, and even the same Greenning, Steven E. Jones thanks in his paper. We could mention that a PhD Chemist has made analysed the collapse ... but he might be a little to "single" to mention, if you get my point.

as for the latest link, they seem to be repeating the pattern:

"The BPAT was to review the damage caused by these events, collect available data, develop understanding of the performance of each affected building, determine the causes of observed behavior, and reveal the need for any further studies that should be performed. In particular, the team studied the immediate effects of the aircraft impact on each tower, the spread of fire following the crashes, the reduction in structural strength caused by the fire, and the mechanism that led to the collapse of each tower. Additionally, the performance of buildings in the immediate vicinity of the towers was studied to determine the effects of damage from falling debris and fires."

The rest of the article presents a theory, but a theory or a hypothesis is NOT an "extensive study", it is only a hypothese. (I noticed that this article mentions the antenna prolem and takes this as a sign of core collum faillure). That goes for the other link you provided as well.

For clarity: I am having this discussion because I didnt find any verifiable sources or references to the claim in the article stating:

"Structural engineers and architects in the United States and elsewhere have extensively analyzed the collapse, sometimes contentiously, to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault,"

I would be happy if the papragraph could be frased something like this:

"NIST have analyzed the events leading up to the initiation of the collapse to determine whether the unusual structural features of the Twin Towers may have been wholly or partially at fault,"

If architects and strucural engineers (outside NIST) also have done this, all we need is some verifiable references. --EyesAllMine 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First I realize they discuss the antenna problem. NIST's observations was written at a later time after re-reviewing the information provided from FEMA etc. The articles I linked to mentions observations, calculations, theories and a hypothesis based on studing the collapse of the towers. I have no problem with your wording however I do believe that the points we have brought up should somehow be mentioned. Something regarding our debate. Maybe something about collapse itself. That way the issue can be called attention to. I'll propose something later tonight. BestScottS 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we have come this far :) I agrre with you, that it would be good to include the varios hypothesis. And then I got to say: I've been studying a little more of Greennings work. I must add that it is very interesting material. He has, also hosted on 911myths, an addenddum in which he states "Finally, let me say that although I have not done any calculations for other WTC structures, the collapse of WTC 7 is a problem! I say this mainly because WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft; therefore I admit it is very surprising that this high-rise building should have collapsed without being subject to an aircraft impact." --EyesAllMine 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I don't bite. ;). yes I enjoy reading various hypothesis. I've even shared information with Steven Jones although we disagree. BestScottS 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eyesallmine on this so far - he has quoted specific examples where the authors said themselves that they are describing their positions on what happened up to the point of collapse. Jones mentions some interesting aspects about the report and collapse modelling:

"The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)Bov 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Scott S, the two links you provided are articles which DO NOT study the collapse. Both mention the amount of potential energy in the elevated mass, but then fail to estimate the OTHER important numbers, such as the amount of energy needed to 1) pulverize the concrete 2) shred the steel 3) eject the mass laterally 4) compress the air. Instead, they immediately abandon science and begin resorting to meaningless adjectives like "huge" and so forth.

Also, one of the articles contains a flat out lie, stating "Most certainly," [Kausel] continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire.". The truth is, buildings have endured hotter fires for longer and remained standing. Outside 9-11, no steel framed high-rise has EVER collapsed due to fire.

71.129.72.28 02:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I again removed this -

Guys, no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire. THere have been far hotter fires, burning for longer periods of time, engulfing far more of the structure. The above paragraph is completely unsupported. Zsinj, stop vandalizing this article please.

To the poster above. Simply read the articles about the observations during the collapse, fall times, tilt,review of video footage during the event etc. Sorry they don't have the information your looking for. If it makes any difference I don't agree with all of their calculations and observations. Other more detailed observations and calculations have since been done since the ones mentioned in the articles. ie. "free fall" times or the sinking of the antenna. With regards to the new edit. I'm not sure you should just single out NIST. Also I believe aspects of the debate should be mentioned. I'm sure more changes will be made over the next few days. ScottScottS 08:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

What is happening? Why do you remove every single edit I made? We have been debating this for a week nearly. Will you please explain? --EyesAllMine 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I do not support the minimizing of facts to help support conspiracy theories.--MONGO 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Same with me, mongo. There is a paragraph in this article which

a) has demostrably false statements

and

b) is not supported by any references at all.

