Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Embedded links 2 Revert Warring? 3 Overview of all the collapse theories... 4 Check Mate 4.1 Thermite is not an explosive 5 Add to the Article 6 Airliner deaths listed with collapse fatalities 7 NIST at WTC 8 Physical Evidence for Thermite Theory 9 Truth, and accuracy 10 Fuji Towers, etc. 11 New Topic Thrown into Conversation 12 New Idea 13 Old idea 14 Annoying continuous animation 15 Amount of info on conspiracy 16 ConEd substation 17 Winaah!! 18 Reverts must be explained 19 Peace at last?

Embedded links

Please do not use embedded links in the article...I have tried to use a cite style and it is simple to copy the style...simply put the author first, the external link with the title of the reference next, the pblisher third, any date the work was published fourth and the date the URL was accessed last. Or just use cite templates and make sure you put the <ref></ref>brackets--MONGO 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warring?

It might be wise for you guys to cool it for a while and discuss.

1. (cur) (last) 19:39, 28 May 2006 DCAnderson (reverting again)
2. (cur) (last) 19:38, 28 May 2006 Pokipsy76 (revert to revision by TruthSeeker)
3. (cur) (last) 18:20, 28 May 2006 DCAnderson (revert to revision by Tom Harrison)
4. (cur) (last) 16:44, 28 May 2006 TruthSeeker1234 (Rv to last version by Pokipsy)
5. (cur) (last) 18:36, 27 May 2006 Tom harrison (rv; add paras)
6. (cur) (last) 18:26, 27 May 2006 Pokipsy76 (reverted edits by MONGO)
7. (cur) (last) 09:22, 27 May 2006 MONGO m (Reverted edits by Pokipsy76 (talk) to last version by MONGO)
8. (cur) (last) 09:06, 27 May 2006 Pokipsy76 (revert unjustified edit by user:MONGO)
9. (cur) (last) 17:52, 26 May 2006 MONGO m (Reverted edits by TruthSeeker1234 (talk) to last version by Tom harrison)

Seabhcán 20:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, instead of reverting each others' reverts (and reverting that revert, and so on), you guys might want to (try to) decide on a final NPOV draft instead of fighting it out and embarrassing yourselves.

By the way, as an unbiased observer, I would consider TruthSeeker being slightly POV for deleting opposing commentary, and when failed to do so, opted to attach negative wording to the opposing commentary. I respect his opinion, but do NOT attempt to undermine the opposing argument using such subversive means. All sides should be written in an equal tone, not in a biased manner. --Physicq210 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Physicq, I agree. All sides should be written in an equal tone, just as it says in WP:NPOV. Correct. This means the "core meltdown theory" gets explained, and criticzed. Then the "pancake theory" gets explained, and criticized. Then the "Column pull theory" gets explained, and criticized. THen the "Controlled demolition theory" gets explained, and criticized. If MONGO and co. want to devote 75% of the space to the "pancake" and "column pull", so that the others don't get "undue weight", OK. Even if you leave controlled demolition out of it, you still have major conflict and disagreement among structual engineers about what made these buildings fall apart. Pretending that there is ONE official theory is OR at best, and a lie at worst.

IMHO, The reason that MONGO and co. LIKE the article so confusing and dull, is that if it were clear and well written, it would be obvious that the official theories contradict each other, and themselves, and do not account for the observations. MONGO, if you would just admit it, I would quit trying to edit this and go away. TruthSeeker1234 23:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"you guys might want to (try to) decide on a final NPOV draft"

I know editting 9/11 pages has probably just made me jaded and bitter, but I think this probably has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.--DCAnderson 04:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is an elusive goal, but the alternative isn't to beat the crap out of each other (figuratively). --Physicq210 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also begining to think there is no hope for this article. It has gone to the stage that even adding information form US government publications is seen as part of a conspiracy theory.Seabhcán 09:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We never said that...many here, myself included, feel that by sectioning it the way you propose will then make it POV due to the "critical analysis" that will be added to each section, and this critical analysis can only come from one place and that is unscientific websites.--MONGO 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are basically opposing any improvement to the article in case it might give an opening, at some later point, to the addition of information or opinions that you disagree with. This article is doomed. Seabhcán 10:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been 5 years since the event almost...what major revelations do you think are to come, anytime? What you are asking, is not in my opinion, an improvement.--MONGO 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There you go again - raising the conspiracy theory strawman - your old reliable techique for shutting up any opponent. This article is a disaster. It is confusing, explains nothing, and is a hodgepodge of OR and government information. Are you happy with its current condition? Seabhcán 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NO article is perfect, there is always room for improvements. What improvements aside from a complete reorganization do you propose?--MONGO 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a section on the fire. It should detail the causes, the fuel (Jet fuel and/or office equipment - there are conflicting expert views about which was more important), estimates of the fire's temperature, and the effects of the fire on the building's structure. Seabhcán 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think overempahszing the issue of fire is part of the problem. Tge kenetic energy of the wide body jets hitting the buildings and the subsequent collapse caused other buildings nearby to also become greatly damaged and fire spread to virtually every surrounding building. Do you know what WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, the Sears Tower and the Aon Center (Chicago) all have in common?--MONGO 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you are the only person who thinks the buildings fell due to impact damage. FEMA and NIST aggree that they didn't, and infact fell because of fire. I can conclude that either you didn't read these reports or you didn't understand them, either way, you are talking through your arse, and I give up. Have fun protecting this little island of ignorance you planted your flag on. Good bye. Seabhcán 16:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, don't let the door hit you on the way out. You want to argue solely that fire was the reason for the collapse and seem to know absolutely zero about the differences between the energy of a jet flying at 150mph and one doing close to 600mph. Don't ever accuse me of being hostile again, buddy.--MONGO 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

you're blocking on this page any scientifical information or other point of view on the matter of collapse. Other than from goverment report.Other point of view is not uncommon among engineers and scientists. This article is crap. Let's take for example:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created a computer model of each building to determine whether any unusual structural features of the Twin Towers might have been at fault..." and so.

But it's a common knowledge that NIST never showed their computer model, and everything we saw was some animation. And that's taken from NIST report:

"To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

They were adjusting pulling forces?! by floor? Yeah, they adjusted it so and finally got the collapse.

Even the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)

Such problems should be discussed and other pov's mentioned. Everything that is scientifically question should be discussed. Is the only right science the goverment science??

I think that when another WTC investigation is be opened this article and discussion will become a good lesson for WP administrators in future. --Macieksk 2:24,3 June (GMT+1)

You know, won't it make things much better if you have the detailed explanation and criticisms of the official record on this article, and the alternate theories on the "alternate theories" page? The "revert war" demonstrated above isn't about providing information. It's about personally attacking each other until someone has the upper hand. --Physicq210 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Physicq, part of the problem is that there is not ONE "official record", there are several. We should say so. You are wrong that we are not trying to include information. I have been relentlessly trying to include relevant, published, mainstream information about molten metal at ground zero. MONGO and co have used every type of tactic, including blocking me, to keep it out. TruthSeeker1234 00:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me depart from the topic a little. TruthSeeker, I believe I can see why MONGO and others are exasperated at you. Your use of "You are wrong..." and "MONGO and co" are legal in the realm of Wikipedia (actually I would contest the legality if I had a grudge against you) but are inflammatory and incite people's anger against you and your edits. So please moderate your language. I know you did not intend to be so, but your comments may be one of the reasons why the rhetoric above is so heated. I added the {{calm talk}} banner above for a reason.

Back to the topic. If there is no official record, then put the theory that most experts and scientists advocate, with supporting and opposing evidence, then place other theories in a separate article or on the "alternate theories" article. --Physicq210 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't TruthSeeker just said that there is? "..molten metal at ground zero..." ? This was published, even "so called" mainstream. I fully agree with you saing that "explanation and criticism" should be detailed. The latter now is NOT in, not only, my opinnion. --Macieksk 2:24,3 June (GMT+1)

Overview of all the collapse theories...

... can be seen here: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=collapse_theory_comparison EyesAllMine 12:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A concise and accurate summary of the various theories by MIT grad student in mechanical engineering and materials. This is where MONGO and Tom Harrison come by and say "It's a conspiracy site", shield your eyes everyone! Don't look!! TruthSeeker1234 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory site...read it and vomit.--MONGO 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I find Rajter's paper credible and illuminating. I didn't "vomit". I know you can say it's on Morgan Reynolds' site, it's not reputable, etc., but is there anything in particular that Rajter has wrong? What exactly made you "vomit"? Maybe the stark realization that the offical reports ignored so much data was so unnerving to you, that it triggered an upset stomach? TruthSeeker1234 17:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had to get sick...it was about as illuminating as a candle would be if we stood off 100 miles and tried to read a book by night by it. If it is sooooo illuminating why isn't it published by a reputable source?--MONGO 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Jones, Rajter, Hoffman, and many others are ignored by "mainstream" publishers precisely because they are so illuminating. The idea is to keep people in the dark. If the government reports are so reputable, why do they keep changing the story, and ignoring so much data? I was asking you if you could point to any errors you found in Rajter's paper. I don't think FEMA's report meets the criteria for reputable, because they had no reputation for investigating matters of physics, or plane crashes, or fires, or anything. TruthSeeker1234 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. FEMA has no reputation for investigating the things they did?--MONGO 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to find Rajter's Stat professors so they can slap him. I wouldn't be suprised if he never took stats.

1. Select "collapse features", i.e. observations not addressed by the official theories.
2. Concoct theory to fit your observations. (so far..nothing wrong with his methodology per se...i won't assume bad faith on why these "features" were selected)
3. Judge competing theories on the basis of these features. Well no shit your theory will be superior by this "benchmark." It was constructed to. And this guy wants to get a doctorate? I forsee another Bengu Sezen, a grad student at Columbia who faked her lab results.

"E10 — No steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire" is a fricking benchmark? I should set up a line of professors to slap him. Well no shit, sherlock, no buildings got hit by jet airliners before either.

this guy is a fricking (useful) idiot. --Mmx1 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't it come to your mind that these features may be just reasonable?! And of course: "straw man argument" - you just mention E10.

Even this one IS reasonable!!!! It was said in the official reports (one MONGO glory so much) that it was not the hit of a plane that caused the "collapse", but FIRE. WTC were designed to take Boeing hit - that's an official statement, too.

Why did you call this guy an idiot? He does not look like an idiot to me. It's only your (idiotic) POV. --Macieksk 03:00, 3 June 2006 (GMT+1)

On 4 October 1992 an El Al 747 hit an 11-story building in Amsterdam after two of its engines fell off. There was enormous damage of course but ISTR the building did not collapse. This could be included in the article as a comparison point. [1] --Guinnog 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Our article on it is at Bijlmer disaster, I just found it. --Guinnog 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. No steel-framed hi-rise has been hit. A 747 itself is at least 5 stories. The link doesn't describe the impact but I don't think there would have been very much left anyway. --Mmx1 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From our article, it appears it crashed into a row of houses and completely destroyed several), which I find more plausible than a 747 hitting one building and miraculously leaving enough structure standing that it could be described as "not collapsing". It's a bit disingenuous to say that the building didn't collapse because all that was left were the first few stories. --Mmx1 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some pictures. The medium rise building was demolished around where the plane hit, but survived as a whole. I certainly wouldn't call it a row of houses. [2] --Guinnog 18:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, picture speaks 1k words. So you have a vertical impact that obliterates a vertical chunk of 12 floors - not directly compromising the vertical structural members of the rest of the (rather wide) building except via secondary stress/shear. Essentially, it took a vertical cut out of the building. The 9/11 crashes took a horizontal chunk of out a high-rise. Essentially, this one only resembles 9/11 if you turn it 90 degrees. This just shows how silly and unscientific it is to compare it to previous instances or the lack of such. --Mmx1 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that and never said otherwise. I just wanted to put you right on the "no buildings got hit by jet airliners before either" statement you made.--Guinnog 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Though Mmx cannot resist the urge to personally attack Rajter, at least Mmx makes an effort to address the facts and substance of Rajter's paper. For this, I commend Mmx. Unfortunately, Mmx's critique is underwhelming.

