Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV, again

What I had in mind was something of the style, "the Nist report states that ..., whereas FEMA disagrees and states ...", If this is original research, can you point me to the part of OR policy which covers this, I can't find it! Seabhcán 08:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you, the Forrest Gump of physicists? Have you bothered to read the reports...they are hardly conflicting aside from a few points...somehow, I can't help but think your s and mine gaols are different...whatever you can do to make the reports appear to be misleading and false, I think that is your ultimate goal...what do you care anyway?Are you an anti-American bigot or something...sure seems you are.--MONGO 09:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Seabhacn. The FEMA and NIST reports disagree on the fundamental reason why collapse was initiated, this is no small point. Again, FEMA says the angle clips fail first and are the weakest link, whereas NIST says the angle clips hold super-strong, allowing sagging floors to "pull" inward on the perimeter columns, causing them to buckle. Angle clips cannot break and not-break at the same time, they are mutually exclusive theories. At least one of the two theories must be false.

Us wacko conspiracy theorists keep annoying everyone by pointing out that no buckling of any kind is observed in the videos.

TruthSeeker1234 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I think this kind of name calling (against Seabhcan) has no place here. You seem to have a real temper. If we were in the 50s and you wielded the gavel on some infamous Committee you could do some real damage, but on this forum we should focus on the substance of the arguments raised, not engage in ad hominem attacks. Would you like it if we started calling you things? --JustFacts 21:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He's been doing the same thing to me...don't pick sides unless you know all the facts. You can call me whatever you want if you have anything substantive to add to the article...do you?--MONGO 00:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
See tu quoque (and I'm not a conspiracist, quite the contrary, but I find your contributions to be almost uniformly non-productive). -- Jibal 12:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to this conversation, but is there a third-party, reliable, source that brought up the discrepancies between these two reports, or are these just personal observations on the reports?--DCAnderson 23:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as what counts as original research, here is the relevant quote from WP:OR:

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"--DCAnderson 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If we as WP editors are not qualified to report the obvious contradictions between the FEMA and NIST reports, then how are we qualified to report on what caused the collapses at all? Physicist Steven Jones' paper is a nice place to start understanding the contradictions in the various stories.
FEMA adopted the the theory first put out by Thomas Eagar (the pancake theory). Here's what Eagar says
Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, [the angle clips holding the floors to the columns) are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold. [1]
Here's the animation produced for the NOVA show, which shows the trusses breaking away from the perimeter. Notice it does not show the cross bracing, or the steel floor pans. [2] Skeptics pointed out that if the floors fell away from the columns, the columns would be left standing. NIST was forced to come up with something different, and they did:
The subsequent fires, influenced by the impact-damaged condition of the fireproofing caused significant sagging of the floors on the east side that induced the floors to pull the perimeter columns inward on the east face. [3]
This requires that the angle clips are the strongest link, strong enough to hold while the floor trusses are "pulling" the perimeter columns inward. Please don't take my word for it ladies and gentlemen, please go find this out for yourselves. And remember that the FEMA/NOVA/Eagar theory only came forward after the first offical theory, which was that burning jet fuel melted the core columns. Thank You. TruthSeeker1234 22:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not the role of WP editors to "report the obvious contradictions between the FEMA and NIST reports" nor to "report on what caused the collapses at all". WP editors report documented facts and leave conclusions up to the readers. Unfortunately, a large number of WP editors are not here to edit an encyclopedia, but rather to convince people of one thing or another. -- Jibal 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in Various Official Theories

Here's what physicist Steven Jones has to report about the various theories.

Inconsistencies in “Official” Models

Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time. The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the fires in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel in the buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris Wise in a BBC piece spouted out false notions with great gusto “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning… The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other.” (quoted in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)

But as we have seen from later serious studies, most of the jet fuel burned out within minutes following impact. And recall the statement of expert Dr. Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports: 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, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)

Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC and buckle (not melt) – at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to undergo failure at the same time for straight down collapse, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.

That approach was, understandably, abandoned in the next effort, that by FEMA (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eagar (Eagar and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Eagar expresses the view that "the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast – what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core: As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002; emphasis added) This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of evidently requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.

That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/impact-damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. NIST did not even do the routinely-used visualizations to validate their finite-element analysis model (point 14 above). And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) – namely the rapid and nearly-symmetrical and complete collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers and the yellow-white hot molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower just prior to its collapse?

Remarkably, the controlled demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives/incendiaries, near-simultaneously, along with cutting charges detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus near-symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermate (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel columns readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above).

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable actually than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond that which I have been able to outline in this treatise.

[4]

Anybody still think there is an official theory? Can we please get busy and make this article NPOV? Currently it is a disgrace to WP. Thank You. TruthSeeker1234 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary TruthSeeker. It sounds accurate to me. Seabhcán 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones' own university engineering department has stated that they do not agree with his findings. I guess that makes his work original research, especially since no reputable organization is going to publish it.--MONGO 07:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Mongo - The OR ban only refers to things written by wikipedians and published first here. If you were to ban original works being mentioned on wikipedia you might as well start here and here. Seabhcán 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that a fact? Okay, Seabhcan, maybe you need to have a better look at WP:NOR, especially the part about What counts as a reputable publication--MONGO 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If you'll notice, the section states "When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus." not "When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable Mongo has the final word".Seabhcán 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales was talking about "physics cranks" I think I know what he meant...[5]. Do you have any proof of controlled demolition? Okay, and that concludes our conversation.--MONGO 15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that Mongo. It think it proves the point I have been making throughout:
The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" - Jimbo
You should read it again, learn from it, study it's meaning, and live by it. Good luck to you. Seabhcán 10:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes...novel theory...and that's right, controlled demolition of the WTC is a novel theory, and no, not one reputable enterprise has sponsored it...only websites backed by a few POV pushers. We therefore do stick to citing evidence that has "been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide"...that is exactly why we don't sponsor the inclusion of wide-eyed nonsense websites...Good luck to you, and have a super special day.--MONGO 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, i'm new to this, but why do you keep bringing up the twin towers to discredit your opponent when it isnt relavent? It seems to me that if you had any real arguments you would make them. Raemie 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh? You lost me on that one...what are you talking about? What exactly do you think the world trade center was...it was twin towers...bewildering.--MONGO 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have lost the ability to make complete sentences. Seabhcán 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about when you said "Do you have any proof of controlled demolition? Okay, and that concludes our conversation" to the argument about original research. That always seems to be your defence when seabhcan backs you into a corner with his pesky logic. Raemie 15:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


And just out of curiosity - If one were trying to find proof a controlled demolition (which is not the job of WP editors), besides sudden onset, symmetry, pulverization, near free-fall collapse times, ejection squibs, huge dust clouds, molten metal, mushroom clouds and a litany of eyewitness reports of explosions in sequence, what OTHER evidence could one ever expect? What else could you possibly want? Tell me.

So we don't duplicate our efforts

I've started to re-do the references using Template:Cite web. Tom Harrison Talk 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea...I was just trying to get the basic format in since we were using inline links, embedded links, notes and well, it was a mess. Thanks for all your work helping to standardize this.--MONGO 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian UK as source??

Are the links to the Guardian appropriate? Isn't that "paper" the equivalent to the US National Enquirer, Globe, Star, ect. or other super market check out line rags. In this article [6] the author talks about carrying shit through the streets in years gone by. That "paper" is garbage. I won't wrap my fish in it yet alone use it for any REAL source to be taken seriously. Maybe a Brit can straighten me out. Thanks! Tom 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in the UK, and definitely say that the Guardian is one of the most respected newspapers in the UK. I believe its closest US counterpart would be the New York Times. To quote from The Guardian article here:
It has been awarded with the National Newspaper of the Year in 1999 by the British Press Awards. The Guardian Unlimited web site won the Best Newspaper category in the 2005 Webby Awards, beating the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and Variety[1]. It has been the winner for six years in a row of the British Newspaper Awards for Best Daily Newspaper on the World Wide Web (the pcsdotNet Award [7]). The site won an Eppy award from the US-based magazine Editor & Publisher in 2000 for the best-designed newspaper online service [2].
Seabhcán 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is a legitimate newspaper, and is certainly respected by some; I'm not surprised the people at the Guardian think highly of themselves. Others are less enthusiastic. The Daily Ablution often blogs about their coverage. I don't think the New York Times is the best comparison. Maybe 'The Nation?' Tom Harrison Talk 13:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never read the nation so I can't say. But isn't it a weekly, rather than a daily newspaper? You can't compare definitions of left and right or liberal as used in the US with those used in Europe. The center in US politics would be considered very far to the right in European terms. The Guardian is considered "left of center" in the UK, but if published in the US it would be far-left. So its difficult to compare.Seabhcán 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, then The Guardian must be a good deal further to the left than the New York Times. Here's the website for The Nation. Tom Harrison Talk 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it, but even supposedly right wing or conservative papers and parties in Europe are far to the left of US politics. For example the UK's "Conservative party", probably the most right wing main-stream party in European politics, would never even suggest that Health Care shouldn't be free for all citizens. The 'liberal' US Democrats would be labeled communists if they dared to have such a policy. True right wing politics went out of fashion here in the 1940's. Seabhcán 15:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's because it had to...anything close to German politics of the 1930-1940's would be taboo now...--MONGO 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not just taboo it is illegal. We Europeans certainly seem to have benefited from the shift to the left, anyway [8][9]Seabhcán 16:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's very special.--MONGO 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian is a daily newspaper. I'm pretty dubious about it, but it's as reliable as any other UK newspaper. Finding US equivalents is impossible. Basically, in Engladn, there are two really serious, expensive, heavyweight newspapers, the right wing Daily Telegraph and the left-wing Guardian, then there are the cheaper, lighter-weight, but generally well-respected right-wing Times and left-wing Independent. There must be a Wikipedia article where you can look all this stuff up! mgekelly 09:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is a rag...but it's the best of the references that were added, so I put it back after first deleting it.--MONGO 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a reference just because it was published in The Guardian is like reverting an edit just because it was made by someone you don't agree with or don't think highly of -- it's sheer prejudice. -- Jibal 12:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, the Guardian is "well respected" in the UK?? OK, if you say so..I believe anything these days. All I know is they did a HATCHET, I mean frickin garbage article on my bee loved Philadelphia Eagles slamming their fans as the worst holigans to ever run the earth so it pissed me off to no end to say the least....carry on! Tom 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd ... below you say you don't believe anything ... -- Jibal 12:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, its a UK paper, you can't expect them to have the first clue about a US sports team. Seabhcán 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Elsevier as a Reputable Publisher

These guys seem to be reputable. Comments?

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home

TruthSeeker1234 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe ANYTHING on the web anymore :) --Tom 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidently Elsevier has 7000 employees, has over 20,000 publications, and is traded on the Amsterdam and london Stock Exchanges. Elsevier puts out real books and journals of a scientific nature. TruthSeeker1234 16:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


As for Elsevier -- regardless of how "reputable" they are as a publisher, that doesn't establish the accuracy or appropriateness of any particular statement in any one of their over 20,000 publications. It is quite easy to misuse text published by a reputable publisher, for instance by treating an unsourced bit of hearsay as if it were a fact (see below). -- Jibal 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Hyman Brown

Can we use Dr. Brown as a reliable source? He was a structural engineer on the orignal WTC construction, and has been quoted in mainstream newspapers? He says Jet fuel burned at 2000F and melted the steel columns. If not, why not?

TruthSeeker1234 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to quote from him?--DCAnderson 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that if a source is reliable, it is reliable, if it isn't, it isn't. Or do we decide that a particular source is reliable when he said ABC, but not reliable when he said XYZ? Or What? Is a structural engineer who helped design the twin towers a reliable source for this article? Or not? If he is, I'm going to quote him. If he is not, I'd like to know why not. Thank You.

TruthSeeker1234 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding is clearly wrong. For instance, you're a reliable source on your life history, but not on my life history. Assuming good faith on your part, you're a reliable source on your own motivations, but even assuming good faith, you are not a reliable source on the motivations of others. As for Dr. Brown, assuming good faith, he is a reliable source on the aspects of WTC construction in which he was personally involved -- but his statement about melted steel columns may be reliable or not, depending on what it's based on. However, WP is full of quotes that may or may not be reliable. There's no rule that says that so-and-so must be proved reliable before adding "according to so-and-so, yadda yadda". But if the statement is controversial, the contrary POV should also be included, and the due weight of the respective positions should be indicated. -- Jibal 12:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a link to his work where he makes the statements?--MONGO 05:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether he is a reliable source, it is a matter of whether the work cited is a reliable source. (Is it a peer-reviewed, etc.)--DCAnderson 07:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For the 11th time I point out that the FEMA, NIST and Commission reports were not peer reviewed. If we set a threshold of peer review, these would also have to be removed. Seabhcán 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How stupid...those reports are based on the synthesis of thousands of investigators and researchers that were involved in the investigations of the WTC. Attempting to tell us that they are not reliable witness compared to the opinion of one person or a website controlled by a few webmasters with a POV to push is completely idiotic.--MONGO 09:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, for the 9/11 commision the compilation of thousands of hours of research and congressional testimony as part of an massive governmental inquiry is pretty damn reliable.
And as for the other two, the input of numerous scientists with direct access to the evidence is also pretty damn reliable.
And as for whether they were peer reviewed, remember that all these reports were put out by large scale investigative comitees, so there was plenty of review before publishing.--DCAnderson 09:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many people wrote it. It doesn't make it peer reviewed. Seabhcán 09:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright, you backed me into a corner, congratulations.