Zsinj and ScottS keep vandalising the article by reverting back to the bogus version. I think we need to dispute this.

69.233.206.191 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The phrases in this article are often absurd claims that have no citations or references but seem to stay only to promote the official version, i.e., claims extending to how 'all' buildings would behave in fires as though the writer is omnicient, especially when no similar buildings have ever collapsed or even been structurally significantly altered by fires. Thus there is a different standard of evidence applied to this page in order to block any questioning of the official story.Bov 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

TomHarrison and Zsinj have left me threatening notes in my inbox. They have accused me of vandalism because I delete paragraphs from this article. The paragraphs I delete are false, they are unsupported. Instead of coming here and explaining themselves, they continue with their underhanded tactics.

I shall continue to delete the paragraphs until they are in a form which complies with Wikipedia policy. It is clear to me that we need an official dispute.

71.129.72.28 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraphs in question are these:

After the airliners hit, it appeared to most ground observers that the buildings had been severely but not fatally damaged. However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic as the temperature rises.

That seems to me well supported by the references and links in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To MONGO: we are working towards the same goal then: this article should be factual. That is why I simply do not understand the reverts you made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=34733767&oldid=34733608 It makes no sense. Maybe you can explain how the reverts you made is more factual? --EyesAllMine 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom,

What evidence do you have that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way? There is no precedent or reference given in that paragraph that would show that. References and links to things like 'jet fuel' don't support a hypotheses put forth in the paragraph that all steel buildings would behave one way or another. Did someone from NIST or FEMA write the paragraph and reference precedents or specifics from the report? No. They are only referencing facts about materials that don't add up to any particular theory. Only hypotheticals are put forth. Indeed, everyone was horrified that the buildings collapsed at all, so the theory for why they did collapse is the one that needs to be supported with a great deal of analysis and references, not statements that ignore the fact that this has never occurred before in history. Bov 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone was horrified" is rather too strong of a statement. SOME were surprised they collapsed. The reality is the kinetic energy the buildings were designed to withstand was considerably less than what took the morning of 9/11. I.e., there was substantially more damage than the buildings were designed to take. That they stood at all after the impacts is a miracle of engineering. See paragraph immediately following the table comparing 707 and 767 in this article for further explanation. The conclusions for why 1 & 2 collapsed are very strongly supported with a huge amount of analysis. --Durin 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Did someone from NIST or FEMA write the paragraph and reference precedents or specifics from the report?" I think it's an accurate summary of the long and complex report that they did write. "They are only referencing facts about materials that don't add up to any particular theory." Well, they do add up, in the estimation of the engineers at NIST. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"That they stood at all after the impacts is a miracle of engineering" is not supported by precedent, given that no other steel framed building has *ever* collapsed from fires and that although one can say the planes caused the damage added to the fires, that hardly makes it a miracle of engineering -- it makes it closer to a failure of engineering -- given that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet.

From 911research:

"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind." (City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133)

and,

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html Bov 00:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

757's are a lot bigger than 707's...did they also discuss the speed of 400 plus miles per hour...where is that discussion? The support structure in the two towers was in the center of the building. Once these supports became weakened and damaged from the impact and from the fires, they could no longer support the weight of undamaged floors above. This is why the second tower to be hit was the first to collapse...it was hit lower down in it's structure and had more weight above the point of impact, and the weakening of internal support could no longer support the weight above. I spent 8 years fighting forest fires for the National Park service and have also fought structure fires...I also have certification from training at an engine academy. You would be amazed at what can melt in a very short period of time. As far as why other steel buildings haven't collasped like these did...well, not all steel buildings are built the same, and in fact, no other buildings of their size have been built in the same manner as the towers were. Structure fires in major buildings are actually incredibly rare, especially when compared to wood framed houses and structures not using steel and concrete. About 2 years ago, a 12 story building caught fire in Omaha, Nebraska...it was the biggest structure fire in the U.S. that year. The outside of the building was brick and stayed up, though extremely fatigued and crumbling. The entire central structure collasped and the fires took 6 days to put out. The city of Omaha had 5 aerials and 6 support engines on this fire and it still took a full week to get it to stop smoldering. Now, this is a 12 story structure, not 110 stories and had only about 100,000 square feet of useable office space...magnify this by a factore of 10 and you have the WTC fires...that is why they took so long to burn out. This article is not a playground for far fetched fantasies, only for what can be proven as facts. We can certainly say, well, professor of engineering Dr. Who thinks that there was controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean the information is valid, only that it is his opinion. We have every right to refute that opinion, especially if we find that it is unreferenced, or is refuted by alternative opinions.--MONGO 00:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The 767s that impacted the WTC towers had more than 7 times the kinetic energy than the modeled 707s that the buildings were designed to take. People who think the buildings could not have collapsed from plane impacts like to note the somewhat similar weights of 707s vs. 767s. The reality is the speed was also part of the equation, not just the weight of a 707. Any discussion of what the WTC towers were built to withstand is completly without merit if you do not also include the kinetic energy calculations. I will note, as many others have including NIST, that the towers did not collapse from fire alone, nor did they collapse from the plane impacts alone. As with many such disasters, it was a combination of factors. This is not the appropriate forum to debate these issues. --Durin 01:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