Of course Rajter selects some observations not addressed by the government reports, that is the entire point. The government reports ignore crucial data, in obvious disrespect of the scientific method. Rajter himself points out that the list of criteria is not complete, but it appears that adding more and more criteria would only make the case against the government reports more devastating, not less.

Yes, the "no steel building ever collapsing from fire" is a very important benchmark. Because the jet crashes did not cause the buildings to move or buckle or fail in any visible way, the official theories are all "fire did it" theories. And of course, NO PLANE hit WTC7. TruthSeeker1234 03:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, Mmx, how would you construct an objective comparison between the various theories? This I'm DYING to hear. TruthSeeker1234 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The linked "treatise" has the same fundamental disconnect that's been spinning us around in circles on this talk page. The point of the NIST and FEMA reports is to come up with recommendations for future construction to help prevent similar failures. They are not intended to disprove a conspiracy theory. There's no point in doing that - it's impossible to disprove a conspiracy theory.

If you take a single event like the collapse of the WTC, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain all observed data. All but one of those theories that fit all the data is incorrect, and all but a handfull are useless. For example, the author left out Toiyabe's theory that the WTC towers never existed in the first place, and all this hoopla was caused by a combination of UFO-mounted hologram projectors, halucination drugs and government propaganda. That theory certainly can be tweaked to explain any observed data, and it can't be disproved. It is, however, useless in the context of developing future buliding codes, unless you want to argue that becuse steel buildings don't collapse we don't need building codes.

An objective comparison of good-faith efforts to understand the engineering aspects of the collapse and conspiracy theories is both pointless and impossible. Usefull theories are constrained by the need to be generally applicable, while a conspiracy theory can always add more men in black and hidden devices to explain any obserfvation. Toiyabe 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, your argument doesn't make sense. In order to come up with recommendations for future construction to help prevent similar failures", a study would have to understand the cause of the failure. If they are wrong about the cause, then the recommendations are wrong. Any scientific study of anything must attempt to account for all of the relevant data.

Next, are you suggesting that UFO's, hallucinations and projectors (which has never happened and has no basis in reality) is in the same category as controlled demolition (which has actually happened many many times)? Come on. This is a clear indication of the ridiculous lengths to which the anti-science crownd must go to obfuscate the obvious.

This is not about the conspiracy. FInding out WHAT happened is not the same as finding out WHO DID IT and why. NIST effort can not possibly be considered "good faith". The ignored molten metal, for instance. Depending on what metal it is, this is a clear indication of a particular temperature reached. Clearly some very high temperatures were reached in all 3 of those buildings, and any good faith effort to get at the truth would try to explain these temperatures.

The controlled demolition theory IS generally applicable, as you reccomend Toiyabe. We do not need any new science, it is well understood, and fits perfectly with all of the observations. And you know it. TruthSeeker1234 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the observations? Like a plane hitting the towers?

No plane hit WTC7

What proof do you have that demolitions produce "squibs"

See videos at implosionworld.com

and not the pancaking that also occurs in CD's?

Huh? Gibberish.

How were the demolitions timed

With a laptop, probably

and how did they coordinate the collapse with the location of the impacts (which, as has been established, was impossible to predetermine).

By having discreet remote control over all the elements. 56 minutes is more than enough time to type in a playlist.

Why wouldn't the fires have prematurely set off the explosives (which would not have set off the "timed charges" that are supposedly on the rest of the floors).

Because thermite requires very high temperatures to ignite, usually a magnesium strip.

Between NIST and FEMA there is a concrete chain of events with minor quibbles over which structural element failed first because, well, nobody witnessed it and it's hard to accurately model.

Not minor quibbles, the theories are mutually exclusive, and do not explain the observaions anyway.

But it's clear that all were weakening to the point of failure and it was only necessary that one fail to initiate the collapse.

Then why has it never happened in fires that were hotter, and bigger, and longer lasting? And even if fire did cause collapse, how can collapse proceed so quickly? Lower floors must fall before being impacted, otherwise collapse takes too long.

On the other hand you have a theory that harps on some aspects of the 10-second collapse phase but wholly ignores the initiation of the collapse, nor the fact that an hour prior to the collapse, the buildings were hit by two 747's (or in the case of tower 7, several hours ago by debris from 1 and 2).

Controlled demolition theory does not ignore this data at all. Accounts for it completly.

Chain of causality. One theory has it; the other doesn't--Mmx1 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Planes hit buildings, building survive easily. Fires burn, buildings survive easily. Playlist is entered as perpetrators study the situation. Mouse is clicked. Non-standard, over-exploded demolition of WTC2 begins. Ditto with WTC1. Later textbook implosion at WTC7. Where is the missing cause-and-effect in that chain?

Now, where in your "chain of causality" do the jet fuel fires produce the stream of yellow hot molten metal streaming out of the south tower? Or did that never happen, huh?

Debunked, try again TruthSeeker1234 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's a basic disconect here. Science can't tell you how past events occured. What science can propose models that are consistent with past events. A model that is specific to a single event is not science. A model that is consistent with past events and predicts future events is science.

Models that fit all the data are nice. That's a good criteria for laboratory science. No one has come up with models for the behaviour of real-world structures that fit all the data. Maybe we engineers are just dumber than lab scientists. Or maybe the number of uncontrollable variables is too high. In my field, models with R^2 of around 0.7 are nothing to be too ashamed of. That doesn't mean we think those models are good, they're just as good as we can reasonably expect them to be. If someone showed me a model for the fatigue cracking of AC pavements that had an R^2 of 0.95 I'd be certain that it's BS. I.e. it's explaining too much of the data for me to belive it, knowing what I do about AC pavements.

When I talk about a theory that is generally applicable, I mean that it can be applied to other problems. For example, the models developed for the behaviour of the floor trusses in the fire can be applied to new buildings to help us design them better. A CD theory is not useful in any way I can imagine.

If an accepted model tells us that the floor trusses could be expected to fail under the conditions in the WTC towers, that's as good as knowing that they did fail for the purpose of coming up with new codes. Even if it did not fail that way, it could have and that's what is important.

With the data available there's no way to prove a CD theory. Even with every possible bit of data available there's no way to disprove a CD theory. For one thing, the CD adherents could and would claim that the information is fake. They would also point, as you do now, to the inadequacies of the models as "evidence" that CD makes the most sense. Of course a CD model can be made to fit all the data because you can always add another MiB or explosive charge or whatever to tweak it, so you could always claim that CD fits the data as well as any other theory. Likewise, I can perfectly fit any n data points with a polynomial of order n-1. That's pretty meaningless, though. Toiyabe 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, NIST did address the conspiracy theories:

Finding 59: NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.

Seabhcán 15:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but gathering and evaluating such evidence was not a goal of the NIST investigation. The goals are as follows:

• improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
• improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
• revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
• improved public safety.[3]

Toiyabe 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Have there been any changes to the building codes based on what was learned? Seabhcán 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. "International Code Council members last year [2004] approved a change to the International Building Code (IBC) related to the World Trade Center collapse. The IBC now requires that buildings 420 feet and higher have a minimum three-hour structural fire-resistance rating. The previous requirement was two hours." [4] There will be a supplement to the code published in 2007, which will probably include other related changes.

IBC is used in most of the US. NYC has its own code, and I don't know if they've done any related changes, but I'd be surprised if they didn't. I don't think PANY/NJ is under the jurisdiction of the NYC code, though.Toiyabe 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. That info should go in the article. Very interesting. Seabhcán 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that.--DCAnderson 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How would the fireproofing upgrades protect against temperatures that are hot enough to melt steel? TruthSeeker1234 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fireproofing is essentially insulation, like a glove over your hand when you pick up a hot frying pan. It can't protect the steel members indefinetly, but provides added time to evacuate and extinguish the fire. Toiyabe 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, we have steel members which were not only melted, but partially evaporated. It also appears that this dramatic increase in temperature happened vary quickly, in just a few seconds, at least in the case of WTC2. The fires appeared to be quite cool, and smoldering, and going out. Then, molten metal began pouring out of one of the corners, then seconds later it collapsed. If something is going to get that hot, the three-hour rating is just as irrelevant as the two-hour rating. THe insulation and the steel will melt very quickly. I think the ratings are based on ordinary fires, not the super hot kind of "steel melting" and "steel evaporating" fires which somehow took place on 9/11. TruthSeeker1234 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think Thermite was used then?--MONGO 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thermate (a variation of thermite with added sulfer) is certainly consistent with the observations, but what I think does not matter. What matters are the views published by mainstream reputable sources. Mainstream reputable sources have reported to us that very high temperatures were achieved. Steel evaporated, molten metal dripping, etc. We must report this. TruthSeeker1234 05:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And by adding that, you'll be able to allude that it was controlled demolition.--MONGO 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And he has no reliable sources for molten or evaporated steel, only a few things he can twist out of context. We've been over this stuff many, many times. Toiyabe 15:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You anti-science guys are persistent, I must say. Yes we have been over it. And over it. New York Times. Structural Engineer. NIST report. FEMA report. Photographs. Videos. There are mainstream sources, and nothing is twisted out of context. They reported steel beams "partly evaporated". Goodness, what part of that is hard to understand? Evaportaing steel requires very high temperatures. Come on guys, just admit whats going on. Some very damaging information managed to leak through the otherwise thorough cover-up. You guys are smart enough to understand that fires cannot melt, much less evaporate steel. So you have to use bullying tactics to try and keep it out of the article. Just admit it. That stuff dripping out of the south tower cannot be anything other than molten steel/iron. You know it. I know it. TruthSeeker1234 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Some very damaging information managed to leak through the otherwise thorough cover-up." Heh; that's what they would have you think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The only time I've seen the word "evaporated" used in the context of the steel WTC was that NY times article, in which it was a reporter, not an expert, who said that some steel elements in WTC 7 "appear to have been partly evaporated". This phenomenon is treated in a more rigorous manner in the Journal of Metalurgy article which is discussed and linked to in the main article. I suggest you ignore the NYT's treatment of this matter and concentrate on the JoM's.

I have yet to be shown a reliable source that attests to molten steel in the WTC towers. And molten steel is a weird hangup for you, because the quantitiy of thermite required to melt an appreciable ammount of steel is rediculous: It takes ~ 1 lb of thermite to melt 4 lbs of steel. If there really was a observable quanitity of molten steel present in the debris pile more than one day after the collapse, it could not be explained by any reasonable quantity of thermite. Thermite has a low energy density. Toiyabe 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Toiyabe. The "partly evaporated" quote is Dr. Barnett, a civil engineer:

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.

Also, bear in mind that the "reporter", James Glanz, is a physicist.