Now back to the original question: what do you want to cite from him? Is it relevant to the article? Is the statement something he is qualified to speak on ie is he talking about structural engineering?

You're asking us to agree to something without us knowing what we're agreeing to.--DCAnderson 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

On this discussion page, it has been suggested that peer review can not be used as a standard to judge the validity of a source.

The problem is, is that there seems to be this assumption that the only way to use peer-review, is as a litmus test for inclusion in this article. Either it is peer-reviewed and it can be included, or it isn't peer-reviewed and can't be included.

This argument is flawed.

Peer-review is only one of many standards we can use to judge the value of a source.

FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 comission report are large scale studies involving hundreds of experts that have the backing of major respected institutions. (FEMA, MIT, and Congress respectively.) With the weight of authority and respectibility that they carry, the matter of peer-review is pretty much moot. i.e. Even though they are weak in one area, the other things they have going for them make up for it.

When we are trying to jugde the value of the findings of individuals like Proffesor Jones who carry the view of of a distinct minority and who do not have the support of an authority on their findings, we need to find other criterion to judge their value on, and peer-review is one of many standards which can be applied.--DCAnderson 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept that the FEMA, NIST and Commission reports are valid or notable because of the number of people who worked on them. If that was the case then Wikipedia itself must be the most valid and notable source around. These reports are notable because they are widely accepted and because they are the 'official' explaination(s) from the US government.
Jones's writings are far less notable because they are far less widely accepted. So the question then becomes, how widely accepted are they, and does that acceptance reach the necessary threshold of acceptance for inclusion here.
I would argue that they represent the largest minority opinion and deserve a brief mention.Seabhcán 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And they do get a brief mention. There is a section that mentions it with a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Giving it anything else would be supplying Undue weight.
And no one is saying the NIST, Commision and FEMA reports are valid because of "the number of people who worked on them." They are valid because of the number of qualified researchers who worked on them with the backing of a reputable authority.--DCAnderson 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Judging the reliability of a source is ultimately a subjective process. There's no real way to make it objective. There are, however, indicators that one can look at when making that judgment.
One indicator is the reputation of the author. This is difficult to assess unless one has worked extensively in the same field as the author, and this indicator is probably not useful for the purposes of wikipedia.
Another indicator is the reputation of the publisher. Some publisher value their reputation highly, and take certain measures to preserve and enhance that reputation. One typical measure used is peer-review. Peer-review is used when the publisher itself does not have enough knowledge to judge the quality of the article. For example, an editor at "Nature" probably is not have the background in Quantum Mechanics needed to tell whether a paper submitted to him is BS or not.Peer-review is most applicable to shorter, journal-type articles as peers don't typically have the free time to extensively review book-length works. A peer-reviewer is asked by the publisher to provide comments on the article and recommend whether it should be published. This process is transparent to the general public and often (but not always) to the author. The publisher is not under any obligation to follow those recommendations. I could publish a legitimately peer-reviewed journal in my garage, but it would not be a reliable source until I as a publisher made a reputation for myself.
Other publishers, especially those that publish longer works, use methods other than peer-review. Some publishers, such as NIST, do have the in-house expertise to judge the quality of the works they publish. Certain Federal Agencies I've worked with also have review processes that draw upon in-house experts to review potential publications. Federal Agencies also may use expert task groups (ETGs) put together by the National Academies which function like a peer-review panel.
So really the reputation of the publisher is what's important. Peer-review is simply one of the processes that publishers use to preserve their reputation. In my field, if NIST, FHWA or AASHTO published a report that said X is true, and Nature published an article that said X is false, I would not pay much attention to the Nature article. That's because Nature, although it has a great reputation in some fields, has no reputation in my field. If the field was Quantum Mechanics, the opposite would be true.
I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I think it's obvious that a webpage authored by an anonymous individual is not a reliable source. Webpages like "9/11 Truth" are also not reliable sources on this subject, because they have no reputation as a publisher in the field of structural engineering, fire protection engineering or anything remotely approaching engineering. The FEMA and NIST publications are reliable sources - NIST because it has a good reputation in this field, and FEMA because it put together a large panel of respected experts in the field to write the document. Toiyabe 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the publisher is important, and a good measure of validity. Can we consider the issue of a peer review threshold settled?Seabhcán 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well every time someone even mentions the word "peer review" you start up with the "NIST and FEMA aren't peer-reviewed" canard. So apparently it is not settled.--DCAnderson 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say that absent peer-review there must be other indicators of reliability. Works published under the name of an organization should be evaluated based on the reputation of that organization in that specific field. Works published by commercial publishers would probably have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Toiyabe 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Seabhcán 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

John Hopkins

As discussed with Mongo on this page, I finally added the fact that molten steel was found and its Johns Hopkins source, along with the factual statement that the NIST report does not explain how this steel melted (if anyone thinks it or the FEMA report does explain it, please provide the NIST or FEMA report page number.)--JustFacts 19:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have some reliable source that says that's significant to the collapse, I think including it constitutes original research. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a feature of the collapse--the steel was part of the structure of the Towers that melted as part of the collapse. That would seem to me to be "significant to the collapse" (unless you think it was planted in the rubble afterwards or believe in some other far-fetched conspiracy). Also, the presence of the melted steel goes to the issue of the temperature the fires reached, the amount of heat generated by the fires in each building, and even potentially what parts of the infrastructure (tresses, joints, columns etc) gave in first, just to name a few issues. These too are "significant to the collapse." --JustFacts 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So do you have a reliable source who says this molten metal, if present, was significant to the collapse? Beyond that, declaring that "the presence of the melted steel goes to the issue..." sounds like original research, as I said above. Tom Harrison Talk 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The Johns Hopkins reference is a public health magazine, not a journal. The statement referenced is hearsay, a non-expert reporting that some "they" have found molten steel. Toiyabe 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The professor quoted is an expert in environmental science. He was not personally looking for the steel so someone else, "they", found the molten steel. He may have seen some of the molten steel with his own eyes, you can ask him if you wish. As far as this Wikipedia contribution is concerned, the burden would be on someone trying to delete a contribution to show that the report from an accepted major university source is unreliable. --JustFacts 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You should actually read the reference before trying to add it. Alison Geyh is a she not a he. She does not claim to have seen molten steel. She does not say who did see it, nor what their qualifications are. Her faculty page lists her as an expert in the health effects of airborne contaminants, not metalurgy. Finally the "Johns Hopkins Bloomburg School of Public Health Magazine" is a news-type magazine that highlights the activities of its faculty, staff and alumni. It does not claim to be a research journal.
Man, this is a lot of work dealing with you guys. Toiyabe 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention, I will summarize the entire disagreement of this article. The skeptics are angry because the official reports fail to anyalyze the "crucial data" (i.e. collapse features). Other scientists come along and DO analyze the crucial data, so the skeptics would like to report on that. Realizing that the analysis of the crucial data is upsetting to the "official story", supporters of the "official story" then go to any lengths to deny entry for the "crucial data", stating that "reliable sources" (i.e. the "official sources") have not reported on this "crucial data". But OF COURSE NOT!! That is the whole point. The whole problem with the "offical story" is that it ignores the crucial data. Get it?

Those supporting the official theory are so frightened of the truth that they are taking truly absurd positions, such as denying the presence of molten metal, or the rapid collapse times, or the pulverization.

I'v added a design criticism to the article. TruthSeeker1234 02:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Frightened of the truth"...? You have truth...I'll be waiting patiently for this evidence.--MONGO 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote report, cite report

If you want to say, "According to the report," then you need to cite the report, not someone's tendentious gloss. Further, the statement you wrote is a mischaracterisation. The report says

"For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004."[10]

From this, you made "The Twin Towers contained absolutely no core columns at all, and instead had only a "hollow steel shaft" in the center, this according to the 9/11 Commission Report." That's not according to the report. That is at best a misreading of the report, and does not seem to be presented in the report as a criticism. I question whether a webmaster's opinion of the building's construction is even notable.Tom Harrison Talk 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats the SOP for conspiracy theorists...take information, twist it around to fit their POV and/or misrepresent facts and comments. Standard ploy.--MONGO 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem citing the report in larger context, it's still a blatant lie, the context does nothing to make the statement any closer to the truth. Especially when one considers that this is the only mention of the core in the entire 9/11 commission report, which also fails to mention WTC7, which as far as I can tell, is also still supposed to part of this article.

See if it's OK nowTruthSeeker1234 05:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we've already adressed the usage of the 9/11 Commission report on the structural aspects of the WTC. It shouldn't be used. The 9/11 Commission report doesn't discuss the structure at all except in a small footnote which is poorly worded at best. For some reason folks want to latch on to that poor wording in order to discredit the FEMA and NIST reports which do deal extensively with the structural aspects. Toiyabe 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't actually seem to be a criticism of the building's design, but of the commission's report. I don't favor including it, but if it is to be here, it needs to be correctly sourced and accurately presented. It might go better in Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report, if it's not there already. Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a paraphrase of a Chicago Tribune article that highlights the importance of understanding the collapse of building 7. --JustFacts 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barnett Quote from NY Times Article

Justfacts, you are grossly mischaracterizing that NY times reference to the degree that it is hard for me to continue good faith. First of all, the title of the article is: "A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel", as you can see by searching the NY times archive, NOT "Engineers Baffled". The switch of titles alone was enough to get me suspicious.

Second of all, the quote is way out of context. Here's an earlier portion of the article: "Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."

So, by the section you quoted, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.", he is saying that there appear to have been very high temperatures which point to diesel fuel as the culprit. He is not supporting any theory of exotic fuels or explosives, as you are trying to twist his words to imply.

I'm removing what you added. I'm loosing patientce with you jokers - you cause me ten times as much time to debunk your junk as it takes you to make it up. Toiyabe 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the actual source of the recent "paraphrase" is prisonplanet.com. See this google search. Tom Harrison Talk 22:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the usual suspects. Sorry Justfacts, I thought you invented this cute little distortion whereas it seems to have been making the rounds for quite some time. Toiyabe 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys (Toiyabee, Tom H.) should try to read what I write, not make up your own versions. Here was my contribution (which out of courtesy I will not re-post until I give you a chance to comment): The steel in the Towers did not melt, according to NIST investigation metals expert, Dr. Frank Gayle. (Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004, http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807). However, steel structures of WTC 7 had partly "evaporated" or melted, baffling engineers (New York Times, November 29, 2001), and there were reports of pockets of molten steel found in areas of the rubble of the WTC complex (Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm). (1) For the first sentence, do you have a problem with Fire/Rescue News as a source? (2) For the second sentence, do you think Dr. Barnett is accurately cited? The "baffling engineers" phrase is a very close paraphrase of content in the first three paragraphs "mystery", "engineers and experts...struggle to explain."--JustFacts 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I read what you write very carefully. The edit under discussion in this section is this one. As I said, the article was incorrectly referenced in such a way as to be grossly POV, and you took the quote way out of context. Finally Dr. Barnett was not expressing bafflement. He was saying that the evidence of extreme heat in WTC 7 pointed to diesel fuel as the source.
As to your previous edit, as I said before the quote from the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine regarding molten steel is not reliable. If you want to discuss that, please discuss it in the appropriate section. I personaly have no problem with the quote from Fire/Rescue news, however the statement referenced to it is pointless without your other, improperly referenced statements. Toiyabe 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we all agree with Tom Harrison that the FEMA report is junk science? He deleted my edit about collapse times, which was referenced to the FEMA report, calling it "junk science". Should we delete all reference to the FEMA report? Or reinstate the collapse times? Or ignore my complaint as usual?TruthSeeker1234 02:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did he state that? I can't see it in the editing history...[11]--MONGO 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll put it back in the article and see what happens. Thanks MONGO, for your vote of confidence.TruthSeeker1234 03:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion about WTC7 is Orwellian. Of course we can use the quote about "partly evaporated" from the New York TImes, and of course we can use molten metal. We have supplied numerous reliable sources for molten metal, all corroboarating one another, as hashed out upthread. No resonable person can possibly say there was not molten metal. Please. TruthSeeker1234 03:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This part you want to add in:

The steel in the Towers did not melt, according to NIST investigation metals expert, Dr. Frank Gayle. (Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004, http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807). However, steel structures of WTC 7 had partly "evaporated" or melted, baffling engineers (New York Times, November 29, 2001), and there were reports of pockets of molten steel found in areas of the rubble of the WTC complex (Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm)

appears to be a cherry-picking of unrelated ideas taken out of context and synthesised to make a new statement. That would fit the definition of Original research. The sources are all individually good sources, the problem is that you're misrepresenting them and stringing them together to create a new thought.--DCAnderson 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I read one publication in which NIST experts investigating the collapse state (Dr. Gayle statement in Fire/Rescue News) that "steel did not melt" in the WTC. I read in the NY Times that steel members partly "evaporated" in very high temperatures. This apparent controversy among experts about a basic aspect of the collapses, did steel melt or did it not, were the fires hot enough to raise the temperature of any steel to the steel melting point, seems quite relevant to our article about the collapse of the WTC. So, can we agree on the following: The steel in the WTC buildings did not melt, according to NIST investigation metals expert, Dr. Frank Gayle. (Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004, http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807). However, the New York Times reported "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures" (New York Times, November 29, 2001 by James Glanz).--JustFacts 14:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which report do you deem as reliable...who does the NYTimes cite as their witness to that statement?--MONGO 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo are you joking? Am I, or we here, supposed to determine for Wikipedai which expert or source is correct? --JustFacts 14:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