>>People who think the buildings could not have collapsed from plane impacts like to note the somewhat similar weights of 707s vs. 767s. The reality is the speed was also part of the equation, not just the weight of a 707.

Although a 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, its overall size, weight, and fuel capacity are very similar to a 767-200 -- the type of jet that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were.

According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340.

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the 767-200s used on 9-11 were only slightly larger than 707s:

- Max takeoff weights - 328,060 lbs for a Boeing 707-340, 395,000 lbs for a Boeing 767-200. - Cruise speed for a Boeing 707-340 is 607 mph, while for a Boeing 767-200 it is 530 mph. Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. See here. more later Bov 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

READ the article. READ, as I suggested above, the paragraph beneath the comparison of 707 and 767. The towers was not designed to withstand a 707 flying near its maximum speed. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at low speed. Please see the cite noted in the article. It is a fact that the 767s that struck the towers did so with more than 7 times the kinetic energy the buildings were designed for. This debate is over, and has been for a long time. The notion that the buildings were designed to take what the 767s threw at them is utterly false. --Durin 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Did someone from NIST or FEMA write the paragraph and reference precedents or specifics from the report?" I think it's an accurate summary of the long and complex report that they did write.

But it is making inferences beyond the scope of those reports to try to extend the findings to most or all other steel framed buildings. People cannot say on the one hand that there was a unique design here that caused it to fail but then say that all steel frame buildings act this way. Similarly, the NIST and FEMA reports contradict each other at points. I also think that exact phrases or references to exact locations in the reports should be included in any paragraphs that are claiming to summarize the reports. Bov 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the engineers who designed the WTC that claimed it would survive a 707 hit must have been mistaken. What are you getting at? I want proof that someone saw the demolition teams planting the explosives...even when they have lots of time, it takes weeks to strategically place explosives at key locations to ensure a building does collapse. It would have taken a lot more explosives than were used by the rented van in 1993 and that would be pretty hard to get into the building without anyone noticing it...oh, I meant building(s). A shift along several floors of load displacement would have easily caused the bolts and welds to buckle and the building would have collapsed. None of the other buildings that have been mentioned that caught on fire experienced a direct hit froma wide body aircraft at speeds in excess of 400 miles an hour...WTC7 suffered from base destabilization, fire and structural damage from 30 foot steel columns being tossed into it at it's lower floors. Are you going to continue to cite the same website, whose sole purpose appears to be completely POV?--MONGO 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuel for the fire. [7][8] [9] SkeenaR 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And honestly, this doesn't look that hot.(sorry about using graphic image)[10] SkeenaR 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice try...the building in Madrid wasn't hit by a wide body jet at 400 plus miles per hour. Hot doesn't necessarily have to be visible...nor does it necessarily produce a lot of smoke...why not do research from a website that isn't riddled with far out opinion...[11]