Also, bear in mind that the videotaped dust ejections from WTC7 appear consistent with high explosives, indicating that perhaps thermate was used to weaken key steel columns, in preparation for the cutter charges which went off triggering the actuall collapse. I mention this only in response to your questions about quantities of thermite, etc. All we know for sure is that extraordinarily high temperatures were achieved, and that steel members were rapidy eroded in the presence of sulfer, and that it left the metal with a swiss cheese appearance. And that engineers were "baffled". And that it was a "mystery". And that Mr. Glanz changed the title of his story.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeeker1234 (talk • contribs)

Wrong, Truthseeker1234, Barnett is paraphrased, not quoted. Read your darn source. I've dealt with that NYT article many times on this talk page. It should be ignored in preference for the scholarly article on the same issue published by Dr. Barnett in a the Journal of Metalurgy per WP:RS#Avoid_citing_the_popular_press. Toiyabe 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article reads "Blah blah blah , DR. BARNETT SAID". That sounds like physicist Glanz knows what Barnett said, but whatever. I've tried to include that as well, Toiyabe, and the "hollow steel shaft" and lots of stuff from the official reports. I wrote a beautiful passage about the sulfidation and the "swiss cheese" appearance of the metal, only to have it vand.....uh, I mean, edited out of the article.

I'm glad you feel you have "dealt with" the molten metal issues. But the sum total of the discussion is that you guys are denying something which is plainly true. There is molten steel and/or iron spritzing out of the WTC2, and in the rubble of all 3 buildings. You know it, i know it, anyone who looks into this matter knows it. If you guys had any sense of dedication to wrting a correct article, you would insist that it be included. The photos, and everything.

You've all seen the video and the photos. What else could this possibly be? TruthSeeker1234 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC) You've all seen the video and the photos. What else could this possibly be besides molten metal? TruthSeeker1234 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Flaming Jet Fuel? Piece of falling flaming debris caught in a slow shutter speed? Video artifact?--DCAnderson 02:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

DC, you can't be serious.

Flaming Jet Fuel?

No, remember DC, Flames are gas, they are lighter than air, they go upwards, just like the flames which are visible in the same videos and pictures are going up. The stuff in question is falling down. Plus the jet fuel had burned up long ago, this is seconds before collapse.

Piece of falling flaming debris caught in a slow shutter speed?

No, this is an hour after the plane crash. What falling debris? This is a steady stream of yellow hot stuff, splashing and revealing a white hot interior. Plus it's all coming from the same spot, right by the corner of the building.

Video artifact?

No, if it were some kind of video articfact, it would not appear to be coming from a particular place in the building, especially when the camera moves all around.

There is nothing else in the world that this can be other than molten metal cascading from the towere, seconds before collapse. You anti-science guys are reduced to absurdities, like "video artifact". Molten Metal is checkmate.

Check Mate

What else can the video be, except molten metal? And, if it's molten metal, what explanation can there possibly be for it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

Check, and mate.

TruthSeeker1234 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkmate? What are you? A James Bond villain?

Well all I had seen up to this point was the screen grab which actually looks like something oozing.

Now that I've seen the video, I'm more convinced it is just fire and flaming cinders. It looks just like what happens when you poke at a campfire at night.

This is all just unscientific musings, but that is really all we have regarding it anyway.--DCAnderson 03:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Flaming cinders ;-) Good one! Flaming cinders do not splash, they are not liquid. Simply put, this video looks nothing like fire, or cinders. It looks exactly like a thermite reaction.

What else can this be beside molten metal?

CheckmateTruthSeeker1234 03:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen a thermite reaction? Where's the intense light? Uh...... --Mmx1 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a big stream of sparks and cinders.

Face it dude, the video doesn't really prove anything.

Sorry, not checkmate.

Don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Yahtzee!--DCAnderson 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Great bit of footage and I can see why you think what you think. I don't think it's molten metal though; doesn't look right. Burning jet fuel maybe? --Guinnog 11:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, flaming jet fuel is a gas which is lighter than air, and goes up. This stuff falls down. Plus jet fuel is long gone. TruthSeeker1234 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the point...we don't know what it is. I suggested it might be copper but that was shot down...and that is my point...we don't know what it is.--MONGO 11:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do so know what it is. It is a videotape of a violent molten metal reaction, that looks exactly like a thermite reaction. TruthSeeker1234 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't say it was metal, or plastic, or even that it was important. We can't highlight that and ignore hundreds of other details we think are trivial. We have to wait for a reliable secondary source. Otherwise we're doing original research, choosing to talk about what some of us think is a significant feature, saying what it was, and making up a theory about why it was important. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is metal, No, it is not plastic. Yes it is important. Yes we should ignore details we think are trivial. NIST, NYTimes, Structgural Engineer are reliable sources according to you guys, not me. No one here is making up a theory.

This desperation by the anti-science crowd is immensly rewarding to me, on a personal level. That you guys must resort to absurdities is very reassuring to the pro-science side of this debate. I liked it when Toiyabe was blaming things on UFO's and hallucinagenic drugs. That was funnier, but this is more reassuring.

Is that really the best you guys can come up with? Molten Metal video here -

Checkmate. Game Over.TruthSeeker1234 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes it is metal..."'

How do you know?--DCAnderson 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we've seen the video and it is inconclusive. Not one expert has chimed in in a critical analysis as to what that is and it has nothing to do with anything else awyway...stop linking the video when it is already linked above.--MONGO 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you want in the way of an export? I looked up the NIST report that TruthSeeker1234 is talking about and they do say it appears to be molten aluminum. How much more official of an analysis do you want? Reyals 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The video becomes conclusive after viewing these thermite demonstrations

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585

TruthSeeker1234 19:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What is with you about molten metal? If it was molten metal, then that hole should be getting bigger, and apparently it is not. I have to agree with Mongo here; it looks more like cinders. Don't present a disputed observation as fact, TruthSeeker. Ain't checkmate yet. --Physicq210 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it with me and molten metal? Molten metal was reported formally by mainstream reputable sources. Molten Metal is videotaped. Molten Metal is photographed. Evaportated steel is reported formally. The steel is rapidly eroded and left with a mysterious "swiss cheese" appearance, which is formally reported bu mainstream reputable sources. Clearly there were very high temperatures achieved, this is beyond any doubt. Other than something like thermite, there has been no explanation for these very high temperatures, nor for the molten metal.

What is it with me and Molten Metal? You all know perfectly well what it is with me and molten metal. If there is molten metal, it is checkmate, the game is over. Other than controlled demolition, there is no explanation for molten metal. This is so obvious that the pro-government editors have had to resort to absurdity to avoid admitting molten metal. If molten metal were no big deal, everyone would just admit molten metal, and say "so what"? But they can't do that, because everyone knows that molten metal is checkmate.

TruthSeeker1234 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If your sources are as reputable as you present, please list them below. Perhaps your sources can clear up the confusion. But until then, the end of the game is up in the air. --Physicq210 03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker, your arguement states that "it must be molten metal, because there is no other explanation, therefore it must be controlled demolition, because there is no other explanation." It is an ad absurtum proof that has numerous flaws. You seem to have ignored the fact that there are, like everything else in science, an infinite number of explanations. Mathematically rigorous proofs are not valid in science because there is no set of axioms from which to start a proof, yet you insist on using these proofs.

Need I also remind you that you are fast becoming a broken record player? If you insist that there is no other explanation, then please enumerate every explanation for the substance and explain why that is not valid. I assure you that I can find an explanation that is not on that list, and, better yet, one that is valid. IMacWin95 15:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thermite is not an explosive

Continuing the conspiracy theorist penchant for making shit up, Truthseeker is claiming that yellow stream => thermite reaction => controlled demolition. Leaving aside the fact that thermite reactions are extremely exothermic reactions that release such a quantity of light that it usually registers as a bright white [5], the more important observation is that THERMITE IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE.

As any 10th-grade chemstry teacher can tell you, the reaction of aluminum and iron oxide releases lots of heat, but relatively little gas. That's why we can run student laboratory thermite demonstrations with only a flame shield for the sparks. We had lots of fun burning massive piles of thermite. Just to blow up a hydrogen baloon, we needed a blast shield.

An explosive operates not through heat, but pressure waves. The chemical reaction in explosives like dynamite produces prodigious amounts of gas, which results in what we commonly know as an explosion. This pressure is what severs columns in a controlled demolition - the effect travels at the speed of sound and is for all practical purposes, instantaneously.

Thermite is not used in controlled demolitions. Why? because it can't be controlled. While thermite burns extremely fast, it still has a measurable rate of combustion that is glacial compared to explosives - you can watch a pile of thermite burn. It is impossible to accurately time a thermite reaction and determine the moment of structural collapse, as it is required to melt steel. An explosive (properly set), will instantly sever a structural column, as its rate of combustion is measured in milliseconds. The use of thermite in a "controlled demolition" would be disastrous, as a difference of a fraction of a second could result in catastrophic "uncontrolled" collapse.

Now, I'm not a "controlled demolitions expert". But a high-school chemistry education (okay, a high-quality high-school education augmented with a fascination with things that burn and blow up and a teacher that shared that fascination) was sufficient to deduce that. Google for "controlled demolitions thermite" and only 9-11 conspiracy theories turn up. The more intrepid among you are free to call up your local controlled demolitions expert (assuming they aren't related to Bush, bought out by the man, or were the company that actually blew up the WTC) and verify my speculation. But the reasoning is prefectly clear. Chemistry pwns.

Checkmate. :-) --Mmx1 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Mmx, nobody is saying that thermite did the WHOLE job.

Yes, thermite is an incindiary, not an explosive. There are many variations on thermite, including thermate and super-thermite which make them more explosive to different degrees. The Twin tower trade demolitions appeared to have used an incindiary to begin cutting support columns in the minutes just prior to collapse. Then high explosives finished the job, as evidenced by the pulverization, demolition waves and squibs. It wasn't just thermite, it was also high explosives of some sort.

Nothing else besides high explosives can explain the complete pulverization of the tower into powder. And only an incindiary such as thermite can explain the molten metal and very high temperatures which are observed, and formally reported by reputable, mainstream sources, like FEMA, NIST, NYTImes and Structural Engineer.

TruthSeeker1234 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"...thermate and super-thermite which make them more explosive to different degrees" What does that even mean? You have no idea what you are talking about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• So how'd we coordinate the thermite melting with the dynamite? Telepaths? How did we coordinate the thermite across the entire floor?

Waitaminute, i see...so we used thermite....THEN explosives to sever the columns. Why in hell? We were just curious? Why not just use explosives alone? You keep shifting your conspiracy theory to duck allegations, and it just gets less and less plausible. --Mmx1 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh...so now you claim that we used explosives not only to sever the columns, but to "pulverize" the building. Why? To make it look prettier on TV? To make it easier to get caught?

I admit it. We had Iron Man run along the interior melting the beams with his Gamma Rays. Then Jean Grey telepathically set off the charges the moment the thermite cut through the columns (she had to hold up one end for a sec....the south columns took a bit too long to melt). For a finishing touch, we had Gambit touch the building so it'd explode for the cameras. Propaganda has to be theatrical, you know. (and now you know what I've been reading for the last 25 min ;-) )--Mmx1

Not to mention, how do you use thermite to cut an upright column? I've seen thermite make a vertical cut, but don't see how you could make a horizontal cut with thermite. If you attached a thermite charge to a column you'd probably just get some streaks of iron down the side. It's the liquid iron generated by the reaction that does the cutting, and most of that iron goes straight down. Toiyabe 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, the reason the towers had to be "over-exploded" was because they were destroyed from the top down, unlike a standard controlled demolition.

If one changes a hypothesis to account for new data, that is good science. If one ignores data that conflicts with the hypothesis, that is anti-science. The official theory has changed several times, and still does not account for much data. Some of the various conspiracy theories have also changed. To the extent that they are now consistent with the data, they are good theories. To the extent that they conflict with the data, they are bad theories.