First of all, you are conflating the WTC Towers with WTC 7. One reference is with regards to the former, the other is with regards to the latter. Second of all, you are continuing to obscure Barnett's hypothesis that diesel fuel is responsible for the observed high temperatures in WTC 7 by leaving out the article's title. Finally, the NYT article is from November 2001, which is two months in to a multi-year investigation. A reference to the final report of that investigation should be used in preference to a remark to a reporter early on in the investigation. Toiyabe 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Dr. Gayle did not say no steel melted EXCEPT in the WTC7. He was quite categorical "steel did not melt". You seem to be engaging in speculation when you attempt to re-interpret and qualify the explicit statements to make them consistent with each other. If it's not speculation on your part, then it's either original research or you need to provide a source that has your re-interpretation. (2) Are you saying the NY Times and Dr. Barnett and their statement about steel melting at very high temperatures cannot be trusted? Only the final NIST report (yet to be released for WTC7) can be used in Wikipedia? Where does it say that in the Wikipedia rules? If you think the final NIST report about the Twin Towers backs up one or more of the foregoing sources you are welcome to add it.--JustFacts 14:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) The Gayle quote from your source is as follows: "Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "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 didn't, the steel did not melt."" It is quite clear from the context that he is exclusively talking about the WTC towers (i.e. the ones subjected to jet-fuel fires).
(2) In the case where inital reports are contradicted by final reports, we should go with the final reports. In addition, the published FEMA report (remember, Barnett was on the FEMA team, not the NIST team) and NIST reports are considered more reliable then the individual team members. Finally, the statement from Barnett is a reporter's paraphrase (no quotation marks). We don't know what Barnett's exact words were. Reporters substitute words like "evaporated" for "eroded" all the time, because they are writing for an audience of laypeople that might get confused with precise, technical terminology. Also, the reporters themselves are laypeople and often get confused with precise, technical terminology. Toiyabe 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are engaging in speculation when you re-interpret the NY Times' statement "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly EVAPORATED in EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH temperatures" (emphases added) to mean the steel did not evaporate or melt. Unless you can support this re-interpretation or prove the reporter got it wrong, I believe we should post this part of the report. The context makes clear that Dr. Barnett and others were grappling with what caused the steel to "evaporate;" the NY Times article reports that they came with a theory of how it happended: the fuel inside the tanks in WTC 7 must have ignited. --JustFacts 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not speculating about what Barnett actually said. I am simply saying that we don't know what Barnett actually said, because the statement referenced to him is not a quote. The NY Times, for whatever reason, saw fit to paraphrase him, rather than directly quote him. That's fine, but the NY Times itself is not a reliable source on scientific or technical issues, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Avoid citing the popular press. If you've ever worked in a technical field and read articles about something in that field in the popular press you'd understand where that guideline comes from. Toiyabe 17:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition Theories

"These theories are considered by the vast majority of engineers to be without merit." This line isn't supported with any facts or sources. If the "vast majority" disagrees with demolition theories, shouldn't there be some sources someone can cite? Rondmc170 13:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If they weren't considered bunk by the vast majority of engineers, you ought to be able to point to a few engineers who disagree. The only one I've heard of is Judy Wood at Clemson, who apparently publishes her reasons for disagreeing anonymously on the web. Toiyabe 14:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you take a poll, Toiyabee? Are you talking about the vast majority of structural engineers, mechanical engineers? Only engineers who have studied the collapse? --JustFacts 15:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Find me a few engineers (my criteria would be licensed structural or fire protection engineers, or those with an advanced degree in one of those areas or materials science) who have publically endorsed the controlled demolition theory, and then I would support changing "vast" to "large". If you can't manage that criteria, but can with a broader group of engineers, then I would support changing "engineers" to "engineers in the relevant fields". Toiyabe 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer who openly supports the controlled demolition theory. And actually, when you get down to names, there aren't THAT many who openly support the government theory. WHen you then take into account that there have been 3 different "official" theories, with different "experts" touting each one, you realize that that the imbalance isn't so great. TruthSeeker1234 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Collection of factoids

"An article in the Journal of Metallurgy discussed microstructural changes that resulted in the erosion of a piece of a steel beam collected from WTC7:" I do not think we should have a section called 'collapse features', as I've said before. I moved this to the correct section and added the cite-web template, but I don't see the relevance, and I'm not sure we should include it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article from the Journal of Metallurgy is already discussed in the "Seven World Trade Center" section of the article, and that seems like a good place for it. I don't think we need a separate "Collapse Features" section for that. Items relevant to the collapse of the Towers should go in the "Collapse of the Two Towers" section. Toiyabe 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having a section called something like "Eye Witness Descriptions" which would present the reports of what people in and around the WTC saw and experienced about the collapses. It would give the article some color (instead of just grim engineering facts) and would present a range of testimonies. For example, the NY Times has an Oral Histories project featuring NYC firefighters. --JustFacts 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but Wikipedia is supposed to have a dull encyclopedic tone. It would also serve to increase the length of the article without adding much in the way of information.--DCAnderson 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison and Vandalism

On my talk page, Tom Harrison has voiced his displeasure with my accusing him of vandalism. However, Tom Harrison does not attempt, let alone succeed in explaining how his "work" is NOT vandalism. I have recently posted edits to this article which are interesting, relevant, important, and cited by the very sources which Tom Harrison and the other anti-science bullies claim are the only acceptable sources for this article. There can be no more clear example of strong POV than what exists in this article currently.

I hereby restate, and reallege that Tom Harrison is guilty of multiple vandalisms of my work, and I eagerly await any attempted refutation of this statement, by anyone. I further allege that Tom Harrison's vandalism is intentional, pre-meditated, and that Tom Harrison if perfectly aware that he is in violation of WP policy. The history of this article speaks for itself. I ask that Tom Harrison be barred from this artticle. TruthSeeker1234 18:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they are a shoddy attempt to lay a framework for a synthesis of facts. Why collapse "features"? We already have a section on the collapse. --Mmx1 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no "framework for a synthesis", just a listing a collapse features. Mmx, I also accuse you of vandalism, bu the way. Why collapse features? They are interesting, they are documented, they are NPOV. I see that some of my work has been integrated into a new section called "Collapse of the Two Towers". OK, I'll just call that "Features", and we'll make a separate one for WTC7 then.
Here's my opinion on what contitutes NPOV. I feel that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
How does anyone else feel about my opinion on what constitutes NPOV? How about my opinion that the article currently is a synthesis of mutually exclusive theories? (FEMA and NIST particularly, but many others as well).
I think we should present the collapse features, with citations, and leave readers to form there own opinions. Agree or Disagree?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthSeeker1234 (talk • contribs).

I disagree. This should be an article describing how the towers collapsed. If a feature is relevant to the explanation it will be mentioned as it comes up in the article. A "Collapse Features" section is at best just a dumping ground for trivial primary source information, and at worst open to abuse as a way to interject original research into the article.

If the reader was qualified to draw a conclusion from the primary source information, he probably wouldn't need to read an encyclopedia article on it. If the reader does want to read about "microstructural changes" that happened to steel, then he can do his own research.

I also believe that not all versions of the collapse account are equally valid. The theories of Steven Jones are currently given as much weight as they deserve, which is a brief mention and a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I also think that there are discrepancies between the NIST and FEMA accounts, but they aren't as major and glaring as some editors would like to present them as being.

Both NIST and FEMA agree what was originally responsible for the collapse: Jetliners were crashed into the buildings.

What happened afterwards is where things got confusing.

I would also like to add that if you want to accuse someone of vandalism, that this is not the place, and that the above allegations of vandalism are pretty much straight forward personal attacks.--DCAnderson 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll put DCAnderson down for disagreeing with my opinion of NPOV. Anybody else wish to comment?
The argument for inclusion/exclusion advanced by Tom Harrison, DCAnderson, MONGO, Mmx, et al is CIRCULAR:
Why are collapse features irrelevant? Because the government didn't study them.
Why didn't the government study the collpase features? Because they are irrelevant!
The truth is that DCAnderson, Tom Harrison, MONGO et al are willing to violate WP rules and make this article strong POV, because they know that including the collapse features would allow intellegent readers to correctly deduce the junk science nature of the "official reports". (i.e. the "official" reports ignore the collapse features. It's clear why you anti-science, anti WP guys want to deny the facts, and prevent them from appearing in this encyclopedia.

TruthSeeker1234 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"It's clear why you anti-science, anti WP guys want to deny the facts, and prevent them from appearing in this encyclopedia. "

Oh really? I'm interested, why don't we?--DCAnderson 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, as I said, they know that including the collapse features would allow intellegent readers to correctly deduce the junk science nature of the "official reports" (i.e. the "official" reports ignore the collapse features).TruthSeeker1234 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the FEMA and NIST reports don't specifically address the collapse features that you dug up as part of your Original Research.

I mean we all know that FEMA and NIST should have adressed the personal concerns of TruthSeeker1234, but if you want to break new ground on this subject Wikipedia is not the place to do it as per WP:NOR.--DCAnderson 21:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I wasn't aware that a jetliner crashed into WTC7. DCAnderson, please supply a reference that NIST and/or FEMA claims that a jetliner is responsible for the collapse of WTC7.TruthSeeker1234 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I said that is what originally caused all the structures to come down.
The reports are consistent:
Planes crash
Buildings Burn
Buildings Fall Down
I'm sorry I didn't give you a point by point account of events.
So I suppose you're gonna give me a twenty page physics lesson now.--DCAnderson 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a history lesson instead? Fires have NEVER caused a steel framed building to fall down, and there is no reason to think that they would. The various official reports have advanced various theories about how that might happen, and I have no problem reporting on the various theories advanced. There is NOT one official theory, there are several. And again, what about WTC7? Plane crash? WHat?

OK, DCAnderson disagrees with WP official policy on NPOV. I can't help you with that. I agree to the official policy. DCAnderson thinks that jetcrashes somehow caused WTC7 to collapse. DCAnderson, do you have any reference for this opinion, or is it OR?

I didn't "dig up" the collapse features, they are not Original Research, and you know it. There is plenty of primary and secondary research on these, I have cited it in the article, and it has been vandalised away. Repeatedly.

My insistance that Tom Harrison is vandalizing, is NOT a personal attack. He has maliciously removed material which is important, relavant, cited, reputable, and interesting. He does so to advance his personal POV, and exclude the Neutral Point of View.

The collapse times, the pulverization, the squibs, the molten metal, the dust clouds etc are NOT a conspiracy theory. THey are observations, they are documented, they are cited, they are reputable. TruthSeeker1234 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I've heard all this stuff before.

Also, you claim that I'm going against NPOV. If you read that policy there is this part called WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

So no, I'm not going against NPOV.--DCAnderson 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So in summation, all the things you are fighting to include are going against either the No Original Research policy or they are going against the Undue weight policy (which is part of the NPOV policy.)--DCAnderson 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the inclusion of the metal report from FEMA violate undue weight, or Original Research, or NPOV? Please explain it, this I am DYING to hear.
The undue weight clause should be appled to the NIST report. This is a WP article about the collapse of the world trade center, yet the NIST report admits it DID NOT STUDY "the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.) THis is NOT an article about the events leading up to the collapse, this is about THE COLLAPSES, the very thing NIST admits they did not study.
DCAnderson, your assertion that the FEMA and NIST reports agree, because they both say "crashes and fire did it", this is ridiculous. The entire point of any real study would be to determine HOW crashes and fire could possibly trigger this type of collapse, since prior to 9/11 it had only been triggered by controlled demolition. FEMA and NIST do each try to explain HOW crashes and fires lead to collapse, and they have come up with mutally exclusive theories.
For anyone to claim that there is ONE official theory is a synthesis, it is original research. Please comment on this guys, every time you avoid answering my questions, it only emboldens us. TruthSeeker1234 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
And what about WTC7, which wasn't hit by a plane?TruthSeeker1234 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"How does the inclusion of the metal report from FEMA violate undue weight, or Original Research, or NPOV? Please explain it, this I am DYING to hear."

Because you keep using that information to support a minority viewpoint or to support your own original research. You can not draw your own conclusions from information when writing an article.

"The undue weight clause should be appled to the NIST report."

Why? if you read the policy, it applies to minority viewpoints. I'm pretty sure NIST is not a minority viewpoint.

"This is a WP article about the collapse of the world trade center, yet the NIST report admits it DID NOT STUDY "the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.) THis is NOT an article about the events leading up to the collapse, this is about THE COLLAPSES, the very thing NIST admits they did not study."

So? They studied everything that lead up to and caused the collapse. I would think that would be relevant to the collapse itself.

"DCAnderson, your assertion that the FEMA and NIST reports agree, because they both say "crashes and fire did it", this is ridiculous. The entire point of any real study would be to determine HOW crashes and fire could possibly trigger this type of collapse, since prior to 9/11 it had only been triggered by controlled demolition. FEMA and NIST do each try to explain HOW crashes and fires lead to collapse, and they have come up with mutally exclusive theories."

You keep trying to over-represent discrepancies between the reports in an attempt to cast doubt on them. Trying to draw the conclusion that they "completely disagree with each other" from your examination of the reports is Original Research.

"For anyone to claim that there is ONE official theory is a synthesis, it is original research."

There basically is ONE official theory. I said it before: Planes hit towers, towers burn, towers collapse. That there are discrepancies beyond that does not imply that there is some great schism in the official account.

"Please comment on this guys, every time you avoid answering my questions, it only emboldens us."