C'mon Mongo, it wasn't a 'try'. Despite what you might think because of my edits on the other page including the series you reverted, I am more interested in seeing consensus brought about by ALL available information(and I mean that) including whatever you think is biased. I didn't plaster it on the page. I did notice though that Madrid isn't even mentioned on this page and am interested in whatever people might have to say about that event, including you. I do think you might want to consider why it appears that the person in the picture still has their hair if the fire was hot enough to soften steel. Is that a fair enough question? Can this be easily debunked or do I have to open up a whole section on it? Does anybody else have anything to say about this? SkeenaR 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Information is fine...disinformation isn't. I can't explain why the person has hair still, and clothes too...maybe they didn't get burned? Show me in the article about the Madrid fire where it states that that building was hit by a wide body jet at 400 miles an hour plus and then that would be a fair comparison...but without it, it's just POV, just like the websites you and Bov keep trying to cite.--MONGO 04:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Look where they are standing. They didn't get burned? That's it???? SkeenaR 05:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

They were standing at the epicenter of the high speed impact of jumbo jets that created enough heat to collapse the Trade Towers and they still have their hair because 'they didn't get burned'. It's clear to me now. And thanks. SkeenaR 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they were some of the souls that tried to walk down from the floors above and coulnd't get any further down. The floors above were not at the point of impact. It would only take the failure of three to four of the steel columns in the center of the building to give for a complete collapse. The amount of heat needed to complete the fatigue and failure of welds and bolts is rather low...and once only one or two floors gave way, the exterior intergrity was compromised, buckling outward, then the concrete floors above slipped from their supports and the weight of the mass above forced the building to the ground. Websites like the one you're using information from are not peer reviewed...anyone can set up a website and document whatever they want. Be careful not to believe that kind of misinformation...it falls into the realm of the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's and Bigfoot...and if they answer questions with questions, then they are just there to grab attention.--MONGO 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the heat, fire and smoke rises, so I would really have to stretch my imagination to consider that these people walked from upper floors down to the point of impact. And even if it would only take the failure of the parts you describe to cause the collapse, what kind of heat do you consider low? Have you ever even been near a campfire? I see what you mean about people being taken in by fairy tales though. There has to be a better explanation than this. SkeenaR 05:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I stated above that I fought forest fires and have been through an engine academy and have fought structure and vehicle fires, so I guess that qualifies as approximating a campfire. Anyway, those souls in the image may have made it down from above...fire acts in very strange ways. You have zero education in fire if you believe that "most of the heat, fire and smoke rises"...heat fire and smoke go where oxygen, fuel and wind patterns dictate. I guess 98% of the rest of the world has been duped by some huge federal coverup? Sure, sure.--MONGO 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have forest fire fighting experience. I have seen crazy ass fires go way out of control. I have seen smoke roll down hills, blow sideways, do cool dust devil things, but your explanation still doesn't come close to flying with me because it is obvious from the photographs that "venting was good" in New York City on Sept 11,2001 and hopefully we BOTH know what that means. Sorry, that heat, smoke and fire were rising. SkeenaR 06:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Venting

Notice that the image is showing the smoke blowing east...the impact point with the image of the man is on the north. or south. That's good...as a former strike team leader on the Yellowstone fires of 1988, then we'll agree that fire does weird things and the only explanation I have is they probably came down from one of the floors above. Is it surprising that one out 1,500 people made it to that floor...who knows how they got there, all we know is that is probably as far as they got. I won't speculate anymore, as that is where this is going, but suffice it to say that the combination of the airplane impact and fire weakened the structure enough to cause it to collapse. There was no government coverup, but I may be willing to listen to arguments that the feds knew the event was imminent and failed to act fully...but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual collapse anyway. Again, websites can be built on whatever the webmaster wishes them to be..they are not peer reviewed and they usually answer questions with questions. When they can come up with proof that there was controlled demolition then I want to be the first person to hear it.--MONGO 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it could be considered peer reviewed that there was no government coverup. But Prof. Jones has a paper he wants people to look at too, so I would say as far as these 'official declarations' are concerned, even that is far from settled. But thanks for your time and I appreciate your effort. SkeenaR 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the edits that are questioning the cause of the collapse are consistent with the Wikipedia No Original Research policy. And, wtc7.net isn't really a reliable or reputable source. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F. Also, the edits don't meet Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Thus, they need to be kept out of this article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? SkeenaR 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to do some original research of my own just to show these guys some pictures. Is that OK Mrs Roboto? SkeenaR 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line; this discussion page on this article is not the place to be hashing out this debate. It's been debated ad nauseum on multiple other forums around the Internet for the last 4+ years. We are discussing an encyclopedia article here, not whether a pet theory is accurate or not. What will be included in the information is factual, verifiable information from reputable sources using a neutral point of view. Anything else will be deleted. You might think this is censorship. It isn't. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not writing a conspiracy site. --Durin 15:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Relax Durin. Me and Mongo are just having a discussion. Did you notice there is some information in the article regarding a controlled demolition theory? If you have some good information for the article, you should put it there. SkeenaR 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you reverted this frase "- The final report from the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July of 2005, but has been twice postponed and is now scheduled to be released in Spring 2006 ..." to this "- The final report from the NIST regarding the collapse of 7 WTC was due in July of 2005, is still ongoing ..." stating that this was deliberately misleading. How is it misleading? I find the first much more informative and precise? --EyesAllMine 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The part about it being postponed twice makes it look like they're doing so deliberately, when they are not. Just so you know, WTC collapsed due to the issues I have raised above...there wasn't any controlled demolition as that is completely without any basis in fact...it is purely opinion--MONGO 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if it indicates how the building went down - I think you are a bit speculative there. But having checked NISTs own page stating "NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." I found that the frase, as it is now, is more accurate. So to that I agree :) And thank you for answering my question --EyesAllMine 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The NIST, FEMA and Kean Commission reports do not analyze the collapses, they analyze the events leading up to the collpases. They admit this in writing. This is an article about the collapses, and I'd like to know where everybody thinks the references are coming from, because I sure don't see them.