Mmx, you have the scientific method completely backwards. I don't seek to include "pulverization" because it fits in with some "conspiracy theory" I'm trying to push. Rather, I seek to include "pulverization" because it is observed. Similarly, "Molten Metal" is observed. Any correct explanation must account for these observations. Any explanation which cannot account for these observations must be false.

The 9/11 Truth Movement does not have a complete theory of exactly how the buildings were rigged. It simply says that incidiaries and explosives can actually explain the observations. If you can offer a reputable explanation by which jet crashes and fires can produce the observations, I will listen. But if you anti-science guys just try to pretend that molten metal was not observed, then you just lose all credibility. Same thing with the other collapse features. Trying to pretend they didn't happen is anti-science.

So go ahead, try to explain the molten metal. Try to explain the pulverization. Try to explain the collapse times. Try to explain the mushroom clouds.

Or, try to pretend these things didn't happen, as you have been doing. This denial of the obvious reminds me of Holocaust denial.

TruthSeeker1234 15:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no reliable source for molten steel, but you insist that it existed and say that any challenge to your assertions is "anti-science" and equivalent to "holocaust denial".

You claim that the "mushroom cloud" of dust and "pluverization" of debris can only be explained by controlled demolition. You've presented no basis for that claim, except that it is "obvious".

You claim that the towers could not have collapsed within the observed timeframe through any means other than controlled demolition. Again no rational basis, except that it is "obvious".

Where you have been forced to conceed a point you do so by greatly increasing the complexity of your scenario. This is a big warning sign - it reminds me of adding epicycles to a geo-centric model rather than going with helio-centric.

But anyway, this is not a general discussion forum. If you have something specific you would like to add to the article, please propose it here. Otherwise, I'm sure there are other places on the web you can carry on. Toiyabe 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it really is interesting, but I never recall seeing anything like the image at right on any video of the collapse.--MONGO 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly, that's where Iraq's WMD went. --Mmx1 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Add to the Article

Specifically, I'd like to add a paragraph that explains clearly to the reader that very high temperatures were achieved, melting and partially evaporating steel, in the presence of sulfer, leaving the steel with a "swiss cheese" appearance which baffled engineers.

I'd also like to state clearly that these were unprecedented events, that no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed from fires, with or without fireproofing.

I'd like to change the beginning picture to one of the actual collapse taking place. The current picture of the firefighter would be better for "Aftermath at Ground Zero" or something. TruthSeeker1234 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with everything but the part about the picture.--DCAnderson 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Though in the interim, the firefighter picture is a pretty good pictre.--DCAnderson 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The specifics of the steel you want to talk about are already in the Seven World Trade Center section. "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 ...". Toiyabe 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the stuff is in the metallurgy section, but the whole presentation is incoherent. Unreadable. That's why I'd like "to add a paragraph that explains clearly to the reader that very high temperatures were achieved, melting and partially evaporating steel, in the presence of sulfer, leaving the steel with a "swiss cheese" appearance which baffled engineers." The whole article is so rambling and unclear, it is amazing to me that anyone would support it.

The reader wants to know: Why did these buildings fall down? Do the experts agree? Is this fact or opinion? What were the specific characeristics of the collapses? Has anything like this ever happened before or since?

TruthSeeker1234 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not incoherent, it's just precise and doesn't say what you want it to say. The report doesn't say the steel "melted" or "partially evaporated". It was oxidized; i.e. rusted at a prodigious rate, in the presence of sufur. --Mmx1 17:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, I know you have been paying attention, so your pretense of ignorance is annoying. Mainstream sources have quoted experts as saying that steel was "partially evaporated" and that there was molten metal. We've been through this a dozen times. You anti-science guys are so afraid of the truth it's reassuring to skeptics of the official story. TruthSeeker1234 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you're the one pretending to be ignorant (or truly so). The description of an item with an analogy does not mean you take the analogy literally. Observers said it "looked like the steel was evaporated", referring to the degraded state of the metal. That doesn't mean it actually did evaporate, requiring temperatures that even modern industrial processes would have difficulty creating, and only a daft idiot would assume the latter. Specificially, the precise engineering report you are attempting to alter to incorporate your OR doesn't say anything of the sort. Witnesses said the towers coming down "sounded like a freight train". Doesn't mean that a freight train started the collapse. --Mmx1 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, there are DOZENS of eyewitnesses, including firefighters, who use the word "explosions" and you know it. On the 9/11 talk page, there are now multiple quotes from NIST mentioning the MOLTEN METAL. Thermate can evaporate steel, it is a simple explanation. TruthSeeker1234 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Airliner deaths listed with collapse fatalities

Sorry if this is an FAQ, old news etc. (I looked through as much of the archive as I could bear.) I am confused about this bit, near the start: "Both main towers lost structural integrity and fell that morning, killing 2,595 people within and nearby, as well as 157 people who were aboard the flights." And the article is called Collapse of the World Trade Center. Putting those two together I find it very odd that we seem to say the collapse killed 157 people on the aircraft. Surely they were killed by the plane crashes, not by the collapse? I know this is a contentious article and I am trying to tread carefully, but I just don't see how this works. If the article is about the collapse then it shouldn't be suggesting that it killed the plane passengers, surely?? Gonegonegone 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. Surely the passengers were not killed by the collapse. However, the sentence could be rewritten to reflect this also. -- Deville (Talk) 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NIST at WTC

Additional unusual behaviors observed for WTC2 included the correlated smoke puffs observed over large areas of the façade and over the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased DRAMATICALLY, often accompanied by external flames. These events were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurrences of smoke puffs were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place. The evidence suggests that these smoke puffs resulted from PRESSURE PULSES generated within the tower and transmitted to other locations. It is considered likely while these pressure pulses were of sufficient magnitude to affect smoke flows over multiple floors, they were much too small to affect the tower's structural components. For most of the smoke puffs, there was no visual indication of the event that generated the pressure pulse or its location. In a few cases, such as when WHEN MOLTEN METAL POURED from the tower, circumstantial evidence indicated that the puffs WERE ASSOCIATED with specific observed events. - NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation (p.p.36-38)

The video shot from the WTC plaza captured an INTRIGUING event at 9:37:04 a.m. A jet of air, dust, and A LARGE PIECE OF DEBRIS WAS EJECTED from a window, 77-355, on the 77th floor at AN EXTREMELY HIGH VELOCITY. Longer distance videos show that puffs of smoke and/or dust appeared simultaneously on the east face from several open windows near the center of the 78th floor and from open windows on the north side of the 79th floor. Interestingly, the smoke flow from the windows on the west sides of the 79th and 80th floors, which had decreased markedly by this time, did not increase. Within 14s of this release, a large fire either grew or became visible near the center of the east face on the 82nd floor. A long distance video shot from the south showed that fire and smoke were pushed from multiple locations on the south face at the same time the strong jet occurred on the 77th floor of the east face. -NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation (p. 346)

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be MOLTEN METAL WAS OBSERVED POURING from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC2. This is the area where the sustained fires on the 81st and 82nd had been burning since the aircraft impact. The likely explanation for the observation of pouring liquid is that the material had originally pooled on the floor slab above, i.e., the 81st floor, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when the floor slab in the immediate vicinity either pulled away from the spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a PRESSURE PULSE that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.[...]

There was another release of smoke and/or dust from near the east edge of the north face at 9:52:38 a.m. Immediately afterward, the spot near the top of window 80-255 brightened considerably. At 9:52:47 a.m. a series of three much LARGER PRESSURE PULSES, which took place over 35s, pushed smoke and/or dust from several locations on multiple floors of the north face. These locations included those described above, the two areas on the north side of the 83rd floor where fires were burning, the vicinity of the pile of debris near the center of the 79th floor, an area of newly observed fire on the 79th floor near windows 79-209 to 79-213, and the opening of the northeast corner of the 81st floor. The fire burning near the center of the 79th floor flared up noticeably. Immediately following one of the pressure pulses (at 9:52:48 a.m.) intense flames suddenly reappeared in windows 91-301 and 81-302 on the east face just to the south of the northeast corner of the 81st floor. At roughly the same time, part of the debris lodged at the northeast corner of the 81st floor fell out of the opening. Relatively small amounts of MOLTEN MATERIAL POURED from window 80-255 NEAR THE START AND THE END OF THE series of PRESSURE PULSES. Videos show that smoke was also expelled from windows near the north edges of the 79th and 80th floors of the east face during these pressure pulses. NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)

At 9:53:41 a.m. and 9:53:46 a.m. two pressure pulses forced additional smoke from windows on the north face. Both of these occurrences were ACCOMPANIED BY SHORT FLOWS OF MOLTEN MATERIAL from the same window, 80-255, on the 80th floor observed earlier. The largest flow occurred during the second release. Figure 9-75 shows a view of the northeast corner of WTC2 taken from a video at 9:53:51 a.m. The BRIGHT MOLTEN STREAM flowing from the top of windows 80-255 IS PROMINENT.

An image of the north face taken at 9:55:18 a.m. is shown in Figure 9-76. The image was shot 1 min 45s after the one shown in Figure 9-74. The fire distributions are very similar in the two photographs, with the exception of the fire on the 82nd floor to the right of the cold spot in Figure 9-76. As discussed above, the fire was first observed at 9:53:47 a.m. burning in windows 82-234 to 82-337. At 9:55:18 a.m. flames were visible in windows 82-231 to 82-236, and flames were coming out of windows 82-233. The bright spot at the top of window 80-255 is visible on the 80th floor, but there is no obvious molten liquid flow at this time. Unlike in the earlier photograph, fire is now visible in the adjacent window, 80-256. During the next several minutes, following the two pressure pulses around 9:53:45 a.m., numerous pressure pulses were noted that pushed smoke from open windows on the north and east faces of WTC2.

A particularly STRONG PRESSURE PULSE started at 9:56:11 a.m. It lasted nearly 10s. This particular pulse was strong enough to push flames from the tower at many locations. Following a pressure pulse at 9:56:31 a.m., the flames present on the 81st floor in the northeast corner opening and nearby flames on the north face abruptly died down. The large flame in window 81-301 on the east face also declined within 2s. All of these flames reappeared after a few seconds. At 9:57:21 a.m., shortly after another pressure pulse, the BRIGHT LIGHT reappeared at the top window, 80-255, on the 80th floor from which the FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL had been observed earlier. Almost immediately, it appeared to jump one window to the east, i.e., to window 80-256. Five seconds later a LIGHT FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL began pouring out of window 80-256. THE FLOW OF MATERIAL from this window WOULD NOW BE NEARLY CONTINUOUS UNTIL THE TOWER COLLAPSED. At 9:57:32 a.m. there was a fairly intense pressure pulse within the tower. THE FLOW RATE OF THE MOLTEN METAL INCREASED DRAMATICALLY at this time. p. 383 (pdf p. 87)

Figure 9-77 is a frame from a video that was shot at 9:57:45 a.m. It shows the falling metal as it was approaching the ground. THE LARGE AMOUNT of falling material IS EVIDENT. Most of the molten metal seems to have broken up into small "droplets," but there are a couple of large pieces falling as well. Apparently, the material flowing out of window 80-256 also included pieces of debris that had not fully melted. There was another HEAVY FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL at 9:58:35 a.m. p.384 (pdf p. 88)

Numerous visual observations suggest that IMPORTANT CHANGES, which might have had STRUCTURAL RELEVANCE, were taking place in WTC2 in the period following aircraft impact until collapse. These observations include hanging objects, some of which, based on appearance, may have been locally dislodged floor slabs that had settled down to locations below the spandrel, at several locations on the north and east faces, changes in positions of the hanging objects during the period, the occurrence of numerous PRESSURE PULSES identified by smoke and/or dust puffs generated over multiple windows and floors, the appearance of MOLTEN METAL pouring from the tops of open windows, and bowing of outer steel framework. p.412(pdf 116) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

"THERMAL IMAGERY OF THE PROGRESSION OF MOLTEN STEEL HOTSPOTS from September 18 to September 25" GeoNews, October, 2001 http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ees/october2001.pdf

TruthSeeker1234 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, did you have something you wanted to add to the article?--MONGO 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Truthseeker1234, from your editing history it looks like you came to Wikipedia just to add the words "molten metal" to any page about 9-11, in all caps if possible. People on a few different pages now have shown that your whole molten-metal theory is a non-physical scenario. The idea that truck-loads of thermite were smuggled in without tearing the rug is the least compelling of the common theories. Your obsessive determination to add this to the articles; your presentation of this as the one true answer; your tying all the alternative theories to molten metal, as if they all stand or fall on that one thing: these are all becoming increasingly odd. The other conspiracy theories are wrong anyway, and I doubt there are organized disinformation campaigns, but at a certain point even I begin to wonder about the motivation of those who so relentlessly push one bad theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Tom. My mission here is the truth. I've tried to add mention of the collapse features, all of them. You know that, because you are the one who removed them. Remember? I added a section called "Collapse Features". From your editing history, it appears you simply want to block the truth. I have now focused on molten metal for very good reasons.