I havn't noticed anyone not answering your questions, and since when can you use the royal "we?"--DCAnderson 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Of COURSE it means there is a "great schism" in the official account. You cannot go from "towers burn" to "towers collapse" without an explanation. It is unprecedented. It has never happened before, or since 9/11. NIST and FEMA attempted to explain how fires made the damaged part of each tower collapse, and they came up with dramatically different mechanisms. By the way, neither report gave very much thought at all as how local failure leads to global failure. But to the extent that they have a theory at all, they DISAGREE.
Unanswered questions -
What is the explanation for WTC7 collapse?
How does the inclusion of the metal report from FEMA violate undue weight, or Original Research, or NPOV? Please explain it, this I am DYING to hear.
How does NIST qualify for use in this artilce, since they admit they did not study the subject of this article?

TruthSeeker1234 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"What is the explanation for WTC7 collapse?"

Falling debris and fire.

"How does the inclusion of the metal report from FEMA violate undue weight, or Original Research, or NPOV? Please explain it, this I am DYING to hear."

Because either it is irrelevant to helping the reader understand how the buildings collapsed in a brief enclyclopedic article (assuming good faith) or it is being used as part of an attempt to slip in original research or a minority view. (bad faith)

"How does NIST qualify for use in this artilce, since they admit they did not study the subject of this article?"

You're taking their quote out of context. They studied the events that lead up to the actual collapse, and therefore it is relevant to the collapse itself.--DCAnderson 01:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The NIST quote is not out of context. They didn't study the collapse. NIST would be an excellent source for an article on "The Mechanics of the 9/11 Jet Crashes". Saying that NIST is relevant to THIS article would be like citing a book called "19th Century Music" for an article on "20th Century Music". After all, they studied the events "leading up to" 20th Century Music.

"Falling debis and fire" caused a 47 story skyscraper to collapse in 6.5 seconds and blow squibs up the side? Oh right, I forgot, the government reports "forgot" the squibs and molten metal, so they didn't happen. What's your source for your "debris and fire" theory? Or is it Original Reasearch? Is it FEMA, the guys who admitted their theory has "a low probability of occurance"?

The "Swiss Cheese" erosion of the metal at WTC7 is a "mystery" according to the New York Times. So is the evident high temperature and the evaportaion of steel. Of course it helps a reader understand. The reader gets a factual picture of something very interesting. High temperature and sulfer eroding and evaporating steel. That could certainly help understand what made a 47 story building fall straight down.

Let me see if I have this right. I want to INCLUDE observations and pictures, that have mainstream sources, and are totally NPOV, and that's forbidden. You guys want to delete observations and pictures, that have mainstream sources, and that's OK?

Tom Harrison, stop vandalizing this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthSeeker1234 (talk • contribs).

"The NIST quote is not out of context. They didn't study the collapse. NIST would be an excellent source for an article on "The Mechanics of the 9/11 Jet Crashes". Saying that NIST is relevant to THIS article would be like citing a book called "19th Century Music" for an article on "20th Century Music". After all, they studied the events "leading up to" 20th Century Music."

Here are some quotes from the 20th century classical music article:

Particularly in the early part of the century, many composers wrote music which was an extension of 19th century Romantic music.

Modernism is the name given to a series of movements (See Modernism) arising out of the idea that the 20th century presented a new basis for society and activity, and therefore art should adopt this new basis, however construed, as the fundamental of aesthetics. Modernism took the progressive spirit of the late 19th century, its love of rigor and of technical advancement, and unhinged it from the norms and forms of late 19th century art.

""Falling debis and fire" caused a 47 story skyscraper to collapse in 6.5 seconds and blow squibs up the side?"

Yes.

"Oh right, I forgot, the government reports "forgot" the squibs and molten metal, so they didn't happen."

"Squibs" were clouds of dust. Aside from hearsay, no reliable source has mentioned molten steel.

"What's your source for your "debris and fire" theory? Or is it Original Reasearch? Is it FEMA, the guys who admitted their theory has "a low probability of occurance"?"

What's up with you and taking quotes out of context?

"The "Swiss Cheese" erosion of the metal at WTC7 is a "mystery" according to the New York Times. So is the evident high temperature and the evaportaion of steel. Of course it helps a reader understand. The reader gets a factual picture of something very interesting. High temperature and sulfer eroding and evaporating steel. That could certainly help understand what made a 47 story building fall straight down."

It helps the reader understand what? That metal got really hot? It doesn't explain anything. Unless it says "the towers fell because of eroding swiss-cheese metal" it doesn't really contribute anything.

"Let me see if I have this right. I want to INCLUDE observations and pictures, that have mainstream sources, and are totally NPOV, and that's forbidden. You guys want to delete observations and pictures, that have mainstream sources, and that's OK?"

It's not "totally forbidden," you just need a reliable secondary source that explains their signifigance and it has to be relevant to the article.

"Tom Harrison, stop vandalizing this article."

WP:NPA--DCAnderson 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack against Tom Harrison. I know nothing of Tom Harrison's personal life, and have nothing whatsoever to say about him/her as a person. I am merely pointing out that, according to my reading of the rules, Tom Harrison has vandalized my work, which was cited, by "approved sources" and perfectly relevant to the article, and no one has ever bothered to even attempt to explain where I am wrong. Yes, nothing personal Tom Harrison, No Personal Attacks whatsoever against you, just please stop vandalizing my work. TruthSeeker1234 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP: A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

OK? It says right there I am allowed to allege vandalism against another editor. I, cannot, in all my imagination, think that Tom Harrison's deletions of my work were anything other than deliberate acts to suppress important information, acts of bad faith. For example, how can molten metal not be important to ANYONE trying to understand the collapse of the World Trade Center? Molten metal can tell you about temperatures that were achieved. Molten metal is very important, sourced, photographed, video'd and ready to go.

MONGO has threatened to block me for disruption if I accuse Tom Harrison of vandalizing one more time. The way I read the rules, see above, alleging vandalism is NOT a personal attack. MONGO, what you are really saying is that you are willing to kick me out rather than allow important facts like Molten Metal into the article. Shame on you anti-science guys. Let Molten Metal in! It's the only scientific thing to do. Stop covering up the truth.

TruthSeeker1234 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You missed the important part of that:

"From WP: A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism."--DCAnderson 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss the important part. I don't believe Tom Harrison could possibly be acting in good faith. If he was, he would be capable of explaining his edits, in my opinion.
DCAnderson does not understand how "swiss cheese erosion" and "evaporated steel" can help the reader understand what caused the buildings to collapse. OK. Pay attention DC, I'll explain it to you.
Steel frames are very strong. So strong, that in over 100 years of steel framed skyscrapers, fire has never caused one of them to collapse. Then, suddenly, 3 of them collapse in one day. It's a great mystery. It takes very high temperatures to melt or evaporate steel. Were such high temperatures achieved in this case?
Answer: YES! Yes, these high temperatures WERE achieved in this case. How do we know? Because the microstructural metal reports and other documents tell us so. Available photographs and videos depicting molten metal further corroborate very high temperatures. You see, DC, it helps clear up what began as a great mystery! Something made the steel so hot that it partially evaporated, and added sulfur to it, and left it with a "swiss cheese" appearance. Very interesting, and very helpful to the reader. TruthSeeker1234 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not here to solve any great mysteries. That's original research. All Wikipedia can do is summarize what is allready known. If melting steel caused the collapse, it would have been mentioned somewhere signifigant. If the FEMA and NIST reports are wrong, so be it, it's not Wikipedia's place to determine that. If a signifigant report is writen that does say that melting steel caused the collapse, then we can put it in here.--DCAnderson 23:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point DCAnderson. Wikipedia is NOT here to solve great mysteries. The article as it reads now purports to have solved the mystery of how the buildings collapsed. FEMA makes no such claim. Nor does NIST. They call what they have done "theories". With regard to WTC7, FEMA admits that their best guess has "only a low probability of occurence". My explanation above was in response to YOUR QUESTION.
Thank you DC. Excellent point. We are in agreement. Claims to understand the collapses are ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and strong POV. WP does give broad latitude for use of pictures. Any objections to using the molten metal pictures?

TruthSeeker1234 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job taking my statements out of context and twisting them around so they agree with what you say. I thought your ability to do that was limited only to news articles and the FEMA and NIST reports.--DCAnderson 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Clear it up for us then, DC. Do you agree that claiming to have solved the mystery of the WTC collapses constitutes Original Reseach? Or not? Or what? Isn't it true that FEMA and NIST only present theories?

TruthSeeker1234 04:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to solve mysteries. We can't create an article saying that we (Wikipedia) have discovered evidence that such and such happened.

What the job of Wikipedia is, is to present what other reliable sources have said happened from their examinations of the evidence.--DCAnderson 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And here is a quote from the "Theory" article:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

So yah, they're theories. That doesn't mean anything though. In science Gravity is considered a theory. That doesn't mean it's not accurate.

The last sentence is important too. It doesn't mean that "the door is closed" on molten steel causing the collapse as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If a reliable source comes along later with a theory that molten steel caused the collapse, then it will be included. Until then, it's just unsustantiated speculation from non-reliable sources, and doesn't have a place in the article.--DCAnderson 04:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm the only judge of who I am agreeing with or not agreeing with.--DCAnderson 04:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up "theory" and the "scientific method".
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method).
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.
. . .observable, empirical, measureable evidence . . .
Sudden onset, symmetry, collapse times, pulverization, horizontal ejection, squibs, molten metal - these are some important observable, empirical, measurable evidences regarding the collapse of the twin towers. Therefore, theories which account for these are within the scientific method. Those that don't, are not. Ignoring relevant data is the very essence of junk science.

TruthSeeker1234 05:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? We're not here to use the scientific method to draw a conclusion. That's the job of others whom we cite if they're a reliable source.--DCAnderson 05:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So plenty. Tom Harrison, MONGO and others have deleted material using the excuse of "junk science". Referring to the work of Steven Jones as "junk science", while supporting the work of FEMA and NIST as "reputable", is absurd. Orwellian. It IS the job of Wikipedia editors to decide what is "reputable". Therefore, we must consider the scientific method. A careful study of this matter will reveal to anyone that it is Dr. Jones who is follwing the scientific method, and the government which is engaged in junk science and ignoring data.
You are absolutely correct DC, and I thank you again. We are NOT here to draw conclusions. We ARE here to report on the research of experts.
I'll repeat one of my many unanwered questions:
How does any reasonable person come to the conclusion that the government reports are reputable? I don't get it. What is the thought process? Please enlighten me.TruthSeeker1234 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you're acting like we should throw out the FEMA and NIST reports because you personally were not satisfied with the job they did.

Your opinion that they did not use the scientific method is absurd.

Also, let me compare:

FEMA and NIST: a team of experts studied the physical evidence from ground zero to draw their conclusions.

Steven E. Jones: from watching videotapes of the collapse in the safety of his office in Utah, comes to the conclusion (on his own) that controlled demolitions caused the explosion.

And as to the question of why the FEMA and NIST reports are considered reputable? Well first off it is not an "unanswered question" (just because you keep rephrasing the same question, doesn't make it a new question) But the main reason they are considered reputable? They're from reputable sources. They carry the weight of authority, and they are accepted by the majority of experts as the most accurate acounts.

The reason we do not include Jones' findings, is because outside of a small circle, they are not really accepted or supported. (His own university won't even support him on this.)--DCAnderson 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You have conveniently avoided the issue of scientific method. Scientific method is not about WHO does it, its about HOW it is done. The FEMA and NIST did not consider the physical evidence, e.g. the molten metal. Also, bear in mind that it was FEMA that DESTROYED most of the physical evidence, so that it could not be studied by anyone. This alone is clearly outside federal law, and clearly renders them suspect. NIST abandoned their effort to do physical studies, and instead reverted to a mysterious computer model, which they won't show to anyone. This is science??
I suggest you review the definition of scientific method. Your attempt to discuss it was feeble. TruthSeeker1234 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that because FEMA and NIST didn't adress molten steel (that nobody can prove exists) that they were unscientific?

But Steven Jones' report (which ignored all the evidence except videotapes of the collapse) is scientific?

I'm interested in this claim that FEMA "destroyed evidence" so it "could not be studied by anyone," though. Throw me a link, I'm interested.--DCAnderson 18:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically what I'm saying is that because FEMA and NIST didn't address molten metal (which IS proven), sudden onset, symmetry, collapse times, pulverization, dust coulds, horizontal ejection, squibs, and a litany of eyewitness testimony, that they were unscientific. Proper science requires that scientists include ALL relevant data, and that the hypothesis is consistent with all of it.
Have you read Steven Jones paper? It sure doesn't sound like it. Jones considers all of the data, from all sorts of sources, including NIST and FEMA, and Bazant & Zhou, many others. What data are you talking about that you say Jones ignored? THIS ought to be good!
Yes, DC, the crime scene at ground zero was methodically scrubbed and all structural steel was put on barges and sent to China and India where it was melted down. Very little steel was saved for analysis. The few pieces that were nabbed by volunteer investigators (from WTC7) showed the "swiss cheese" appearance, the sulfidation, and the partial evaporation, according to FEMA.

TruthSeeker1234 02:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of Evidence at Ground Zero

The issue has been raised as to how FEMA can be considered a reputable source, when FEMA destroyed so much evidence at ground zero, i.e. the structural steel. DCAnderson has requested links to research this claim, Kudos to you DCAnderson for showing interest!

Begin here. This 9-11 research page is secondary research, and cites mainstream sources.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

TruthSeeker1234 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem all that sinister.