"Thus it could be said that any steel building would have done the same thing, blah blah, blah" Can anyone site a reference or anything to back that up? Anyone? Please? Tom Harrison? What's the source? Zsinj? Come out with it! Lay that big bad source on us, we're waiting!

69.231.8.216 05:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the above I put the verify tag on the page --EyesAllMine 14:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, I beefed up the collapse section with eye witness testimony of the collapses of the Towers. For many of the quotes, I added a URL linking to the NY Times website where the transcript of the witness' testimony can be viewed.

[edit] Prove controlled demolition

"A combination of factors such as impact from aircraft flying at high speed, causing internal structural damage, and the resultant fires from the aviation fuel widely dispersed within the impact zones, ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The destabilization, debris and associated fires resulting from the collapse of the Towers, also severely damaged many of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. The lightness and hollowness of the towers were prime factors allowing the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate so far inside the Towers." Where does this theory comes from? Any sources? And is it okay to remove a verify tag without aplying the sources? --EyesAllMine 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it...I want you to verify that there was controlled demolition...let's see the proof, not just allusions and misrepresentations...cite a group of structural engineers and controlled demolition experts, and find the evidence that there was controlled demolition...who planted explosive devices, where, when, and how...let's hear it.--MONGO 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well ... I think I stop the discussion with you here ... as you are simply to far out --EyesAllMine 14:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you'll stop, as you HAVE no proof...come on, I've seen the speculations and the misrepresentations, so now let's see you provide the proof. By proof, I mean not some private website where the webmaster has control over the information presented and is not peer reviewed for factual accuracy.--MONGO 14:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculations or Hypothesis

Hypothesis is the correct and neutral word. Speculation seems to be unfounded, where hypothesis is speculations beeing investigated thoroughly, so you eventually can come up with a theory or even a proven fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theory --EyesAllMine 14:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how it is a controlled-demoliton hypothesis if it does not explain how a controlled demolition might have occured. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking sources