Reason 1. Molten Metal is extremely interesting to the reader, because it is unprecedented in structural collapse. Reason 2. Molten Metal is documented beyond any dispute. NIST, FEMA, NY Times, Structural Engineer, Hunter College, photos, videos, etc. Reason 3. I can only do so much.

You (all you anti-science guys), have seen fit to block molten metal because you all know perfectly well how upsetting it is to the official story, which you are determined to protect, regardless of what is shown in the reputable, verifiable sources.

Molten Metal is not a "theory". It is a fact. It is an observation. Molten Metal is going in. If you remove it, it will be blatant vandalism. Do not remove it.

TruthSeeker1234 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A good Thomas Eagar quote regarding 'molten steel': Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such "glory". -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except the molten metal videotaped pouring out of the south tower IS yellow-to-white-hot. Eagar conveniently ignores this. The molten metal in the video looks EXACTLY like thermite, and Jones gives his readers known thermite reactions to compare it to. Jones also gives a handy table listing the colors and corresponding temperatures.

TruthSeeker1234 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. The video you've repeatedly posted displays an orange-yellow stream. Thermite is a bright white that sometimes registers as yellow around the edges. --Mmx1 01:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is important practice critical thinking. It was molten aluminum. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. The stuff in the video is bright yellow, and when it splashes it reveals a white interior. To me it looks exactly like thermite. Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature and appears silver colored during the day, due to its very low emmissivity.

From a still picture of the molten metal, using photoshop eyedropper tool, I found the following colors:

FFFFCC "light goldenrod yellow" FFFF99 "pale goldenrod" FFCC33 FFFF66

These are all yellow, some very light yellow. This does not include a sample of the splashing, which I am quite sure would be very close to pure white.

TruthSeeker1234 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Photoshop as a scientific tool! Your ingenuity and cluelessness are to be commended. What were the RGB/CMYK profiles of the camera that took it? What post-processing was done on the image?

Thermite registers as white due to its intensity, occasionally yellow around the edges as it cools; this is exactly the opposite - it's yellow and the throw-off sparks are lighter....hmm... aluminum perhaps? --Mmx1 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Photoshop in this context is going to be more scientific than you simply asserting "It's orange yellow". OK? Maybe your monitor is calibrated too red and too dark. What is really needed is what D.r Jones has done, that is XRay spectrographs of actuall samples.

I repeated the photoshop eyedropper experiment on a frame grab from a known thermite reaction, and got the same 4 colors.

Post the pictures where you're getting the "exact same colors". [[6]] I'm basing my observations off the video you keep posting, which is clearly orange-yellow. Either way, it's still pointless speculation, as the original color data is unknown and the post-processing that the cameras do taints the data anyway. What is the point of X-Ray spectrographs of samples after the fact? Totall bullshit, and you're a tool for believing it. --Mmx1 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of XRAY spectrography is that it can tell you the exact chemical composition of something. TruthSeeker1234 03:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The liquid metal in the video is not the opposite, it is the same. It appears to have been pooling, thus cooling. The outside will be cooler, while the interior is more insulated and hotter. When it splashes, it reveals the hotter interior. Aluminum will be silver colored in daylight, and look nothing like this. It is likely a combination of molten iron (from thermite) and molten steel.

Or a combination of aluminum and other stuff, as evidenced by the links. I did a little connecting of the dots from Jones's paper: "The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce." Then it says "Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001)" -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 03:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes which confirm that the substance in the video is aluminum (or at least aluminum mixed with other substances): Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source." " A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4 Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.

NIST H-7-2 Molten Material It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area." -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very cleverly worded sentence: "The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. " Notice how they don't say the appearance is consistent with aluminum, only the behavior. That's because the appearance is not consistent with aluminum. Molten aluminum is silver colored in daylight.TruthSeeker1234 05:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We are making progress, as you all are now admitting that it is molten metal. A few weeks ago you guys were saying it was electrical sparks, plastic, or jet fuel. This is progress, there is hope for you. Especially you Mmx. You have shown a willingness to have scientific debate, unlike others who simply name call.TruthSeeker1234 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Molten metal, yes we all admit that. But perhaps you, TruthSeeker, might need to review your incessant (and ever-changing) past commentary above and notice that you constantly mention and force into discussion (even when unnecessary) molten steel, not molten metal. We mention molten aluminum. The here-disputed "molten steel" you mention are supposedly from the Twin Towers, while the molten aluminum (accepted as fact) are from the planes that crashed into the towers. So unless you are brave (and idiotic) enough that these terms are interchangable, you need not celebrate your nonexistent victory over us. Also, not only does your comment not make sense, it only serves to augment the magnitude of your inability to convince us and it serves to deceive us if we didn't look at above commentary every now and then. So, again, review your above comments, and be enlightened that you are currently contradicting yourself. Nice deception strategy, albeit a failed one.

Oh yes, one more thing unrelated to the topic. TruthSeeker, please just edit the section where you are commenting in and add edit summary. It's hard to see what topic you are commenting on. --Physicq210 07:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, at higher temperatures, molten aluminum can be yellow like in the video. Also, it almost certainly wasn't pure aluminum but a mix of substances. The higher temperatures could have been created by the many oxygen generators in the aircraft. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you all now admit molten metal, as recently MONGO, DCAnderson and others were saying it was sparks, plastic, or jet fuel. This is progress. Now pay careful attention.

My disagreement was about molten steel in the rubble, not the molten material in the upper floors pre-collapse. You're right, we're making good progress. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To understand why the stuff coming out of WTC2 cannot be aluminum, you have to have your thinking hat on. Aluminum melts at about 1220 F. This is dull red-hot, but because of its reflectivity, tends to retain its silver appearance. See [7] In a container, you can heat aluminum up to orange (1725F), even yellow hot. See [8]. You would need a container to do this. If you had a pile of aluminum airplane parts and a hot enough fire, the aluminum would melt when it reached about 1220F, then it would flow away from the heat, long before it was anywhere close to yellow hot.

Doesn't the "flowing away from the heat source" assume that the floors were flat, which they were not after the jet rammed into the Tower? Also, all the concrete, steel, etc. would easily block (dam) the aluminum flow, and thus it would have pooled near a heat source. When it pooled it would be greatly heated by the hydrocarbon fires; hydrocarbon fires can exceed 2000F. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Aluminum is highly reflective, with low emmissivity, so in daylight it tends to retain its silver color, regardless of the color of light being emmitted.

For these reasons it is highly unlikely that the stuff coming out of the south tower is aluminum.

TruthSeeker1234 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In this famous picture [9], the material is red - orange hot, and at the bottom yellow hot. Yet it is solid enough to be picked up. Aluminum is a liquid at these temperatures. It must be iron or steel (mostly iron), not aluminum or lead. TruthSeeker1234 19:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker, above you requested observations that go against the controlled demolition theory. This analysis has a nice explanation of problems with the thermite theory, and goes at length about the reasons why melted aluminum does make sense. Please let me know what you think of the analysis there. [[User:JDoorjam|

I gave a quick look at the "debunking" site you linked. The "Molten Steel" page ends by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding the difference between heat and temperature (see below). It begins with strawman arguments:

They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Lets forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless.

Strawman. It appears thermate was used to weaken the structure, then high explosives finished the job.

Ockham's razor violation: hydrocarbon fires are adequate for weakening the structure. What kind of high explosives? -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. These are things physicist are not supposed to know anyway.

Jones had provided links to commercially available products which are a directional canister that does indeed project thermite sideways, and is specifically designed to cut thick steel supports.

I will even give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chock this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...)

Silly ad hominem attack.

The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later.

Strawman. Jones does not ignore this, far from it. The above mentioned canisters are fireproof and radio controlled.

Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. from what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.)

Strawman. Nobody said thermite is instant. And so on.

So right away, this is a very suspect site, but I read on. The page admits MOLTEN STEEL in the rubble. More Progress!

They then try to explain molten steel with what purports to be science, but is actually total rubbish. They go to great lengths to show how much heat energy might have been present as a result of gravitational energy being converted to kinetic energy. However, they do not offer one word about how high enough temperatures might have been achieved. NOT ONE WORD. Read it.

Temperature is the degree to which something is hot, heat is the total amount of energy present. If you do not have high enough temperatures, steel will not melt, regardless of how much heat energy is present. Your water heater has far more heat energy than a match. Your water heater will not ignite paper, a match will.

A quick glance at the "debunking" site reveals that they do not tackle pulverization, symmetry, conservation of momentum, etc. If this is the best the offical conspiracists can do, it will further embolden the alternate conspiracists.

TruthSeeker1234 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman is another such researcher promoting the false claim that explosives caused pulverized concrete. Gravitational collapse is a perfectly adequate explanation of the pulverized concrete. Keep in mind that less than 1/3 of the dust was made up of concrete, and that most of the dust particles were bigger than 60 microns, with up to a 5th exceeding 300 microns in size. Hoffman's calculations involve numerous flawed assumptions. The alleged energy deficit is removed if the relative humidity of the clouds' contents was slightly above 2%. Wind, etc. also contribute to the clouds' expansion, not simply heat. Heat was added from office contents, the jet impacts, the burning fuel, etc. How much of the concrete was turned into dust, anyway? Clearly, lots of it wasn't. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If the towers were solid (i.e. filled up) they would've toppled over like trees, but they weren't. They had lots of air and had millions of individual parts. When the connections between these myriad parts were severed, these individual parts had but one option: to fall symmetrically under gravity. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your POV pushing of nonsense days are about done...Keep it up with this trolling nonsnse and you're going to be blocked.--MONGO 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah come on MONGO, Doorjam asked me about a site that purports to explain molten metal. Perfectly relevant here. No trolling. Why don't you respond to the fact that there was molten steel in the rubble at ground zero, and nobody has come up with an explanation. Why don't you explain it to me, instead of threatening to silence me.TruthSeeker1234 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that there was molten steel...whatever steel are you yapping about now?--MONGO 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In this famous picture [10], the material is red - orange hot, and at the bottom yellow hot. Yet it is solid enough to be picked up. Aluminum is a liquid at these temperatures. It must be iron or steel (which is mostly iron), not aluminum or lead.