They kept a sample of it for future study and disposed of the rest of it. That seems reasonable considering that they were dealing with several thousand tons of rubble laying in the middle of a major city. (And remember along with investigating the accident it would also be FEMA's duty to clean up the wreckage as they "Manage Emergencies")--DCAnderson 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. If they really wanted to know what caused those buildings to fall down in such an unprecedented manner, they would have taken the steel out to a nice wide open space, laid it out and looked at it. Like they do with jet crashes and Space Shuttle disasters.
This could have told us, for instance, whether the floor assemblies broke away from the core columns (as FEMA, NOVA Eagar suggest), or held strongly to the core columns (as NIST suggests).
It's quite easy to tell the difference between columns that buckled verses ones that were blown up or melted. The buckled ones will be bent, and show no signs of melting. The blown-up ones can be quite straight at the ends, and show melting, as well as residue from whatever explosives or incindiaries were used.
This is why D.r Jones wishes to analyze the slag from ground zero, to see what it actually is. You know, DC, like any real scientist would. Where is the government analysis of the slag? Where are the pictures of the beams? Where is the analysis of the dust? Didn't they want to know anything? --TruthSeeker1234 04:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they didn't examine it before clearing it out? I highly doubt they they just wantonly threw it out without examining the crime scene first. But they also couldn't just leave it there for however many years it would take to finish the investigation.--DCAnderson 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"The buckled ones will be bent, and show no signs of melting. The blown-up ones can be quite straight at the ends, and show melting, as well as residue from whatever explosives or incindiaries were used."

Sorry DC, they wantonly, systematically recycled the steel at the crime scene. They kept very close tabs on every single truck, having installed a GPS device in each one. We know they didn't examine the steel, because there are no records, no picutres, no anything.
Please pay better attention DC. NOBODY is suggesting that the government should have left the rubble in place. It couild have been photographed and video'd as it was cleared out. That's very cheap. Steel pieces could have been numbered and taken to a nice open space somewhere, perhaps in New Jersey. There it could be scientifically examined. Engineers would have physical evidence to work with, instead of having to speculate as they do now. The time and effort that NIST spent building their fancy computer model (which nobody has seen), instead could have been spent reconstructing the steel, and demonstrating exactly how it failed. This would have been science. TruthSeeker1234 05:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, "someplace in New Jersey". Contrary to popular belief, it's not a big stinking landfill. Real estate costs money. They weren't recycled to hide the evidence, it was the cheapest way to dispose of it. The price of what you're asking for transport and lease would be in the millions. Engineers had a chance to examine the steel as they sat in Fresh Kills. --Mmx1 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"It couild have been photographed and video'd as it was cleared out. That's very cheap." No, it's not very cheap. Assuming 2 tons per truck, you're talking some 2000 truckloads. How much film/video (still film would be preferred to video as its resolution is superior - video doesn't tell you much about stationary objects) would you be satisfied for a 2-ton truckload of rubble? Who'd store it? Who'd be responsible for the filming? How long would that hold up clearing the site? And how long would it take a human to sort through them? There was no need - engineers were on-site screening the material as it was dug out. It took over 4 months to clear it. With your level of documentation, it might have taken a year. What you're asking for is absurd. How many millions did you expect them to spend to satisfy your curiosity? Their experts were given the chance to examine it to their satisfaction. Face it, not every detail of history is documented 100% - the resulting overload of information would be immense. Are the construction workers dismatling the Deutsche Bank building supposed to have video cameras in case they stumble across detonators in addition to the bone fragments they find? Don't be absurd. --Mmx1 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to document anywhere NEAR all of it to prove controlled demolition, DC. Just one beam showing melting would be very hard to explain under any "fire did it" theories. Yes, all recording media should have been welcomed at ground zero, instead of the strict police state security that occured.

This may interest you[12]--DCAnderson 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Link DC! Yes, this link of yours [13] brings up another very disturbing aspect of the government story, and that is. .. .

Why Did the Government say the Dust was Safe?

DC's link shows that the government knew DAMN WELL that the dust was EXTREMELY TOXIC, having a caustic pH of 14!!!! It contained mercury and asbestos, and serveral confirmed deaths have resulted from mercury and asbestos poisoning. WHy did the government say it was safe, when they knew that is wasn't? Hmmmmmm?

Can an agency which says the Ground Zero Dust was "safe" ever be considered a "reputable" source for information? Please explain your thought process here, I dont' get it. TruthSeeker1234 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. pH of 14 is the extremum of the scale. It would be as if it were solid NaOH - instant chemical burn (e.g. scene in Fight Club). Forget about inhalation, your skin would melt if you touched it. Since that didn't happen to the thousands of people that were covered in the dust, I must conclude that your rantings are, again, BULLSHIT.
There's mercury in most tap water (in acceptable levels). A decade ago, there was major levels of asbestos in NYC public schools (and there still are in some places). Presence of a compound does not equal dangerous or even lethal doses. Don't be such a tool.
--Mmx1 06:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, You're forgetting the thousands of people who WERE MELTED, as if by a very caustic substance! The pH of 14 comes from Steven Jones, who got a sample of it. Perhaps he was only referring to certain parts of it being that caustic, such as the dust at ground zero, where no one survived, and people did appear to have been converted into a fine powder, along with all the concrete and stuff. Jones reported on two men who worked at ground zero who died from both mercury on the brain and asbestos on the lung. TruthSeeker1234 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

cite --Mmx1 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

From the second page of the report I cited[14]:

Heavy metals and metalloids are present in low to quite high concentrations in many of the leach solutions Leach Table 1, Leach Figure 1). Mercury is present in generally low concentrations in the leachate solutions from outdoor dust samples (near 10 nanograms per liter, or parts per trillion). Mercury concentrations in leachate solutions from indoor dust samples (as high as 130 nanograms per liter), although low compared to concentrations of other metals in the leachate solutions, are relatively high compared to mercury concentrations measured in many types of environmental water samples.

The results of the leach tests also indicate that cleanup of dusts should be done with appropriate respiratory protection to prevent possible inhalation of alkaline material with potentially bioavailable heavy metals and metalloids. This is especially true for cleanup of dusts from indoor localities that have not been exposed to rainfall.

From page 3[15]:

The results of analyses completed so far show a consistent picture: the samples are largely composed of gypsum, cellulose, and miscellaneous materials common in a building, with minor asbestiform minerals. However, one sample analyzed, the coating on a steel beam, indicates the presence of a significant abundance of chrysotile asbestos (as much as 20% by volume). The confirmed abundant chrysotile sample and the potential pockets of chrysotile indicated in the AVIRIS mineral maps indicates that asbestos can be found in localized concentrations. Thus, appropriate precautions should be taken when handling debris, especially coatings on metal beams.

--DCAnderson 12:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.
‘We were all lied to’
The EPA presented “an overriding message that there was no significant threat to human health” even though there was cause for caution, it concluded.
“When EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was ‘safe’ to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement,” said the OIG, adding that the agency was missing data on other pollutants, such as particulates and chemicals like PCBs. In addition, 25 percent of dust samples contained asbestos, a potent carcinogen. [16]

TruthSeeker1234 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So? That was about the EPA. What does that have to do with FEMA and NIST?--DCAnderson 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And more importantly, how does that have any relevance to the collapse? We allready mention asbestos and contaminants in another article[17]--DCAnderson 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll connect the dots for you DC, I thought it was too obvious. The Bush Administration controls FEMA, and NIST, and also pressured the EPA into saying the air was safe to breathe. If they would deliberatley lie about that, and destroy all the evidence from ground zero, how can they be considered a reputable source for information? Prior to 9/11 FEMA was not even an investigative agency, as far as I know. So how could they have had ANY reputation in order to be reputable? NIST admits it did not study the collapses, only events leading up to the initiation of collapse. This is not an article about "events leading up to the collapse of the World Trade Center". It is an article about "The Collapse of the World Trade Center".
TruthSeeker1234 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Bush Administration controls FEMA, and NIST, and also pressured the EPA into saying the air was safe to breathe."

And as near as we can tell, they are unrelated incidents.

"If they would deliberatley lie about that,"

"They" being an arm of the Executive branch not charged with investigating the collapse.

"and destroy all the evidence from ground zero,"

Meaning FEMA, which is a different "they," who didn't didn't "destroy all the evidence"

"how can they be considered a reputable source for information?"

That would be why Wikipedia has their WP:Do not trust the government policy. Oh wait...they don't.
Nor do they have WP:government is automatically reliable, or WP:MONGO and TomHarrison have the final word on all science articles or WP:DCAnderson can delete facts which contradict government mythology. TruthSeeker1234 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FEMA as Investigative Body

"Prior to 9/11 FEMA was not even an investigative agency, as far as I know. So how could they have had ANY reputation in order to be reputable?"

This one is a little sketchy, but FEMA has a large number of departments under them which are in charge of all sorts of things. I am sure they would be prepared to investigate such events, because part of their duties under the 1979 Executive Order that created them [18] is:

...for the coordination of preparedness and planning to reduce the consequences of major terrorist incidents.

So there was no reason that they shouldn't be investigating this, as they need to evaluate past terrorist incidents to determine the US's current preparedness.
Also, as a government department that not only has to provide flood insurance, but also reimburse those who have lost property in disasters, they would probably allready have departments dedicated to investigating disasters so as to determine fraud.
You miss the point. Whether or not FEMA "should" be investigating 9/11 is not relevant to WP. What matters to WP is whether or not they are "reputable". In order to be "reputable", FEMA must have a "reputation". If they have not previously been an investigative agency, how can they have ANY reputation at all?TruthSeeker1234 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

NIST did not actually study the collapses

""NIST admits it did not study the collapses, only events leading up to the initiation of collapse. This is not an article about "events leading up to the collapse of the World Trade Center". It is an article about "The Collapse of the World Trade Center"."

You keep bringing this canard up. They investigated the cause of the collapse. They modeled everything that happened up to .000000000001 seconds or whatever before the buildings actually fell. Your claims that that means it is not relevant are silly. Beyond that, you're going to have to convince us that MIT is not a reliable source.--DCAnderson 02:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
NIST commissioned studies on actual floor models. The studies showed that the fire would not cause them to fail. So they made a computer model. They tweaked the inputs until they got a local collapse. At least that's what they say, no one has actually seen their computer model, and I see no evidence of it. Why haven't they released it?
Anyway, even assuming the model does show local failure, they do not explain how this failure could be symmetrical, as if this isn't a huge problem. NIST then simply assumes that a local collapse will automatically lead to a global collapse, which they keep calling "progressive collapse". There is no reason to assume that. NIST offers no evidence, nor any reasoning, nor any explanation. There is no proof. There is no study. There is no precedent in engineering history for this "total progressive collapse" that NIST keeps mentioning. NIST did not study the collapses. They truncated their timeline just when all of the interesting stuff began to happen.
What about the collapse times? Where does the energy come from to do all the pulverization? How are the steel members ejected so far horizonally? What about the expansion of the dust clouds? How does the top of WTC2 conserve angular momentum? What about the molten metal, what is the explanation for that? All of these things were part of the collapse, but none of them were studied by NIST. Sorry, NIST did not study the collapse of the World Trade Center, they admit it, you have provided nothing to show otherwise.
TruthSeeker1234 06:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The collpase of WTC2 occured from 9:58:59 am until 9:59:09 am. NIST only studied the events from 9:02:54 am until 9:58:59 am. Since they did not study the events from 9:58:59 am until 9:59:09 am, clearly they did not study the collapse, since that is the time during which it took place. The same holds for WTC1.
TruthSeeker1234 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, NIST states "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.
TruthSeeker1234 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

MIT as a reliable source

you're going to have to convince us that MIT is not a reliable source.--DCAnderson 02:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please link us to where the nice folks at MIT studied the collapse times, the sudden onset, the symmetry, the horizontal ejection, the dust clouds, the squibs, the angular momentum, and/or the molten metal. Thank you. TruthSeeker1234 07:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Symetry:Buildings fell straight down, no one is arguing that
  • Sudden onset: buildings lost structural integrity, then fell
  • Horizontal ejection: (I'll be honest here, I don't know what that means or why it is relevant)
  • Dust clouds: they were "clouds of dust" I don't know what the big mystery here is?
  • Squibs: another word for "clouds of dust"
  • Angular Momentum: I'm also confused by what you mean here
  • Molten Metal: doesn't exist. Metal got hot enouth to warp, but not hot enouth to melt. Most photographs of "molten metal" are photographs of yellow hot but not melting metal.

Basically all the things you are complaining about are either not real or irrelevant.

Plus you're falling back on that "they didn't address my issues" argument.--DCAnderson 17:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Symetry:Buildings fell straight down, no one is arguing that
Great. Tom Harrison and MONGO don't want symmetry in the article. It is relevant because asymmetrical collpase is favored by the second law of thermodynamics, symmetry requires an explanation, and is a great mystery. Will you join with us in explaining to Tom Harrison and MONGO that "nobody is arguing" the symmetry?
  • Sudden onset: buildings lost structural integrity, then fell
Yes, but why so sudden? There has been no other case of fire causing any kind of total collapse, but if there was, wouldn't we expect it to be gradual, given the properties of steel (i.e. it loses strength gradually)?
  • Horizontal ejection: (I'll be honest here, I don't know what that means or why it is relevant)
It means that huge, heavy steel members were expelled sideways (even upwards) for distances of 300 feet and more. It is relevant because it requires a source of energy to explain it. Gravity operates vertically.
  • Dust clouds: they were "clouds of dust" I don't know what the big mystery here is?
The big mystery is where did the energy come from to pulverize the building into dust, and where did the energy come from to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of the inatct building in such a short amount of time. It has never been observed before, and thus is a mystery.
  • Squibs: another word for "clouds of dust"
Sorry, no. The Squibs are tightly focused jets of debris and smoke that are observed eminating from the towers far below the pulverization region. This jet shape is very special. Dust and smoke do not normally occur in this shape. Put some flour between two books and clap them together. Dust will be expelled, but not in a jet shape.
  • Angular Momentum: I'm also confused by what you mean here
The law of conservation of angular momentum states that when a solid object is rotating about its center of mass, it will continue to rotate about its center of mass forever, until some force stops it. The top of WTC2 falls over to the side, demonstrating tremendous torque and angular momentum for about 2 seconds. We would expect this to continue. Instead, the top or WTC2 turns into dust.