There are quite a lot of this article that is lacking proper citation and sources, which is why I put the verify tag on. The examples are many, and som has been pointed out above. We need to show who said what. Is it from the NIST report, the FEMA report, or other sources? --EyesAllMine 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to show evidence that is not from a private website that there was controlled demolition...where is this proof? I am most patient.--MONGO 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you harrassing me?. Please stop. You are reverting EVERY EDIT I make, even when I quote NIST. I'm getting tired of it. I have never stated that I believe in the demolition theory. --EyesAllMine 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if it seems like harassment, as that is not my intention at all. But the article must not use speculations or misrepresentations of evidence to support mere opinions. Using terminology such as has been used here which merely alludes to unsubstantiated theories have to be kept in check. For instance, there is no hypothesis, it is only speculation that there was controlled demolition or that the findings of the NIST and FEMA are incorrect. By speculation we mean that a few speculate that NIST and FEMA are wrong....yet they provide no proof that anything else is possible...if there was a hypothesis, then where is the evidence, aside from opinions, that suggest that FEMA and NIST are incorrect. A hypothesis must have some basis in fact.--MONGO 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And I recognize that other steel frame structures have experienced enormous fires and didn't collapse, but none of the examples I have seen were hit by wide body jets at 500 mph, nor were any of those other fires listed in close proximity to the destabilizing effects of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel that had collapsed adjacent to them.--MONGO 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All I ask for is: We need to show who said what. Is it from the NIST report, the FEMA report, or other sources? A hypothesis is a speculation. It has nothing to do with proofs. And: A hypothesis is a speculation, and then you start looking for material that backs the hypothesis up. I dont know where you have looked the word up, but your definition is not correct. And there are alternative hypothesises by Steven E. Jones, Grenning and others. I'm beginning to suspect that you are the one who are manipulating this article. Why don't you think it should be verifiable? --EyesAllMine 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is opinions, nothing more...do they have proof? I want to see the proof and not their opinions.--MONGO 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you MONGO - but nobody has proven anything yet. Not even NIST. Its all theory and some might even question that, since a theory should at least be supported repeatability. But why do you go on ranting about proof? I can see that you have put one source in the article, and that's what I will concentrate on, the verifiability of this article. Se also: Hypothesis --EyesAllMine 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, go ahead and cite, but if they come from private websites that are controlled by their webmasters and have not been peer reviewed, then it won't stand. Do you really expect anyone with a rational mind to believe that there was a government coverup this massive? Get ahold of some prominent enginners like from Bechtel have these guys chime in [12]...I'd be really interested in seeing what they think about a controlled demolition of the WTC, how much explosives it would have taken, how long it would have taken to plant them, how they would do it with no one noticing...etc., If you don't support this nonsense controlled demolition stuff, then why are you refuting the official Federal government reports?--MONGO 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not discuss with you what I think or not about this. This is not what this is about. I have done proper citation, and its a blatant lie that the Jones paper is not peer-reviewed. Repeating it again and agin won't make it true. --EyesAllMine 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I was reading this section from the link I provided above from Controlled Demolition, Inc...[13]..it states that the J.L. Hudson Department Store is "At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded."...the article goes on to state that, " Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design." and also discusses that they had to torch many steel columns to weaken them and, "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."...now that sounds like a lot of work to implode one building less than half the size of either one of the WTC...and this company is the foremost one in the world in controlled demolition. There is no theory about controlled demolition that will explain how a project this massive would have gone undetected...--MONGO 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, and this article is still lacking sources. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --EyesAllMine 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jones's paper isn't peer reviewed. It's going to be published in a book of alternative theories called "The Hidden History Of 9-11-2001", edited by Paul Zarembka, a professor at SUNY Buffalo. Zarembka is an economist, by the way, not a structural engineer. A visit to Zarembka's homepage reveals a professor with a clear agenda. David Ray Griffin is also represented in the book. It is obvious that the papers are handpicked by Zarembka to express a certain POV. They were not approved by anonymous peer-reviewers. Rhobite 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And Zaremka did not peer-review the paper. As the paper is a call for an investigation, and therefore a political paper, it is being published in a political book. The paper does not contain NEW OUTSTANDING research in physics, engineering or anything like that and does therefore not apply to publication in science or engineering magasines. The peer-review has been done by among others, a physicist and an engineer. And furthermore the paper has been published on the BYU website, where everybody can look at it, and join further peer-reviewing, as is normal practis among scholars. And by the way, neither the NIST report or the FEMA report has been peer-reviewed. But still THIS ARTICLE IS LACKING SOURCES. and by the way -- thank you for correcting my spelling. --EyesAllMine 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

FEMA and NIST reports are not going to be peer reviewed as such; it's not as if they are going to be published in any scientific journal. Apples and oranges, and complaining the oranges are not seasoned with cinnamon. The FEMA and NIST reports have been put together by literally dozens of Ph. D.s other field experts. --Durin 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a group of scholars forming to make a peer-review on the NIST report, so eventually it might be, if the group can overcome the obstacles of being able to get to the evidence and other material which has made the base of the NIST report. A peer-review is always a good thing, no matter how many researchers are working together. But I wasn't the one who brought up the peer-review subject. So lets just get on with the checking of sources. I see a problem in this paragraph:

Which report is this from?