TruthSeeker1234 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Solid enough to be picked up". So in other words....hot....but not molten. Unless you have a different definition of melt, which I'm sure we're dying to hear. --Mmx1 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief this is repetitive. There was liquid molten iron/steel in the rubble, as documented by mainstream sources. It must not have been aluminum, as explained. It stayed very hot for long periods of time. Eventually it began to cool off and solidify enough to be picked up. Look at the picture, there is liquid metal dripping off the bottom. Just like the mainstream sources said. This picture [11] is weeks after 9/11. TruthSeeker1234 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The rubble fires never got hot enough for steel to melt/drip like that. I put forensics above visual observations by laymen. I showed above that aluminum possibly mixed with other substances is the best explanation. Each of the 236 exterior columns of the WTC towers had an aluminum cover 14 inches across. There were malls and equipment rooms and other sources of aluminum in the basements of the towers. I'll just paste from my blog post:

"... It behaves like aluminum (NIST, etc.), [don't tell me that NIST is inherently untrustworthy, because this is truly anti-science and you haven't proven NIST to be unreliable] and is probably a mix of aluminum and some other stuff. Yes, molten aluminum is silver at low temperatures but the oxygen generators in the plane and other volatiles made the hydrocarbon fires exceed 2000 F. You might counter that aluminum wouldn't have been exposed to these temperatures because it flowed away from the heat source. There are reasons to doubt that; the floor was warped from the 550+ mph jet impact, and a dam was almost certainly created by the shape of the floor and the objects that fell onto it. This is what made the molten aluminum yellow in the video which conspiracy theorists refer to. " -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, you might argue that thermite created 4000 F temperatures before the rubble piles were formed, but in the absence of unmistakable brilliant white light from 4000 F aluminum in all the video evidence, this thesis must be discarded. It's time to do an archiving of this cluttered talk page. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

About NIST, in my view they are not a good source for this article because the report admits in plain English that they did not study the collapses, only the events leading up to the collapses. Their "inherent" untrustworthiness is a different issue.

Huysman, would you please stop avoiding my point. There is a photograph of hot slag being picked up by a crane. It is orange hot on top, and yellow to white hot below. It is dripping. It cannot be aluminum. Molten steel was formally reported by mainstream sources, apparently before a lot of people realized its significance. Now we do. Can anyone please state a reason that molten steel should not go in this article? Please? Anyone? Any reason at all? I have asked over and over again, and all I get are threats and personal attacks. TruthSeeker1234 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mainstream sources reported molten steel, and they were incorrect; people make mistakes. That picture does not show molten steel. Again, the rubble fires could not possibly have melted steel because their temperatures were too low. The slag is dripping but this would not occur with steel because steel does not melt when it is orange, only when it is yellow-white. There is no white-hot steel in the photo, only orange/light orange. I try to keep my cool and do not personally attack you, because that aspect of Wikipedia policy is something I firmly believe in. To summarize the evidence, the color of the substance being picked up and the fact that no temperatures in the Twin Towers or in the rubble were hot enough to melt steel prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any reports of molten steel were erroneous. That is it, this is over; it's time to move on from this issue and discuss other proposed additions to the article. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We're really making progress now. First, are we looking at the same picture? [12] It is orange hot on top, progressing to yellow, and very light yellow or white hot below, and is clearly dripping. Yes, you and I agree that office fires are not hot enough to melt steel, but our opinion does not count. Several published mainstream experts stated that the fires did melt steel, and that is already in the article. Your opinion is Original Reasearch.

Yes; I even post that picture on my blog because I am confident that it is not molten steel. At best it's light orange/yellow orange, but there is no white at the bottom, and trust me, I know which part you're referring to. The early statements of the experts are obsolete and false because it was confirmed that the jet fuel did not melt the steel to bring about the collapse, so you cannot use them to support your thesis. There was one mention of intragranular melting of steel and that was due to the presence of sulfur. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that the rubble temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel are just that, assertions. The way scientists determine temperatures is from the evidence. If you have molten steel, it must have been over 2800F. You can't just say, the temps were too low, therefore this must be something else. What else could this photograph possibly depict? Please tell us. It ain't aluminum.

My assertion was a factual statement based on common knowledge of the evidence, but here is some documentation of that evidence. I admit I don't know what the substance is, but I do know what it is not: molten/melted steel. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have many times mentioned the proposed additions. I think we should add the photo, and add mention that experts reported molten dripping steel in the rubble, and mention any expert who refutes that. I also think we should add many other observations, but we'll get to that as we go. TruthSeeker1234 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My best guess is the material in the photo is burning, and those are embers dropping off it. It is not a melting chunk of steel - the steel would have to be cooling in which case it would not be melting. It could possibly be a material that was immersed in a pool of liquid and that liquid is now dripping off of it, though I doubt it. In any rate, the excavator would not be operational for long if it was picking up pieces of 2800F steel.

The photo itself is not conclusive of anything. It is a nice photo, though. Toiyabe 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, your "best guess" is irrelevant. My best guess is that the picture is a chunk of now mostly-solidified slag plucked from a pool of molten iron and steel with added sulfer, concrete powder, office furniture and human beings. My best guess is also irrelevant. There are published, mainstream, reputable, reliable expert sources who say that there was dripping, molten steel.

Please, does anyone have any WP reason why molten steel, along with the picture, should not go in this article? TruthSeeker1234 23:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, our best guesses are irrelavent. What matters is reliable sources. You keep asserting that you have them, but you've provided none for molten steel. A student-published newsletter from the Hunter College school of Geography doesn't count. A similar study (probably the same dataset) from the USGS shows a maximum temperature of 1020K, which is not enough to melt steel. Toiyabe 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, I've provided mainstream, reliable, reputable sources for molten steel more times than I can count. I've put it in the article, only to have it removed. I've posted it on the talk page, over and over. TruthSeeker1234 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it anymore; see my above points → there really ought to be no debate on this issue. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And there you have it folks, Huysman is on record as not wanting me to present mainstream reputable sources. Anyone else?TruthSeeker1234 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. I should have been clearer: stop cluttering up talk pages with discredited arguments. I suppose you could mention it, but you should mention the fact that thermal imagery, photographic and forensic evidence indicates that they made a human mistake. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}Image:Poisoned Icon.jpg 01:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not a discredited argument, it is a photograph of dripping hot slag, that cannot be aluminum. The thermal images don't indicate that anyone made a mistake. They show persistant heat. Office fires don't usually do that. The forensic evidence shows steel with a "swiss cheese " appearcance, and the "eutectic" reaction, which means that the melting point of steel was lowered with sulfer. Sulfer will lower the melting point of steel by getting into the intergranular spaces, the way salt lowers the melting point of ice.

The picture can be a variety of things. Your (and my) interpritation of it is irrelevant. Where is your reliable source for molten steel? You've put forth a few of sources, but none of them was reliable. Did I miss one?

If you want to go with the JoM article on the steel in WTC 7, that's fine by me. Remember the estimate in that article was that the steel was at 1000C, and the melting was all intergranular, so no large pools of molten steel. Toiyabe 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [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;.)

A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”

TruthSeeker1234 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've dealt with both those articles. The NY Times one does not mention molten metal, was not published under the title you insist it was, and the popular press is not considered reliable for these purposes. The Structural engineer article you quoted does not mention molten steel. "Structural Engineer" is a trade rag anyway, and is not as reliable as a peer-reviewed journal. You got any others? Toiyabe 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fires played a significant role. [13]

Please sign your comments!--Pokipsy76 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe, this article, like all of wikipedia, currently relies on non-peer reviewed documents. This is what it would look like if it didn't :Article with no non-peer reviewed sources Seabhcán 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, skirting WP:POINT there. The issue is that the reliability of sources can come from many places. On the one hand, established organizations like the NIST and FEMA carry weight that individuals (particularly individuals without professional certification in relevant fields - physics doesn't count). The latter's credibility can be enhanced by peer review by a body of people with the appropriate credentials; but that hasn't happened. --Mmx1 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some things that are controvertial and some things that are not controvertial. If someone had a serious issue with any of that information you removed, then I could see removing them until we found a reliable source for it. Do you have an issue with any of that information you removed?

The issue with molten steel is important here because it is being used as a foundation for an alternative theory. That is the basic reason why folks are trying to insert it into the article, and the basic reason why other folks are spending the effort to debunk it.

So, much of the other information in this article may very well be incorrect but our attention isn't drawn to that information because it isn't considered important. I guess that's proper - we spend a lot of effort trying to get the important things right, and don't sweat the less important things so much. The important things are defined by what gets folks riled up on this talk page. It's a trade-off between completeness and correctness, and it's messy and inefficient but better than any other way we've come up with. Toiyabe 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Physical Evidence for Thermite Theory

There is now scientific evidence supporting the thermite theory.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001 http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/scientific_analysis_prove_towers_brought_down_by_incendiaries.htm http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

CB Brooklyn 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources for a factual claim about the existance of Thermite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The official report will be released soon. Until then, I will remove the statement from the article.

CB Brooklyn 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible the evidence will be announced tonight, live on national TV. James Fetzer will be on Hannity and Colmes (FOXNEWS @ 9PM EST). CB Brooklyn 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me Hannity won't show any cool videos, the same as Tucker Carlson. I predict that any time Fetzer gets to his point, Hannity will shout him down with noise. I think of Sean Hannity as kind of like EngineerEd.TruthSeeker1234 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth, and accuracy

Compare [14] to

• Glanz, James. "Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel", Section B; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk, The New York Times Company, 2001-11-29, p. 9. Retrieved on 2006-06-22. 

The headline is "Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel." What you provided in quotes, TruthSeeker, appears nowhere in the article. Nor do the words "baffled" or "swiss cheese," TruthSeeker. The article does not mention sulpher. The word "eutectic" never appears. Here, TruthSeeker, is a quote in context:

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons. 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. "Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fuji Towers, etc.

I've removed User:EngineerEd's additions to the article, and blocked him indefinitely. He suggests on his talk page that he is a sock puppet, and I can find nothing about the Fuji Towers. I've posted a notice on WP:ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

New Topic Thrown into Conversation

Let me ask (and only ask) a few questions. This is from a neutral POV.

If molten steel was indeed present due to the jet crashes, won't the molten steel have melted a few floors of the building and weaken the structure of the towers, without assistance of controlled demolition? If sufficiently high temperatures were achieved to melt steel, then won't the building just start melting until it cannot support its own weight, hence collapsing? If these two points are true, won't these points render the assertion of controlled demolition groundless, or at least render this theory unnecessary to explain for the collapses?

However, if there is no molten steel, how would the towers collapse? If molten steel was not present, the buildings would be able to support themselves because the steel beams will still be in place.

Please help me (and others) clarify these confusions. It might also lay to rest the above controversies. --Physicq210 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been addressed ad nauseum. Steel does not need to melt to weaken - once it weakens beyond the load on it, it will fail. This will happen way before it actually melts. --Mmx1 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Think of simple blacksmithing - a steel bar is heated to the point that it becomes malleable, but nowhere near molten, and then bent and/or hammered into the desired shape. This would not be possible with unheated steel. Heating weakens the structural integrity. --CBD 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

New Idea

Based on the following information, I would suggest that all 9/11 related pages be divided into two sections: "Official Conspiracy Theory based on selective evidence", and "Alternate Conspiracy Theory based on ALL evidence."

some reasons for this idea:

1. Physics Professor Steven E. Jones will soon be releasing SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE showing thermite at the WTC.