  • Molten Metal: doesn't exist. Metal got hot enouth to warp, but not hot enouth to melt. Most photographs of "molten metal" are photographs of yellow hot but not melting metal.
First of all, the yellow hot metal photographed at ground zero was weeks after 9/11, and is still too hot be explained by an office fire. Second, there are numerous credible sources of engineers and others stating that they saw pools of liquid molten metal at ground zero. Third, liquid molten metal is videotaped cascading out of the corner of WTC2 in the minute before "collapse". Have you not seen the photos, the videos, and the numerous eyewitness reports?

Basically all the things you are complaining about are either not real or irrelevant. Plus you're falling back on that "they didn't address my issues" argument

No, I'm "falling back" on the "they didn't address the science" agrument. The "they ignored all the data that didn't fit the hypothesis" argument. I have explained the relevance.
Am I correct then, that MIT did not study any of these issues that us pro-science editors are concerned about?
TruthSeeker1234 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As an "anti-science" editor, I would like to say that no, they didn't address the issues that you are concerned about. That is not Wikipedia's problem. If these things are later brought up in a notable investigation of the collapse (i.e. outside of Steven Jones' little circle of buddies) then we can include it.

Until then, most of these things are either hearsay, hard to verify, or non-notable.--DCAnderson 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Great. Tom Harrison and MONGO don't want symmetry in the article. It is relevant because asymmetrical collpase is favored by the second law of thermodynamics, symmetry requires an explanation, and is a great mystery. Will you join with us in explaining to Tom Harrison and MONGO that "nobody is arguing" the symmetry?"

I don't know exactly what Tom and MONGO have said, but I would say there is nothing wrong with saying that the buildings fell straight down in and of itself. I would however object to trying to present it as something "unusual" or "sinister" or a "violation of the law of such and such" because that would seem like an attempt to slip in the opinions of Steven Jones.--DCAnderson 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
TomHarrison and MONGO have deleted my effort to include mention of collapse features, such as symmetry. I had added no editorial comment of any kind. I'll try putting symmetry in and see what happens. Molten Metal too. But just for your information, DC, there are zero examples of straight down building collapse (outside 9/11). Zero. It has never happened before or since. Never. Doesn't that make it "unusual"? How can we present as "usual" something unprecedented? I dont' get it. Please explain. TruthSeeker1234 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If you put molten metal in, I can promise you I will delete it.--DCAnderson 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That is, first of all, original research. Second of all, that's quite a fallacious argument. How many other buildings have suffered catastrophic structural damage in this manner? Zero. So an occurence of one straight collapse in one such attack is hardly a significant statistical event. --Mmx1 23:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Not Orignial Research, there exists a huge literature. Mmx, there were 3 symmetrical collapses on 9/11, not one. And of course there have been many dozens, if not hundreds of symmetrical building collapses outside 9/11, all of them due to controlled demolition. There are zero examples of symmetrical collapse from fires, impact damage, or anything besides contolled demolition. Achieving symmetry in a building collapse requires that all of the vertical supports fail at the same time, or a least fail in an evenly spaced, symmetrical manner. The odds of this happening by chance are very small, especially considering the impact damage and fires were asymmetrical. For it to happen three times in one day is profoundly significant, statistically speaking. TruthSeeker1234 00:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have proof of controlled demolition? I have seen you fill this talk page up daily for a couple of weeks now and have yet to see you provide any proof that the buildings were imploded. This isn't a blog so unless you have some proof I think you're wasting everyone's time...I keep wondering why all those reporters out there seem to not want a Pulitzer Prize for breaking this big story of yours...maybe you should contact them and give them your evidence...also, before you do, try to figure out why not one engineer anywhere has had a controlled demolition of the WTC paper published...surely they would win some award too if they had any proof...oh yeah, that's right...the feds covered it up...surely.--MONGO 10:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, you never fail to put a smile on my face;-). We're not here to "prove" things, we're here to report on the research of others. Having said that, there is very strong evidence of controlled demolition, which is why you, DCAnderson, TomHarrison, Mmx are so adamant about excluding "Collapse Features". Sudden Onset, Symmetry, Pulverization, Expansion of Dust Clouds, Squibs, Flashes, Molten Metal, and eyewitness reports of explosions. Each one of these features is very hard to explain via any of the "official theories". Taken together, they constitute proof. If you agree then admit it. If you don't, then why can't they go in the article?TruthSeeker1234 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Taken together, they constitute the "proofs" used by Steven E. Jones. You can not mention Jones' theories, because that would be Undue weight.
Without Jones' theories, you would be giving Undue weight to irrelevant facts.(as per the appendum mentioned below)
Please do not act like we havn't answered your questions about these things. We have, and you've taken up about half the talk page rephrasing your same five or so "unanswered" questions.--DCAnderson 19:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Change Title of This Article?

Actually, a more accurate name would be "Collapses at the World Trade Center".

TruthSeeker1234 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Circular Reasoning Criticism

This statement is currently in the article: "Debates between engineers have looped along this circular cause-and-effect chain . . ." I agree. The mainstream debate was indeed a circular argument. Why did the buildings collapse as they did? Impact damage and fires did it! How do we know impact damage and fires did it? Because the buildings collapsed as they did! TruthSeeker1234 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased that sentence, because that is the most annoying phrasing I've ever read on Wikipedia.--DCAnderson 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I restored it because I didn't understand the new one, but I'm not attached to the old "loop" phrase either. Tom Harrison Talk 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming Jones in the Contrlled Demolition Section

I put Steven Jones' name in there, in an attempt to remove Weasel words from the section. While I disagree with his theories, Jones is the most prominent (and only notable) supporter of these theories, so he probably should be named.--DCAnderson 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Appendum to Undue Weight

Here is a clause added recently to Undue weight which clears up many of the issues on this talk page:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

So a section on "collapse features" could now be considered Undue weight.--DCAnderson 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You anti-science guys are persistant. NIST spends hundreds of pages attempting to get a handle on the temperatures of the fires, and the temperature of the steel. FEMA, Eagar, Bazant, Zhou, and many others also spend much time and effort on the same subject. Therefore, it is clear that "temperature of the steel" is an aspect of this aricle which demands "tremendous weight". Molten metal speaks directly and unambiguously on the subject of "temperature of the steel". Contrary to DC Anderson's false claims, there are several independant, mainstream, published sources for liquid, molten metal at ground zero, including statements by structural engineers: ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6).
I am at a complete loss as to the reason for disallowing molten metal in this article. Please explain. TruthSeeker1234 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Can't prove it exists.
  2. Only brought up in theories of Steven Jones, which is considered a minority view undeserving of Undue weight.--DCAnderson 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. DC, what are you talking about? WP does not require "proof". WP requires reputable mainstream sources. We have provided those. There are also pictures and videos.
  2. DC, what are you talking about? Dr. Keith Eaton brought it up in Structural Engineer. FEMA brought it up also. DC, when you resort to obvious falsehoods, it betrays your desperation. What's the big deal with Molten Metal anyway? I'm not going to state a conspiracy theory. Just facts. Relevant, interesting, cited, published, reputable, photographed, video'd facts. What's the big deal? TruthSeeker1234 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories vs. Controlled demolition theory

Enough of the revert war please. Hash out the title of that section here, on the talk page. --Durin 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Controlled demolition theory should be used, it's more neutral. It doesnt suggest either side is right, and while 'Conspiracy theories' bothers those who advocate them, 'Controlled demolition theory' really shouldn't bother anyone --- Raemie 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph speaks about a *single* theory (so why should we use the plural?) namely the *controlled demolition theory*, so I don't see how other titles could work better than "controlled demolition theory".--Pokipsy76 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"For more information, please see: 9/11 conspiracy theories." The title of the section should match the main article it points to. Calling the section 'controlled demolition theory' gives undue weight to one particular conspiracy theory, and exaggerates the importance of these speculations. Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I remove it, place it back only with a source, thanks Jaranda wat's sup 15:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I see there's been some disagreement. It may be a small issue, but I prefer "Controlled demolition theories" if the content in that section is in fact about controlled demolition theories, as it is now. "Conspiracy theories" is less descriptive. Everyone agrees that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy, right? The only disagreement is over who was responsible and how they knocked the buildings down. Friday (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is not only about controlled demolition any more than it's about only Steven Jones. It's about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the section name should match the name of the main article we point to. Tom Harrison Talk 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, miscommunication. I was talking about the section in THIS article, which, as it stands right now, is just about controlled demolition. Yes, the other article covers other topics as well. Friday (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the only theory currently in the 9/11 conspiracy theory article relating to the collapse of the World Trade Center is the controlled demolition theory, the current title should remain as is. Change it only if there are other theories added to the article. --Physicq210 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

WP requires verifiability before an item can be included in an article. The controlled demolition theories, while entertaining, lack any support by mainstream journalism. There are no reliable sources for this wild speculation, just unsourced theories. Please do not load up what is otherwise a very decent article with this baloney. Morton devonshire 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Morton devonshire. What's your view on including the presence of molten metal cascading out of the south tower moments before collapse, and molten metal in pools, dripping off the ends of steel members in the rubble, and steel beams partly evaporated? If we can cite mainstream sources such as the New york Times, Structural Engineer, and FEMA, what is your view? If you are inclined to not want it mentioned, why not? What about adding a picture or two of the molten metal, such as this one [19] and this one [20] DCAnderson says it doesn't exist, but I have seen no mainstream sources which say it doesn't exist. Thank You.TruthSeeker1234 19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is it that mainstream sources state that molten metal was found, or what the molten metal was of (either steel or another metal)? Has there been any creditable witness that has stated that "molten metal" was "pouring" out of the WTC?...even so, how does this "prove" controlled demolition? Both images you want to add can't be uploaded here without permission and the second one has been altered using a photoeditor to add lines to detail the argument...the work from Jones has not been published by a reliable third party publisher...only by a conspiracy theorist named Alex Jones, right?--MONGO 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. We've been though this MONGO, I wanted to hear from Morton devonshire. MONGO, please review WP policy. We are not here to prove anything. We are here to report. Dr. Eaton in Stuctural Engineer says it was molten steel. The New York times says steel beams were partly evaporated, and called it a great mystery. FEMA reported the "swiss cheese" and sufidation. There are other mainstream sources as well. There are other photogaphs which do not have lines drawn on them. I think we can use the photos under "fair use". I have answered your questions over and over again. Now, would you please care to answer my question. For the hundredth time, can we include molten metal? If not, please tell me why not. Thank You. TruthSeeker1234 22:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
For what purpose...where are your links to these sources? What caption goes with images that do not have lines written on them..."something bright is dripping out of one of the towers"? Link us to where you see that the images you want to add are fair use. Who stated molten metal? In those words, where is your reliable witness to the words "molten metal"? You may have wished to hear from Morton, but you didn't. How long are you going to filibuster this talk page with the same rhetoric?--MONGO 05:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NIST mentioned it EyesAllMine 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the quote from NISTNCSTAR1-6, Section 6.2.2 "WTC 2 Structural Response Observations", subsection "Noted Observations"

Molten material pouring from the northeast corner indicated that Floor 81 on the east side of the north face may be shifting. If the substance was molten aluminum, that would have required temperatures on the order of 500C or higher.

Immediately before this, is another point:

A 'cold spot' on the north face, where little or no fires were observed, may indicate that Floors 82 and 81 had disconnected and dropped over a 12 window span along the north face.

It is interesting that NIST believes that a 'cold spot' on the north face could exist less than 50m away from a 500C+ fire on the northeast corner.Seabhcán 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Design criticisms

Paul Cyr removed this with the edit summary "rm pov:"

The largest camp appears to be those who feel the towers did well under the circumstances by standing long enough for the majority of occupants to escape. A minority takes exception to that view.