For both the sake of interest and to demonstrate that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question the governments version of events and statements by government agencies I would like to point out a few things about some of these entities and the circumstances that have caused so much scepticism whenever the government opens its mouth. People should not be criticized because they don’t automatically believe everything a proven liar says and take its statements as proof.

It is a fact that the government has repeatedly used false information to build support for initiatives such as the ‘war on terror’ and the war in Iraq. Examples of which there is a seemingly endless supply include but are not limited to Yellow Cake and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This false information was used to help justify actions that resulted in the death or maiming of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.

Corporations like Halliburton, KBR and Bechtel are given billions of dollars in no bid contracts for things that include but are not limited to reconstruction, logistics support and security in Iraq as well as building a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many see it as a conflict of interest when the former CEO of Halliburton sits on Capitol Hill and still collects $1 million a year from them –or- when former vice president of Bechtel Jack Sheehan now sits on the Defence Policy Board that advises the Pentagon.

People Magazine was told that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was from Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex. Some people see this as suspicious.

I’m not saying that everyone should jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon or that conspiracies should be over-represented in this article, just that it is not always prudent to automatically accept everything the government or one of its agencies says as gospel. Also that just because it is possible that someone might not accept the official line, that is no reason to disregard everything they say. It seems to me that it is important they be heard and that it is irresponsible not to question these things judging by the consequences that acting or not acting on false information can lead to. SkeenaR 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The NIST report admits plainly that it DOES NOT analyze the collapses:

"The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. .." .(NIST, 2005, p. 142)

As to Conspiracy bandwagons, please consider that ALL 9-11 theories are conspiracy theories. It was certainly a conspiracy, it's just a question of who and how.

Skeena raises a valid point. At what point of proven, repeated dishonesty does one permanently abandon a particular source as unreliable?

69.231.8.216 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out the speculative sentence about the "combination" of factors that caused the collapes. There was no citation for it. The NIST report and the 9-11 Commission report also contradict the "combination" statement. NYCJosh

Hi Mongo, 1. Please provide a citation supporting the "combination" hypothesis for collapse you just restored. The 9-11 Commission, the NIST report hypothesize that it may have been the weakened trusses due to fires, not this "combination". 2. You restored the sentence about how much fuel was stored in the tanks at WTC 7. Please provide a source. All we know is what the capacity of the tanks was. If you know how much feul was actually stored, please provide a cite. 3. You deleted "WTC 7 was a 47 story steel-frame skyscraper that stood across the street from the rest of the WTC complex (7 World Trade Center)." I think some basic info about this building is necessary for the average reader, before any analyis of its collapse. I cited the statement with wikipedia entry for wtc 7. No reason to delete crucial context. 4. The decision to abandon a major burning in downtown Manhattan was a serious one. Please provide cite as to what criteria were used or who decided, or else restore my contribution. 5. You deleted "Thus, according to the NIST each of the buildings could indeed fall within its own footprint without there being a controlled demolition." In so doing you removed an important element of the official explanation, which purports to exlain how EACH of the three major buildings fell in their own footprints. That's the point of the entire paragraph. NYCJosh Jan 31.

I'll look over my revert.--MONGO 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Usama really say this?

"I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only."

Wasn't he supposed to be an engineer or something? How could he then state that a kerosene and office fire would MELT steel? --EyesAllMine 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's family owned a big engineer and construction company, but I am not sure what his training was.--MONGO 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why a kerosene fire won't melt steel? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It cant reach the temperature for the the steel to melt. Jet-fuel kerosene burns at max 1000˚C(1832˚F) in a pure oxygen environment, house fires typically produce temperatures in the 500 - 650˚C range. But structural steel melts at 1538˚C(2800˚F). --EyesAllMine 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the combustion temperature depends on the rate of burning, and the temperature and pressure of the supplied air and fuel. See Firestorm. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In a house or office fire it is called a flashover and reaches about 950˚C. Steel is conducting heat very rapidly, so it's not enough with seconds or minuts of high temperatures to melt steel. You have to take into account that time matters as well as the amount of ice-cold steel. So far I've have not found in any of the reports, statements that would support the phenomen of molten steel. Have you? --EyesAllMine 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Was molten steel observed? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard a lot about molten steel having been observed at the crime scene and the last I heard Professor Jones was requesting a sample for analysis. It is suggested by some that this is indicative of thermite or some other type of explosive charge being used there.