2. A number of former HIGH LEVEL GOVERNMENT INSIDERS including (but not limited to) Morgan Reynolds and Robert M. Bowman have been saying for some time that 9/11 was an inside job.

3. Officials at NIST and elsewhere have refused to debate the evidence.

4. This new scientific Zogby Poll shows that 42% of Americans believe the government is covering up 9/11, and that 45% of Americans want a new investigation including the inside job possibility.

Based on that information alone, it defies common sense to consider the alternate version a conspiracy theory, without also including the official version as such.

People who read the wiki articles should be exposed to BOTH sides of the argument WITHOUT having to click on a "9/11 conspiracy theory" link.

It is well known now that certain editors in wikipedia ***including administrators*** have been causing trouble. This behavior needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. These people are NOT looking at all the information, and they refuse to address certain key issues. Professors, scholars, engineers, former high level government insiders say 9/11 was an inside job, and the government refuses to debate certain issues and release certain evidence, and these wiki people dare to call us conspiracy theorists?

Certain vandals have been removing pertinent information on the Steven E. Jones page. Their reasoning being that any site that is "blog like" (whether the page referenced to is a personal opinion or not) is not acceptable. That type of reasoning is unacceptable. If a site contains important information, such as a video link, then is certainly should NOT be removed as a "blog site". They also say that certain links have nothing to do with Jones' work, which is CLEARLY NOT TRUE. Bottom line, if these people use that type of thinking, then they should NOT be editing 9/11 related articles.

Rant complete.

CB Brooklyn 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What is an "official conspiracy theory"?--Pokipsy76 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The official government story of 9/11 has no proof to back it up, and the story is full of holes. Therefore it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. CB Brooklyn 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A guy in the Labor department and a retiree out of public service for 30 years are "government insiders?" I'll believe Jones's evidence when I see it. Until then it's just hype about non-reproducible examinations whose details have yet to be released. Funny....Jones should know better than to hype non-reproducible examinations...he researches cold fusion. --Mmx1 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Chill. Have a cup of tea and relax. All this hype about unreleased data and blowing people's resume's out of proportion makes you look exactly like Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. I'm sure Steven Jones is familiar with them. Wait for his "scientific findings" to be released and we'll pore over the details.

--Mmx1 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your description of Bowman and Reynolds are inaccurate, therefore your conclusions are faulty. Jones does not research cold fusion. Get a clue. And for you to need to see Jones' results in the first place is a clue in itself, that you should stay away from this topic. Your comments about Pons and Fleischmann refer to yourself. The government never explained how fire and impact damage created multiple characteristics of controlled demolition. Therefore, only an idiot would believe that fire/impact damage bullshit. You pick and choose your arguements. You comment on SOME of the former high level government insiders. You completely ignore all the others I didn't mention. You also ignore the Zogby poll and NIST's refusal to debate their "evidence". You should have a cup of tea yourself, and edit here. You'll have little trouble at that site.

Basically, anyone who can't see via common sense that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition (simply by watching the video clips) needs to get some help.

CB Brooklyn 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Umhmm....except Jones coined the phrase cold fusion. I'm not saying it's a major part of his work...but he should be familiar with Pons and Fleishmann and their antics. As for Bowman and Reynolds...

• Bowman retired in 1978, and has not held public office since then. He's run for office on third-party tickets and had trouble even getting on the Reform party ballot. Okay, I was inaccurate... He's been retired for 28 years, not 30. Whoops! Still, hardly an "insider". As for Morgan Reynolds, he was chief economist in the Department of Labor. What was he privy to? The pay stubs for the guys that blew up the towers? --Mmx1 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They worked at high level positions in the government, so they know what's going on in their country. You should listen to them, instead of falling for that "Bushitter".. who is a known liar, as we all know. Jones coined the term cold fusion. That does not mean he worked with it. Besides, if you took the time to read the NYT article, you'd see that "Jones is a careful scientist." So stop twisting facts and making or insinuating false claims. CB Brooklyn 16:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you should read up more on Mr. Jones. He worked on a separate version of cold fusion distinct from the Pons and Fleishmann process; the distinction is that Jones didn't make claims of a net gain in energy. The insinuation is that your tactics are like Pons and Fleishmann....hyping scientific results whose details have not been released and are as of yet unreproducible. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether Bowman and Reynolds held "high positions" in the government. --Mmx1 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Jones and Pons/Fleishmann' work were very different, and that Jones' is a "careful scientist." If you nitpick into minute details, you'll find faults in anyone's work... perhaps even Bush?? Perhaps I'll delve in GWB's past and mention how his grandfather helped Hitler rise to power.

btw, do you consider it pure coincidence that the Pentagon's ground breaking ceromony was held on 9/11/41? How 'bout that Bush Sr made a nationaly televised speech where he used the term "new world order" (the first and only time any president used that term in a public speech). Are you aware that that speech was given on 9/11/90? Are you aware that on the first anniversary of 9/11, 9/11/02, the S&P Futures closed at 911.00? How 'bout that on that same day, the NYC lottery picked the number...... 911? Are you aware of all these facts?

There's no "hyping" scientific results, as you call it. It seems you need Jones' work to believe the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7. You'll of course need it to be "peer reviewed" before you accept it...

Let me see... you don't consider a former Bush cabinet member, and the former director of the (pre) Star Wars program, to be high level positions? Any coke in your tea?

CB Brooklyn 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lies. Economist in the Labor Department is not a cabinet position, nor was he hired by Bush. The "Star Wars" claim has been debunked as campaign hot ait. SDI pulled together all disparate space research from different agencies under one group, so it's more accurate to say what he did got absorbed by SDI. No indication that it had anything to do with the commonly known aspects of SDI - they didn't come from the Air Force to begin with. Besides, do you know how many O-6's there are? Thousands.

As for the results, they aren't scientific until they are released for general scrutiny. "I tested a sample and found X,Y,Z". Uh....where'd you get the sample? How'd you select the sample? what was the chain of custody for the evidence to ensure it wasn't tampered with? How much of X,Y,Z was found? So many questions, so few answers. Yes, they need to be peer reviewed, and not by a bunch of anonymous "engineers". --Mmx1 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a second. Are you saying it's not a coincidence that the lottery number picked on 9/11/02 was 911, and the S&P closed at 911? --Deville (Talk) 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly, in addition to the power to blow up buildings, the Illuminati/PNAC/New World Order have the power to rig lottery results and stock markets. And instead of rigging them to make themselves money....they're feng shui adherents or something and the exact closing number was important to them for some astrological reason.--Mmx1 01:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I buy that. --Deville (Talk) 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some gov't officials and employees: Morgan Reynolds, Robert Bowman, Mary Schneider, David Macmichael, Michael Springman, Sibel Edmonds, David Schippers, Robert Wright, Michael Meacher, Andreas Von Buelow. I only put this partial list here so you guys didn't have to argue about just two guys. So point one is made. SkeenaR 20:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The highest ranking of whom was probably Von Buelow, a German. So unless you're arguing that the German gov't is complicit (I'm not keeping track of which editor believes what), he hardly counts as an "insider", nor do any of the individuals names. --Mmx1 22:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. A bunch of government people, all from the States except two. Ray Mcgovern etc etc. You want more? There are, but I admit I can't add Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld to the list. I'm not taking a position on what the truth is, because I don't know. I would like to believe the official version because that would be a whole lot more comforting than any alternatives. Please knock off the obsfucation. SkeenaR 06:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Old idea

To cite "they are growing" we need to cite a reliable source who says they are growing. It is not enough to cite figures showing there were 200 of them last week and three hundred of them this week. One cannot rely on that and say "they are growing" anymore than a stock that went up yesterday is "going up". They did grow; maybe they will grow. Only an reliable source can tell us "they are growing." Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, back in the 9/11 conspiracy article, Tom once told me that if I was to state that a movement was growing I would need to prove that it had more members than yesterday and that it will have more members tomorrow than it does today. SkeenaR 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bush administration lied to get into Iraq. Therefore, they (and anyone who supports their lies) are not a reliable source. This means that all the "official" 9/11 wiki sites must be changed immediately. CB Brooklyn 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like a fungus...or a virus...they're everywhere, they're getting stronger, and next thing you know, our taxes will be going up to build enough padded cells to contain them.--MONGO 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This fungus attacks [15]. CB Brooklyn 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

? I don't even want to wonder why you seem fascinated with sheep.--MONGO 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look in a mirror and find out. CB Brooklyn 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I agree with Tom Harrison, we need a reliable source for those claims. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree myself now, actually. (Amazing how the deniars can't admit their mistakes!!) CB Brooklyn 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What mistakes are that...you're the one suggesting something odd about sheep...did sheep get murdered by the evil U.S. Government? I know, they used cute little sheep to carry all the explosives into the buildings! Sure, yeah, that's it...then they blew up those poor innocent sheep..why din't you tell us the first time? Wow...I feel so enlightened!--MONGO 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

All I can say to that is "What the deuce"? The fungus attacks sheep? Eh?--Deville (Talk) 23:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If the "conspiracy theory" about the governments plan to wage an information war on the internet is true, I really wonder what the criteria for hiring is with all this talk of sheep, padded cells, and fungus. I suppose it is intended to provide a real class act. Good grief. If any of you actually do work for the government, the best thing you could do for them is to shut the f*** up. Of course if it is a personal mission, than all the power to you. SkeenaR 07:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add a link to a picture of sheep and I have no idea what that was for...but yes, the conspiracy theorists are like a fungus and some of them may very well be better off in a padded cell. As far as I am concerned, anyone who buys into the conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo is a fool. Let's hope you're smarter than that.--MONGO 07:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I like to make up my own mind about things after I have actually studied all the different points of view. I listen to all the voices, but I don't appreciate iron fisted attempts at suppressing information which is how I see things happening here. I'm just giving my humble opinion on this talk page at the moment. I could give you examples, but then it starts all over again doesn't it? SkeenaR 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Even a month ago I would have been skeptical if you had told me that one of us was using a disinformation campaign to advance his position, intentionally adding false material to the article. Is it ironic that it would turn out to be one of the conspiracy theorists who was doing just that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, is it irony for the pot to call the kettle black? And btw, I think what CB Brooklyn was doing with the picure of the sheep(that does sound funny) was trying to imply someone was one one of the "sheeple". I don't think he is aware of the affiliations of some of the regulars here. I was always suspicious of that being the case, but tried to remain skeptical and never mentioned it because it could have made me sound "paranoid", so I was quite surprised when it was actually confessed. What's your reason for being skeptical about these things? Is it discordant with your notions about conduct, or do you have a hard time believing disinfo campaigns and propaganda is real, or what? SkeenaR 16:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sheeple is what I meant. What affiliations do you refer to? CB Brooklyn 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

SkeenaR, are you saying that I have intentionally added false information to the article? You ask, "What's your reason for being skeptical about these things?" The only example of deliberate disinformation I've seen here is Truthseeker using his EngineerEd puppet to add false material. I am prepared to accept that TruthSeeker's inaccurate headline and quote above were just negligence on his part, citing prisonplanet's description of the Times article rather than the Times article itself.