That left the sentence, "The collapse of the towers set off intense debates within the structural engineering and architectural professions" which seems to me no less "pov", and unbalanced by itself, so I removed that as well. Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Molten Metal

Anybody care to answer my question? May I add mention that molten metal was observed cascading out of the south tower moments before collapse, and that molten metal in the rubble was independently reported by different experts in mainstream sources. If not, please tell me why not. DCAnderson has said that molten metal "doesn't exist", but has not supplied any citations to back his assertion. There are multiple mainstream publications of molten metal, and videos, and photographs. Anyone? Hello?TruthSeeker1234 03:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see the links again...you've managed to fill this these talk pages with 50K of diatribe for so long, nobody can figure out what your "mainstream" sources are...lets just see some links.--MONGO 05:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "But [deisel fuel fires] would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." - New York Times [21]TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    We can't be selective, if you cite this with the quote, you must also include the other commentary such as the ones about the amount of diesel fuel stored, and also that the building wasn't designed to be a torch...etc...otherwise, I see no problem with using this source.--MONGO 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
We've already dealt with this quote ad nauseum. It doesn't mean what Truthseeker and Justfacts want it to mean. Truthseeker's "[diesel fuel fires]" insertion is completely contrary to what Barnett meant. He meant that the apparent high temperatures point to diesel fuel as the source. Finally, this was from early in his investigation - later, more scholarly publications from Barnett discuss sulphur impurities which allowed portions of the steel to melt at a lower temperature then usual. Toiyabe 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that Toiyabe. Where does Barnett (or anyone) say that "impurities" are the source of the sulfer, and/or say that a diesel fire can melt or evaporate steel? Cite please. TruthSeeker1234 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath [Sarah Atlas'] feet. [22]TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think this one helps us, aside from discussing the health impacts and in this case to search dogs. The comment there about molten steel flowing is not sourced and is just part of the conversation of the story, not an actual quote from a reputable source.--MONGO 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "They showed us many fascinating slides" [Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster". (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think this needs further examination and the terms molten metal, again, mean just that...he doesn't say molten stell. I read somewhere, and I'll try to dig it up tonight, that the debris pile acted as a form of kiln, in which the heat was festering within the debris pile...it did take many weeks to get the fires out.--MONGO 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a 'blacksmith's weld' in a hand forge.Barnett, J.R., R.R. Biederman, R.D. Sisson Jr., (2001), An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, The Journal of Materials, 2006-05-12TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    I have no problem with this source, but not sure how it gets worked into the article.--MONGO 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • About captioning the picture of the molten metal cascading out of the south tower, how about this: "Molten metal cascades out of the south tower, moments before it collapsed"
    The images I believe are not going to be free use and again, I can find no reliable source that states that molten metal flowed out of the building before it collapsed.--MONGO 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Not "free use", MONGO, "fair use". [23]. It is an important exemption from copyright protection that allows non-commercial use of copyrighted material for satire, parody, news, education, scholarship, and the like. I can't find a reliable source that says that the man in the opening picture is actually a real firefighter. Perhaps he is in a Halloween costume. I can't find a reliable source that says the object in the background is the remains of the World Trade Center. Perhaps it is a painting. Shall we delete that picture until you can quote a structural engineer making specific reference to that picture? Or can we all agree on what is obvious? TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Do any sources mention finding pieces of rebar, chunks of concrete, or bits of paper among the debris? Tom Harrison Talk 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say rebar, chunks of concrete, and bits of paper are obvious from the photographic evidence. What is your point Tom?TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
My point is to ask what yours is. Why do you want to mention molten metal but not other debris? One video "obviously" shows a stream of molten metal. Another video of Osama confessing is "obviously" a fake. Synthesising a point by picking and choosing factoids you think significant, searching for sources to support that point, and then selectively quoting from those primary sources is at best original research, and is closer to advocacy. Tom Harrison Talk 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is, FEMA, NIST, Eagar, and many others give tremendous weight to attempting to determine the temperature of the fires, and the temperature of the steel. Hundreds, if not thousands of pages have been devoted to this subject. Clearly, these mainstream experts place extreme importance on temperature issues. Therefore, we must give weight to the issue of temperature. Molten metal speaks directly to this weighty, mainstream issue.
Also, molten metal is quite interesting for the reader, seeing as how no structural failures outside of 9/11 have ever produced the stuff. Not so with rebar, chunks of concrete, and bits of paper, but if you'd like to include a brief mention of those (perhaps captioning a picture?), I have no problem with that.
Congratulations Tom! You have hit the nail on the head! We should include ALL the relevant evidence, and not pick and choose factoids to support a POV. Correct. TruthSeeker1234 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
When you mean steel, you're talking about the steel struts that supported the floors, yes? What is your point here exactly? The images you are interested in using are all used as false evidence supporting arguments in conspiracy theory websites or by Jones in his paper that has not been published by an accredited third party. The events of 9/11 are unique, are they not? Can you show a single other event that is the same...ie: wide body jets laden with aviation fuel stike extremely tall buildings at high speed and the buildings are built a in a specific manner. No other evidence of molten metal...of course not...there is no comparable event.--MONGO 09:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No plane of any kind struck WTC7. There are many comparable events, that is tall buildings rapidly falling straight down, ejecting squibs and leaving molten metal. Would you like some mainstream links for comparable events to WTC7?
When you say "false evidence", what do you mean? Do you think the pictures and videos have been fabricated? What about the mainstream reports I have linked? You still have not answered my question about why you say Jones' paper is junk science.
The point is MONGO, again, FEMA, NIST, Eagar, Bazant, Zhou, and many others give tremendous weight to attempting to determine the temperature of the fires, and the temperature of the steel, including the steel box columns which comprised the core. Hundreds, if not thousands of pages have been devoted to this subject. Clearly, these mainstream experts place extreme importance on temperature issues. Therefore, we must give weight to the issue of temperature. Molten metal speaks directly to this weighty, mainstream issue.TruthSeeker1234 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, you already said that...so it must be thermite right...surely, they made sure the planes hit at just the right points and kaboom, set off the thermite charges. Masterful.--MONGO 09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I only repeat myself because you guys refuse to address the issues. No plane hit WTC7. Not even a blow torch will ignite a thermite reaction (Jones 2006). I never said anything like your last statement MONGO. Resorting to such strawman arguments, rather than the issues is a sure sign of desperation.
Molten metal is going in this article because it is relevant, important, interesting, mainstream, cited, published, sourced, photographed, video'd, and very, very WEIGHTY. TruthSeeker1234 14:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Umhmm..Jones says not even a blow torch will ignite thermite....but it's he who says it was probably thermite that blew the columns[24]. Who's the strawman? --Mmx1 14:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, What? No strawman argument in Jones. Thermite requires a high temperature "spark" to ignite. TruthSeeker1234 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Until a reliable source publishes your synthesis of (selected) factoids, it's original research. Get it in the Times (and get you Pulitzer) first, and then we'll have something we can cite. Tom Harrison Talk 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No Tom, it is the present article which is a synthesis, as I have pointed out. Talking about molten and evaporated metal is a statement of fact, not any kind of synthesis or original research. And it WAS in the New York Times! (No Pulitizer prize awarded). Does anyone have a reason that molten metal should not go in this article? I have again listed the mainstream sources, I have explained why it is relevant, and should carry weight, and that it is interesting. Anyone?TruthSeeker1234 20:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be wordplay...there isn't anything that is truly scientific aside from commentary that states that molten metal was at the WTC. The NYTimes link above you provided requires me to register to use it...is there a newer one that works? Can you find a reputable source that did an actual survey of the metals found that states that molten metal was found at the WTC, aside from commentary?--MONGO 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a cache of the NYTmes article [25] Yes there is "something truly scientific", that is the Barnett study, published by FEMA. Here's a nice cache of that [26] Then there's the Dr. Eaton quote in structural engineer. Then there's the photographs. Then there's the video. We have reliable mainstream sources guys. Molten metal needs to go in. Or else FEMA stuff needs to come out. Take your pick. With all this independent confirmation of molten metal, a valid question might be, "Is there any reliable source that denies molten metal?" Cite. TruthSeeker1234 03:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

also . . .

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. [27]TruthSeeker1234 03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful...your first link is a website that also discusses how a missle could have been fired from a Humvee "THE STREAKING OBJECT COULD BE A LOSAT"...the Barnett link discusses "erosion" melting and explicitly states "fires"...it is simply metalurgy and makes no conclusions about what impact this may have had on the buildings failure...your third link is a quote from a VP of sales from LinksPoint.com who were at the WTC to use GPS to identify were human remains were being found. Do you have a survey from a team of experts that states clearly that there was molten metal...I have yet to see one. The video is inconclusive and so are the images...the one appears to be doctored and I can find no manner to use it that won't be in keeping with GFDL.--MONGO 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice trick MONGO. I send you the link to the New York Times article, and you say you can't load it. So I send you to a cache, and you complain about some other unrelated thing on the site. Are you seriously unable to grasp that the New York Times reported evaporated steel?

The videos and pictures are not inconclusive, they show molten metal, beyond a doubt. We have already had this discussion, and you know it. Is there any reliable source who disputes molten metal? Please cite.

Barnett thinks a diesel fire can evaporate steel, as reported in the New York Times. OK, we're back to the core meltdown theory. We'll put Barnett with Chris Wise, and strutural engineer professor John Knapton, who said in the BBC (a reputable source) "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... " [28]

Any problem with me quoting John Knapton and the other mainstream experts who say that kerosene fires melt steel?

TruthSeeker1234 07:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Knapton and Wise quotes. OK. Mainstream structural engineers talking about molten metal. Are you satisfied? TruthSeeker1234 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What trick? The link you provided is from only a month after the attacks and it clearly states that it could take a decade for the final analysis of the steel to be completed. The links you provide are to opinions by people whose research wasn't concluded yet..the cached version is right off a conspiracy theory link...I mean, comeon...a humvee shooting a losat missle?--MONGO 10:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, You know perfectly well that the New York Times article read exactly as is cached on that site. Here is another cache [29], and another [30] and another [31]
Glanz, James. 2001. “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,” New York Times, November 29 TruthSeeker1234 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Jones has a hypothesis, not a theory,"

What are you talking about Mongo? Wikipedia defines these words like this:

A hypothesis (= assumption in ancient Greek) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
The word theory has a number distinct meanings depending on the context.

What is the Mongo definition? Seabhcán 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I went and fixed the citations so they weren't embedded links and you reverted this. Jones has not had his work published by a reliable third party source. He would have a theory if it had the endorsement of any trade journal. I can't believe you are so careless that you reverted my attempts to fix the embedded links and convert them to cited templates along with all the others I did. I assume zero good faith by your actions here and your condescending tone above.--MONGO 11:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have already apologised on my talk page, and I apologise to you again for reverting all your work. I intended only to revert your last edit of the heading "Controlled Demolotion theory" to "Conspiracy theory" with the above explaination.
Your definition of a theory is unique to you. Can we change it to "Controlled demolition hypothesis"? Seabhcán 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
How is it unique to me? If he had his work published by a reputable third party source such as an engineering trade journal, etc...not just summarized in a news or opend piece, then he would enjoy the benefit of having his work "peer reviewed" by those that have expertise in this field. Jones has NOT had his work published...by anyone of reputability so it simply cannot be a theory...it is a hypothesis. I don't even think we should be listing him at all...simply because his opinion lacks notablility because no one of expertise has endorsed his hypothesis. I really do not understand how much simpler I can state this simple fact.--MONGO 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Conspiracy theories is the most accurate descriptive title for that section. Tom Harrison Talk 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The question again, if a hypothesis becomes a theory upon publication, and these ideas are unpublished, can we change it to "Controlled demolition hypothesis"? Seabhcán 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be an improvement...but I emphasize that Jones is only notable for notoriety...not because he has had his work published by a reliable third party source...and at this rate, I doubt he will.--MONGO 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I've changed it. How does it look? Seabhcán 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Tom changed it back. May I ask why? Seabhcán 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. [32] Nothing there about "published" vs "not published" being the distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory". TruthSeeker1234 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The scientific context of theory and hypothesis are not applicable to a single event. In that context, a theory or hypothesis must be testable and make predictions about natural phenomena. A theory should also be capable of being generalized and fit into the larger body of scientific knowledge. The collapse of the WTC, in its entirety, is not testable and is not a natural phenomenon. Specific aspects of the collapse are.
For example, you could develop a hypothesis that sulfur impurities can produce the "errosion" of steel members ovserved in WTC7. You could test that hypothesis in a lab. You could further flesh out that hypothesis by proposing a mechanisism by which the process occurs, at which point you have a theory. If that mechanisism is consistent with accepted theories of metalurgical processes you have a pretty good theory.
You can't call a statement that "X happened because of Y" a theory or hypothesis in the scientific sense, because it is not testable or falsifiable. You could, however say that about a statement like "X happens if Y happens", which is testable and falsifiable. Statements like "X can't happen unless Y happens" (which is what you have been arguing about cotrolled demolition) are trivially falsifiable, which is why you don't see scientists publishing such claims.
If you said "Buildings can fall down because of controlled demolition" that could be called a theory, and it would not be a controvertial theory. I guess you could call a statement like "Buildings can't fall down through any means other than controlled demolition" a theory, but it's not one that many people would pay attention to. A statement like "The features of the WTC collapse are more consistant with controlled demolition than the impact of an aircraft and subsequent fire" is not a theory in the scientific sense. There's nothing to really grab a hold of there and test. Toiyabe 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The main article it points to is 9/11 conspiracy theories. It seems to me that the section title should match. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, "theory" is used in contexts other than the scientific one. I have no problem with the term "Conspiracy Theory" which is explicitly outside the scientific context. Inside the scientific context, we should be very careful about how we use the terms theory and hypothesis. Toiyabe 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree; my comment was in reply to Seabhcán, not formated very well. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My terminology may be off, but the fact remains that Jones has yet to get a reputable third party such as a journal of science that is accredited to examine his opinion to then publish his opinion...therefore, the only thing Jones has is an opinion...and it's only "noteworthy" because he is supposedly a scientist.--MONGO 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The word 'opinion' really doesn't fit. Here are some other words we might try: assessment, assumption, attitude, conception, conclusion, conjecture, estimate, estimation, eye*, fancy, feeling, guess, hypothesis, idea, imagining, impression, inclination, inference, judgment, mind, notion, persuasion, postulate, presumption, presupposition, reaction, say so, sentiment, slant, speculation, supposition, surmise, suspicion, take*, theorem, theory, thesis, think*, thought, view, viewpoint, approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot*, speculation, stab*, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding, antecedent, apriority, assignment, assumption, attribution, axiom, basis, belief, conclusion, condition, conjecture, data, deduction, demonstration, derivation, explanation, foundation, ground, guess, inference, interpretation, layout, lemma, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presupposition, principle, proposal, proposition, rationale, reason, scheme, speculation, starting point, suggestion, supposition, surmise, system, tentative law, term, theorem, thesis. Seabhcán 11:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's clarify the expert theory