From Jones' paper[14] "We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7."

So apparently yes, molten steel was observed there. For whatever it might be worth, he continues:

"Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 which was never hit by a jet."

SkeenaR 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I say that this Jones character and Ward Churchill come from the same looney bin...ssshhhussshhh...just to let everyone in on a little secret...if the government or others blew the buildings up, then why not let that be the coverup? Wouldn't it be easier to just accuse some infiltrating militants as being the ones who set the charges, instead of flying wide body jets into these structures...oh, that's right, a missle hit the Pentagon, I almost forgot, and oh geez, and the planes were radio-controlled, right...oh, and hey, surely a group of amateurs or better yet, the disorganized U.S. Government would be able to mastermind such a massive coverup, and have the expertise to implode buildings with a total mass 5 times greater than any done before.--MONGO 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If Usama really said what he did, we can conclude that he doesn't have a clue about basic engineering facts and if he is an engineer he is a lousy one. --EyesAllMine 09:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have come to expect now MONGO. No facts, just accusations and insults. Good example for an admin to set for us. What if we all behaved like that? SkeenaR 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from the oral histories

I just removed the following passage from the article. The references to the NY Times are helpful, but this passage is way too long, with too many cherry picked quotes. For example, Kevin Darnowski goes on to say "... we got reports of gas lines that were blown...". If we're to include quotes, this passage needs to shorted drastically (less verbose) and include a more balanced selection of quotes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Oral Histories Project made available to the NY Times by the City of New York pursuant FOIA, records the testimony of many eye witnesses of the collapses, including numerous NY City firefighters and workers in the Towers. Many witnesses describe multiple explosions and flashes before the collapses. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski, for example, said: “I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down. (Oral History of Kevin Darnowski, 8, transcript avaialble at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html) . Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash, flash, flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. (Oral History of Stephen Gregory, 14-16, transcript for this and other Oral History testimonies avaialble at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). Captain Karin Deshore’s account moved to another standard phenomenon reported for controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building: “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.” (Oral History of Karin Deshore, 15). Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. There was nothing there but rubble, said Pecoraro. We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil.” Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off. (“We Will Not Forget: A Day of Terror,” The Chief Engineer, July, 2002).

Another survivor, Teresa Veliz, describes her experience as follows: “The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run.” (Teresa Veliz: “A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly,” in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy, Doubleday, 2002, pp 9-15.)

Fine KMF, I would be OK with putting all the quotes and citations in one or more footnotes, and in the article stating something like: Many eye witnesses, inlcuidng NYC firefighters, reported seeing and hearing multiple explosions, incluidng flashes from explosion running in rings around the Towers. Some surviviors who worked in the Towers also reported equipment in the Towers destroyed by explosions, while others reported being afraid to escape from the WTC complex because of the explosions they heard and felt all around them. NYCJosh.

But the quotes are still cherry picked... The oral histories included 503 firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs, and you cite five examples. What do we mean by "many" witnesses? I've looked over many of the oral histories and don't see where *many* reported seeing or hearing multiple explosions. Instead it should say *some* ... And by mentioning explosions, it seems like you're trying to imply something. Maybe we should go on to mention about the blown gas lines? How about just saying "When the towers collapsed (which ones?), some eyewitnesses, including NYC firefighters, reported seeing and hearing multiple explosions and blown gas lines." -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand I am accused of being too verbose, on the other hand of not quoting more witnesses and more from each witness. I am glad you also took the trouble of going through some of the transcripts. If one witness reports that he heard from someone else that there may have been blown gas lines, that is hearsay and not eye witness testimony. It certainly does not impeach the testimony I quoted or render what I quoted inaccurate, unfair or taking statements out of context. I would be happy to include any relevant reasonable quote from these people or others that you suggest, particularly if it is generally corroborated by at least a second witness. So if several report multiple explosions, and rings of explosions around each Tower, that's important evidence that goes to the nature of the collapse. NYCJosh

Josh, please timestamp using ~~~~, the second to the last tab at the top of the edit window.--MONGO 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK.--NYCJosh 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7ECollapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center_archive1_dccc.html"