Should I have caught TruthSeeker/EngineerEd's deliberate falsehoods earlier? Sure. Do I have a greater responsibility to do that than you, or anyone else? Maybe. In the past if you or, say, CB Brooklyn, with whom I often disagree, added something like, "there are now 300 members of Scholars for Truth, according to their website," I would have accepted that as truthful without checking to see if it really said 300 members. If you quoted from a book, I wouldn't rush right to the library to see if you quoted truthfully; you, and all of us but TruthSeeker/EngineerEd, are honest people. We might disagree about whether something belongs in the article, of if it proves the movement is "growing," but I don't doubt your honesty in providing facts and figures from a source you believe to be reliable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No Tom, I am not saying that you intentionally added false information to the article, but I am saying that it is official US government policy to so when it is deemed beneficial. That really "muddies the waters" doesn't it? I'm sorry you misunderstood me Tom, I really didn't mean to cast doubt on you honesty. I disagree with you about what should be included in the article. SkeenaR 16:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think that his very valid point was made though, and unfortunately, it probably couldn't have been done any other way. SkeenaR 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, don't worry about it. I really don't think the US government has a policy about Wikipedia, but I guess I can't prove that they don't. I have seen groups urge their members to go to Wikipedia and edit, and we have just seen someone muddy the waters when he thought it would be beneficial to his side. What was his point? That we can't trust each other to tell the truth on checkable matters of fact? I refuse to accept that. There have always been vandals, and we have always dealt with them as individuals. In the end, they are outnumbered by honest men who edit in good faith. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The point I think was very simply about bias. I think a lot of jaws dropped around here when this happened. A couple of minor verifiable edits were denied, but everybody was eager to get on board with Ed and his "Fuji Towers" and "Arcos Rincon". Unbelievable. It's kind of sad this happened, but I know it opened a lot of eyes to what is going on in these pages, not just that you can't trust people anymore. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny as hell. SkeenaR 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Go check Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#Let's stop going in circles. I questioned EngineerEd's statements immediatly, and accused him of being a sock-puppet shortly thereafter. Certainly not everybody was eager to get on board with him. Toiyabe 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No way, I'm not getting into Ed again. This starting to get haywire. This conflict is terrible. But you are right, and I didn't mean for it to sound like everyone was. I can see for myself who was and who wasn't. But he was given too much leeway as compared to everyone else. EngineerED- who's next, ChooChooCharlie? SkeenaR 04:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...uh, it looks like everyone just assumed good faith and asked Ed for citations, while discussing the terms and concepts he brought to the table. Sure, we were eager to get onboard, if he could provide citations from verifiable sources. Well, except for TruthSeeker, who set about attacking his own sockpuppet and then revealed he'd created a strawsock. What exactly do you mean by leeway? We were assuming good faith. He claimed to be an engineer who'd seen progressive collapses first-hand. Why would someone lie about that? Oh, right. Trolling. Did Fuji or Arcos Rincon make it into the article? No, not that I'm aware of. So what leeway are you talking about? And why should your side of the debate be trusted if editors blatantly employ deception and waste people's time in order to prove a point? JDoorjam Talk 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Fuji Towers was in the article for a couple of weeks, I think. But let me point out, TruthSeeker's inaccuracies were not limited to the overt lies of his sock. TruthSeeker added a very misleading description of a New York Times article, that included something presented as a quote that was not in the article. So there is a lot to check if people are editing in bad faith. (I think in that case it was not bad faith, but sloppy work. He maybe read Prisonplanet's description of the Times article and repeated Prisonplanet's mistatement.) I also want to point out that this wasn't TruthSeeker and all who agree with him, this was just TruthSeeker. No one else has knowingly added false information here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please drop it. It's over. SkeenaR 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You said he was given too much leeway; if you want the issue dropped, I'd suggest you stop arguing points about how Truthseeker's strawsock was handled. I will not raise the issue again myself, though certainly may respond if it's implied that anyone was wrong for the assumption of good faith in this matter. JDoorjam Talk 07:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just let it go? We could fight till doomsday. I'm certainly tired of this arguing, which has now diverted so many peoples efforts from working on and discussing the articles to trying to "win". I've always meant what I said and I'm sure you feel the same way about your own edits. Lets just move on and try to work together. SkeenaR 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For defamation of my character, whcih SkennaR has done several times, I have blocked him from editing for 48 hours. The information he post borders on personal attacks, and will not stand.--MONGO 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

These cases togheter with the case of my block related to this article are discussed in a Request for comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO.--Pokipsy76 17:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Annoying continuous animation

I really like the animated gif showing the collapse of WT7, but I think it would be better if it stopped after a certain period of time. Support? Oppose? St.isaac 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Amount of info on conspiracy

Over 40% of Americans doubt the mainstream account of September 11th and say there has been a cover-up.Times Herald Is this not a fact that can be mentioned? That people have this opinion? And if 40% does have this opinion should not more text be on these theories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzz44 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that the rulers of wikipedia don't like this information. Thus it becomes unreal and cannot be mentioned. Under secret rules of wikipedia, anyone posting such information is liable to be blocked. The 3RR rule does not apply.

Please also note that "opinion polls demonstrate only that there are opinions". Thus all opinions are here-by banned, unless they are not. Seabhcán 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See: WP:NPA. That is a Zogby poll which many others here have stated does not constitute notability.--MONGO 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely false. Try to search "zogby" in this page, the only person speaking about it is CB Brooklyn (and we know his opinion). I have also tried to look for "zogby" in all the archives: nothing, nobody speaks about zogby. So MONGO plese tell us who you are referring to when you tell about these "many others here".--Pokipsy76 09:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No it's not false...I should have stated that many others on pages discussing events regarding 9/11...I tend to lump all these pages together...see talk page on 7 World Trade Center as much of that page is an argument between a couple of people that wish to add the poll with about 10 that don't see it as notable.--MONGO 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at the discussion on WTC7 page and I can summarize the situation in this way:

People wanting to add the poll:

1. goethan
2. Gunning
3. Hyperbole
4. Striver

People opposing the addition of the poll:

1. MONGO
2. Kmf164
3. patsw
4. RxStrangeLove
5. DCAnderson

Possibilists:

1. Durin

Maybe your description of the situation ("an argument between a couple of people that wish to add the poll with about 10 that don't see it as notable") is a little bit biased.--Pokipsy76 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Durin is NOT a possibilist, you can be assured of that...in fact, much of the duscussion he continues to demonstrate he is opposed to the poll. Gee, don't forget comments made by Midgley and JDoorjam..so if you do an exact count, that's 8 in opposition. If you think the poll needs inclusion, then draw up a a content Rfc. It was mentioned on that page by Durin...either that or mediation.--MONGO 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

1) When Gothean says "The poll asks questions about WTC7 specifically and these findings should be included in this article". Durin replies "Maybe so, but not in relation to a controlled demolition theory as there is no connection between the poll and that theory". That position makes him a possibilist.

2) Midgley and JDoorjam were not actively debating (as DCAnderson) and one of them erased almost all his contribution.

3) Even assuming they were 8 (being generous) if 4 were (in your view) "a couple of people" then 8 should have been "two couple of people", and if instead 8 were (as you said) "almost ten" then 4 should have been "almost 6".

4) It's not clear how the debate between that two faction in the page of WTC7 should imply anything about the opportunity of adding the poll here or wherever.

--Pokipsy76 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's simply you misreading...Durin states explicitly that he Does Not see any reason for inclusion of the poll...read beyond the section break. JDoorjam crossed out the part where he originally thought inclusion of the poll was okay, and then stated explicitly that he did not believe it was. Read beyond the section break. Can you please stop wasting so much space with your comments...can't you just say what you need to say in a paragraph?--MONGO 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the debate between that two faction in the page of WTC7 should imply anything about the addition the poll here or wherever? Are you suggesting that since in that page in that period of time anti-poll were the majority than the poll has became objectively not notable?--Pokipsy76 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think the debate reopened here will help add to your quest to include it, then I recommend you explain why it's noteworthy for inclusion.--MONGO 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think MONGO's right. Since when did the opinion of 40% of US citizens count for anything. Next you'll be suggesting that America is democracy. You conspiracy theorist have the craziest ideas! Seabhcán 11:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ConEd substation

I recall watching a History Channel special that 7 WTC was built over a ConEd substation, and that that might have had some impact as to the collapse of said building. Could anyone verify or dispute this? IMacWin95 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the current article adresses this, in the "Seven World Trade Center" section, third paragraph. For further information on the structual oddities of WTC7, the FEMA report, 5th chapter section 5.2 is a good source [16]

Basically, when the ConEd substation was built, it incorporated cassions to support a skyscraper to be built over it in the future. However the actual WTC7 design ended up being larger than originally envisioned, and not all the columns lined up with the supports built into the substation. So, some of the columns terminated at beams or trusses to transfer the column loads laterally. The FEMA report states that it is likely that failure initiated at one of these transfer structures. Toiyabe 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Winaah!!

A typical, but mock conversation that occurs daily on this talkpage:

---

Conspiracy theories galore!!! George blew up the building with thermanite! And its was a conspiracy! - TruthSeeker1234 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No consiracy theories....structural integrity....planes crashed....fire..No bush. - MONGO 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Truthseeker, its difficult to take you seriously when you say these things. Take a stick of cupcake between your legs. Ignite it with fire - it explodes and you die. There's no conspiricy. - DCAnderson 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't going in the article. "...thermate and super-thermite which make them more explosive to different degrees" What does that even mean? You have no idea what you are talking about. -Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, try to pretend these things didn't happen, as you have been doing. This denial of the obvious reminds me of Holocaust denial. You all hate science! It was therminate and Bush! -TruthSeeker1234 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this time it wasn't. -MONGO 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another fine comment there from professer MONGO! Keep up the fight against junk science Professor MONGO! -Seabhcán 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. -MONGO 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I admit it. We had Zero run along the building with his Z-Saber and then had the green gorillas blow up the foundations with their laser beams. Then we had Gambit blow it up for a specular finish! Seriously, this is nonsense. - Mmx1 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A loaf of bread is the key report for this article, its subsections are here: [17] Why don't we copy the icing 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 Bratwurst 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.

'A Plague on all your houses!' -Seabhcán 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No plagues....planes crashing...fire. The hammer's coming down. No original research, got it? --MONGO 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have lost the ability to make complete sentences. -Seabhcán 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This is obviously false, but the general spirit is present. This talkpage has been on my watchlist for an extended period. Some of the conversations here are quite silly. :) -Randall Brackett 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny and true :-) Seabhcán 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts must be explained

As you can read in the policy reverts must be always explained:

Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.

And this must not happen.--Pokipsy76 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokipsy...that link is to 1RR...an essay page, not a policy page and though edit summaries are considered the minimal required, comments on talk pages are expected when making large alterations or if the revert cannot be adequately addressed in the edit summary.[18].--MONGO 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that it will happen, again and again, because no-one oversees the actions of administrators. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

People do overlook the actions of admins, that is why when you posted insults and misrepresentations about me and others in your user page, I removed them and other admins checked and saw that there was grounds for doing so...get your facts straight.--MONGO 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It still does come down to the fact that a lot of people here do not agree with the reverts that are made by you, MONGO, I think that is the point. I am not being insulting, but I myself think there should be added more on the alternate views that are present here, and which are not proportionally mentioned in these articles. Just reverting all the additions made, referring to Wiki rules as too much detail, doesnt work when different people do feel it should be in there. Do people agree with me here and think there should be paid more attention to raised questions in the article?Fritzz44 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is timesherald.com? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A reference for the sentence about people believing in conspiracies. Apperently MONGO found it neccesary to delete it again without notice here. Fritzz44 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace at last?

Wow...no one has said anything for the past 3 days. Is that a record or something? --Physicq210 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)