Am I the only one who thinks that pretty much the whole article is unreadable? A reader could study this article for weeks and have no clue how the towers were constructed, nor what the experts actually think caused the collapses. I suggest adding a few sentences which summarize clearly. Something like this:
The towers used a "tube within a tube" design. Floors were supported by trusses which spanned between the central core columns and outer perimeter columns. Heat from the fires made floor assemblies sag down in the middle. The sagging floors then pulled on the perimeter columns, causing them to bow inwards. These perimeter columns buckled and failed, which shifted tremendous weight bearing load onto the core columns. This was too much for the core columns to handle, so they also buckled and failed.
That clears things up for the reader, yes? TruthSeeker1234 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, you are not qualified to disrespect the opinions of the Structural Engineers who say that the fire melted steel. Thomas Eagar is qualified, and I have quoted him disagreeing with Wise and Knapton. This is the NPOV. TruthSeeker1234 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You assume to know my qualifications? Interesting. Your material is out of date. NIST did their research and published their findings long after.--MONGO 04:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know your qulifications as a Wp editor, they are the same as mine, i.e. no original research. You are attempting to synthesize your own original theory of the collapses. I quoted NIST, disagreeing with Eagar, who had disagreed with Wise and Knapton. This is the NPOV. At least Wise and Kanpton were attempting to explain the molten metal that was observed.TruthSeeker1234 04:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Or, if you want to push the NIST POV, then you have to agree that FEMA and Eagar are outdated as well. Nobody buys into their theory any more either. TruthSeeker1234 04:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the whole sequence of the theories and discussions must be cited, even those that are outdated.--Pokipsy76 08:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, I think other views should be accepted more readily into this article as long as those contructing it can make sure each section isnt POV. Meaning a section on controlled demolition should state the points both for and against it etc. Right now the article is very difficult to read and relies to heavily on massive block quoting sources without explanations. --Zer0faults 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
We are not putting moronic and completely unsubstantiated controlled demolition crap in this article...get it?--MONGO 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I got that you are defying WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but the rest of your message went right past me. — goethean ॐ 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, perhaps you should go get an education then...with your page that was deleted that clearly was in existence to attack other users, I hardly think you should be lecturing anyone about civility. I've decided to put my foot down on this article that is being overrun by POV pushers of nonsense, so if you are here to push nonsense, then it will be a bumpy ride for you for sure. I will treat POV pushers of nonsense with severity and block accordingly...do you hear me now?--MONGO 18:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds are you going to block me? — goethean ॐ 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I missed how any action of mine excused your habitual incivility. — goethean ॐ 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Habitual incivility?...as I said, you should talk. As far as blocking, see Vandalism...(especially "or serve an activist agenda"), and exhaust the communities patience...in the second case, POV pushers of nonsense who continuously edit in unsubstantiated information to push a POV exhaust the communities patience if it continues. If you don't add nonsense, then you won't be disruptive or be guilty of vandalism.--MONGO 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


On what grounds are you going to block me? — goethean ॐ 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, MONGO has the POV issue exactly backwards. It appears MONGO is trying to exclude expert viewpoints that conflict with his own personal POV. NPOV requires that we present the various competing theories about what actually caused the "collapses". Claiming that FEMA and NIST agree is a synthesis, for instance.
Also, I agree that MONGO is being uncivil. TruthSeeker1234 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I kept your added information for the most part...when you start up again with that controlled demolition nonsense and try to edit it into this article, the outcome will end up being something you won't like. As far as civility...how dare you tell me and other editors we are going to be published...I should ban you for good for such a transgression. Some people would view that as a serious privacy invasion, and when this happens, it is grounds for an indefinite block. I strongly suggest you retract your intent to publish and make a formal disclosure that this will not happen, immediately.--MONGO 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
These kind of threats are certainly uncivil. I wish I had time to collect all the abuse mongo throws at everyone and get him blocked. Seabhcán 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a threat in itself. I am completely backed by policy and I can easily collect lots of evidence that clearly demostrates that you have been abusive towards me in your edits, in reinserting comments by trolls and defending those comments, and in your edit summaries. Your incivility as clearly demonstrated by your edit summaries and other areas would be easy to find...they are all over ther place.--MONGO 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone just needs to cool their heads and stop with the threats / counter threats of WP:CIVIL action. Perhaps we can find a center ground, such as posting facts and letting people weigh in. --Zer0faults 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation

(I know I'll be immediately shouted down by Mongo and co. for suggesting this, but here goes... )I think this article could be better organised. The goal is to present all information on the aspects of collapse:

New Section headings;

Tower design
Impact Damage
Role of the fire
Role of the floor trusses
Role of the core
Pancake collapse

Each section would give a description of the competing theories as to how important each aspect is. Seabhcán 11:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this idea, it seems like a valid conclusion. Ideas will have to stand on their own factually and counter arguements will show whats particularly valid and whats not. --Zer0faults 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it fine the way it is. Those sections seem sort of arbitrary. It also seems like it would "frame the debate" in favor of the Demolition Theory.--DCAnderson 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not support the wholesale rewrite that Seabhcán suggests. Rather than improving the article as he hopes, I think it would have the unintended result of promoting the conspiracists' junk science. Tom Harrison Talk 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I favor reorganizing with the new section headings. I think it would go a long way toward making the article digestable to the average reader. I am at a complete loss to understand how organizing the article this way would promote any particular theory, let alone the controlled demoliton theory, which (evidently) will not be mentioned at all. Are you guys saying clarity, itself, will cause readers to think of a controlled demolition? How can this be? TruthSeeker1234 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Re-writing the page would not clarify anything. More likely it would turn the article into a tendentious original essay. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
See Framing (communication theory)--DCAnderson 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see framing theory DC. What's your point? How does the proposed clarification frame this issue in a biased way?--User:TruthSeeker1234

Essentially all of those topics are "Steven Jones issues." i.e. You're making a section heading for each of the main topics that Jones was concerned about, and the debate will be framed in favor of Jones' theories. Though the page won't be about his theories, the topics will be in reactionto his concerns.--DCAnderson 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that framing communication theory was thought of so quickly. It's from the realm of propaganda experts.SkeenaR 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why the NSA pays us the big bucks to edit Wikipedia all day. ;)
(Note for the humor impaired: that last sentence was a joke.)--DCAnderson 00:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an even better one from a regular editor here: "all this time, I figured it was the conspiracy theorists that were being paid to post nonsense here. Maybe I should ask the feds for money for all the time..." SkeenaR 00:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, that was what I was kinda referring to: the whole "MONGO works for the government" character assasination fun-fest.
But maybe I should ask them for money. If I'm doing the Secret Masters' work for them, I feel I should at least be getting paid for it.--DCAnderson 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
One time we all got tee shirts. We had to chip in, but we got a great discount. Tom Harrison Talk 00:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I like that! SkeenaR 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I just thought the communication theory stuff was interesting to bring up that's all. Nobody's attacking anybody. Sorry if you misunderstood. SkeenaR 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

SkeenaR, Tom and DC Anderson are both getting an all expense paid vacation to the Bush ranch...there they will meet up with me and georgie to plot our next series of misinformation attempts. Tee shirts...now Tom is really being funny...he knows we all have made it rich...next up...our government sponsored DVD's and your get to see what we really look like, and hear us spread lies and misinformation...and it'll only cost you $29.99, plus $37.50 shipping and handling....I'll make sure we get you the link to the website the feds will have (but of course, it won't look like a federal website)...we have been delayed as we are trying to decide if we want to name the website "Government Stooges for Truth" or "MisinfoWars".--MONGO 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
"of course, it won't look like a federal website..." Well, it wouldn't, would it? Hmm, I wonder... But the Bush ranch again? Darn; after that quail hunt, I was hoping next time we could go fishing off Kennebunkport. Tom Harrison Talk 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, George told me that Dick will be elsewhere this time. Conny may show up too, so don't fret.--MONGO 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It all sounds pretty good, except that corporations and tax dollars provide me with all the propaganda I need without having to fork out any extra dough. If you guys would put the DVD on google or some shareware, maybe you can convince me to help contribute to your next video project, but I want to meet the celebrities and get one of those shirts. SkeenaR 02:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ow, comeon...we want to maximize our profits here...even with the millions given to us by the U.S. Government, why shouldn't we capitalize on this...it's all about the money, man. I'm not going to make my DVD free...not when I can make a buck!--MONGO 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about that warm glow you feel when you have thrashed and bitch-slapped all the anti-establishment naysayers who would dare cast a shadow of a doubt on the official version of what could have happened. Once they truly realize their grave mistake of disputing any aspect of goergie or o'reilly's infallible dictations, we can be very proud, knowing that we have truly done our duty. SkeenaR 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"o'reilly's infallible dictations"

Are you attacking Papa Bear?</Colbert>--DCAnderson 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who attacks O'Reilly should get indefinite block and/or Gitmo...you had best agree...hammer's coming down. SkeenaR 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tower design
Impact Damage
Role of the fire
Role of the floor trusses
Role of the core
Pancake collapse

According to DCAnderson, these are all "Steven Jones issues". What?? Eagar, FEMA, NIST they all give tremendous weight to discussing these points. I could see how you would characterize "controlled demolition" as a "Steven Jones Issue", but that isn't on the list. DC, what on Earth are you talking about? If we want to change "pancake collapse" to "progressive collapse", which has become the "official" term, I have no problem with that.TruthSeeker1234 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If one wished to frame the article in such a way as to favor Jones' Theory, the headings would be:

Molten Metal, FLowing and in Pools
Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel
Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires
Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7
Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions
Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris-plumes from the Towers
Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
Controlled Demolition “Implosions” Require Skill
Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed
A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
Problems in the NIST Report
Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models
NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations

What was proposed is nothing like thatTruthSeeker1234 01:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The frame of this debate has been set by the NIST report. Seeing that I seem to be the only person here who has taken the time to actually read the report, I'll quote the sections here:
NIST NCSTAR 1-1
Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-2
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-3
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
NIST NCSTAR 1-4
Active Fire Protection Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-5
Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-6
Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-7
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
NIST NCSTAR 1-8
The Emergency Response Operations

NCSTAR 1-6 is the key report for this article, its subsections are here: [33] Why don't we copy the NIST structure, that way certain editors concerns about 'debate framing' and 'junk science'Seabhcán 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that no-one has answered. It would seem that no-one, except myself, has read the NIST reports. All edits and opinions are thus made in ignorance. Seabhcán 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Get off your high-horse.--DCAnderson 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Go read the report. You and others have been argueing and reverting this article without the slightest knowledge of what the official theory actually is. This is shameful. Seabhcán 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe because it was a holiday and some people have lives outside wiki? Knock off the baseless accusations. The NIST titles are framed in a precise technical terminology that would be inappropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia. I mean, do you forsee a "Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication" section of this article? Selectively highlighting and quoting pieces of their text is misleading. --Mmx1 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the report, or just the section headings? Seabhcán 15:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What, is that a prerequisite for editing this article? Are you going to harass each of the editors individually and elicit a confession that they haven't read it? Quiz them on the finer points discussed on page 143 of Section 3 or the 67th footnote? That would certainly save us some time in excluding most of the anons. If that's what you want, then YES, I HAVE READ THE NIST, 9-11 COMMISSION, AND FEMA REPORTS. Go frame it on your fracking wall. --Mmx1 16:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Good. That makes two of us. And yes, I think that having taken the small step of informing yourself about the subject is a prerequisite for honestly editing a wikipedia article. Seabhcán 16:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, have a because you've proven how your dick is so much bigger than everyone else's. Unfortunately there is no "Barn-star of superior phalusness" so we'll just have to settle for the cookie.--DCAnderson 15:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that unique mix of profanity and immaturity as a no. Seabhcán 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposed to reorganizing the article based on one report using the same sections as mentioned. I can see a reorganization, but not major changes as to the current format. I have read every report I have seen on the matter and many of the conspiracy theory websites as well....while the government reports are dull reading, they didn't look at the possibility of controlled demolition because there wasn't controlled demolition. Most of the conspiracy theory websites are both moronic and deliberately misleading...they are looking at what happened from a perspective based on an a priori belief that the buildings were imploded, so they dig for every little silly tidbid they can to bolster their wide-eyed claims. That is not science. Unfortunately, enough people have become mislead by nonsense that the state department has released a number of comments on the matter...[34], [35]...but they don't count I suppose since they are part of the "coverup".--MONGO 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read those government pages. They ignore the issues also. They simply say NIST studied it, and that's that. They don't address any of the problems raised by the pro-science skeptics.TruthSeeker1234 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, Why are you always the first to raise the question of controled demolotion?Seabhcán 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably because it is really obvious that that is what you guys are always pushing for.--DCAnderson 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"you guys"? Who does that refer to exactly? Seabhcán 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You, Truthseeker, and various others who are always pushing Contrlled Demolition and/or trying to weaken the "Official Account." Who do you think I was talking about?--DCAnderson 00:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to 'weaken the official account'. I imagine you think I am because you have only a vague idea of what the offical account actually is. Go read the report. Seabhcán 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you going to give me homework assignments and a required reading list? You're not my professor.
I feel well informed about this subject, and I find it obvious when people are trying to slip BS into this article.
I also am not fond of the holier-than-thou, condescending attitude that you're expressing on this page. There is no "Litmus test" for editing Wikipedia, and you shouldn't act like there is one.
Maybe I'll sit down and read every last little word of the report when I have some free time, but I don't right now. I've read summaries of the report, and I have a good knowledge of it's contents.
I'm also very knowledgable of the conspiracy junk, and I can spot it when I see it.

And please, don't give me any more of this "go read the report" crap. I've got a fairly good idea of what I think that you should go do if I hear about this again.--DCAnderson 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7ECollapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center_archive4_6a0b.html"