Talk:7 World Trade Center

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylanrambler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

This is a very controversial issue. Perhaps like other issues with controversies like TWA 800 or Aspartame it makes sense to show a separate section about the controversy. Claustro123 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is controversial to the extent that there are conspiracy theorists who find it controversial. Such theories are mentioned in the article, duly weighted. It's not controversial in the worldwide structural engineering community. -Jordgette [talk] 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Would be kind enough to please support your last statement with sources. Claustro123 (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No structural engineer of any prominence has suggested anything other than the engineering community's consensus. You do need a source to prove that some engineer became a conspiracy theorist. Anyway, if you have something that's not AE911 or some other conspiracy site, feel free to post it on this page. Otherwise, this is not a good use of time. epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So if a prominent Architect or Engineer signs support for the AE911 groups push for a new investigation, they become a “‘’Conspiracy Theorist’’” and whatever credentials etc. they may possess become nil?Howlor (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What prominent architect or engineer do you have in mind, and what have they stated? -Jordgette [talk] 16:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

None of your sources adress Building Seven. Again please quote your sources. Claustro123 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

From the article: did you read it? [1] [2] [3]

On the topic of professional views in general: [4] [5] Acroterion (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)!

You know what, I think this is a waste of time. I'll bet the response (not from this user specifically, but from 9/11 conspiracy theorists in general) is either something about a deep-state conspiracy, or that NIST and FEMA are not reliable source.

There is a whole article devoted to these conspiracy (fringe) theories. In a featured article like the one on 7 WTC, it is clear that these fringe theories should be treated as such: theories outside the mainstream consensus. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Please. You have a professional group of people 3000 strong. All they want is for a better review of the events of 9/11. Their cause is supported by members of the past review committee that have come out and totally disparaged the review that was done as a sham. Is this really too much to ask! Claustro123 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? The NIST study on 7 World Trade Center was peer-reviewed [6], and there is exactly zero peer-reviewed science calling that study or that JSE paper into question. Furthermore, if you spend a couple minutes in the archives of this Talk page, you'll realize you're wasting your time. I suggest you give it up. -Jordgette [talk] 19:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

the review that was done as a sham ...and there it is, the refutation of a scientific consensus in favor of a debunked conspiracy theory. Can we close this discussion now? It is going nowhere. Ostensibly it's supposed to be about whether the 9/11 controversy should be mentioned. It's gone completely off the rails into a discussion about AE911truth. This thread is no longer constructive to this article. epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I overlooking the sources for this claim that all alternative hypothesis have been “debunked”? Or are you stating this because the currently accepted hypothesis refutes any possible alternatives?Howlor (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, as noted below: this talkpage is for article improvement, not as a platform for the promotion of a fringe group. This theme of "3000 professionals" that you keep bringing up: out of 450,000 [7] licensed engineers and 105,000 architects [8] in the US, you can pretty reliably get maybe one percent of them (or anybody else) to sign onto just about anything. 0.5405% is meaningless - and how does that fringe group's views, explicitly disowned by the AIA and ignored entirely by the ASCE, outweigh ASCE-endorsed research? In any case, we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories where they are presented in due weight, with sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Somehow somewhere I truly believe we are both seeking the same thing. We will never find it. The truth just takes too much courage and finding it is rare. Good luck to you. You do mean well. Claustro123 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What happened to my response???

Claustro123 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, since it amounted to spam for AE911 that did nothing to advance discussion about article improvement. Look farther up this page for earlier discussions. Please do not use Wikipedia talkpages as soapboxes for the views of fringe groups. Possession of a license to practice a profession doesn't automatically make someone an expert or even credible - it's a baseline minimum, just as possession of a medical license or a law license doesn't make one omniscient in those professions - and we've all seen examples of doctors and lawyers with unusual views. Acroterion (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Would this be enough to provide more background for the conspiracy theorists out there? Here is a link to a study from a university on the issue that may warrant some discussion that isn't outright anti-scientific. That being said if there is an issue with this study as a reason to not add a little more on the controversy its not like this is something I'm really gonna argue about like some other editors... Bgrus22 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your quoted "background" is not a reliable source. David J Johnson (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue with the study is that it has not even been published let alone peer-reviewed in a general structural-engineering or fire-engineering journal by appropriate expert referees, and even then it would need to be recognized as significant by a reliable secondary source to receive due weight in the article. -Jordgette [talk] 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

One question. Is it true that the BBC broadcast the news of the collapse of Building Seven 20 minutes before it Happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs)

Maybe you could research it? Are you trying to suggest that the BBC was in on an enormous conspiracy that has nevertheless remained airtight, or merely asserting that the BBC was confused? Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

OK here is a link to an interesting report. All fake probably to you but still worth considering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=677i43QfYpQ ~~

We don't source anything to random YouTube links, and if you think it's a fake, why do you even bring it up? Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

New scientific report: 'A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7'

Few weeks after the gamechanger release, there is no single word? Wow, 'good job' wikipedians.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 Authors: J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., University of Alaska Fairbanks And Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation And Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering and Mines Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 99775

March 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.104.214 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a primary source which has not been recognized as significant or important by any reliable secondary source in the field (which is how Wikipedia works). So, no single word. -Jordgette [talk] 00:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Report funded by A&E for 9/11 "Truth"...and theorizes same idiotic thermate controlled demolition nonsense that has been debunked repeatedly.--MONGO (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this from an accredited university and thus by definition notable, even when we have doubts? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

No. If J. Leroy Hulsey or any of the other authors were a notable expert on the structural engineering of tall buildings, then arguably his notable expertise would be sufficient. (He's a non-notable structural engineer of bridges.) -Jordgette [talk] 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@84.38.104.214: I added it, but it was removed within minutes because the variety of information included on Wikipedia is very selective, and the fact that @Jordgette: just boiled down someone's entire 45+ year career to "non-notable structural engineer of bridges" (his bio) is testament to that fact and how bad Wikipedia has gotten Apeholder (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh. His bio shows that he's a structural engineer of bridges, and apparently does not pass WP:GNG or else he'd have his own Wikipedia article. That makes him unreliable as a primary source on this highly technical matter of the collapse of a tall building. But, do let us know when his work is recognized as significant by any reliable secondary source, such as a notable general engineering journal, ASCE, or any other notable professional body of structural engineers. Because that's how Wikipedia has always worked. -Jordgette [talk] 02:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed my SOAPBOX statement as it is not the proper place for that. Thank you.Howlor (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing. As it says at the top, that is not what this page is for. We follow Wikipedia guidelines on this article, and it isn't really that complicated: We need a reliable secondary source that has reviewed the UAF work and deemed it important — a notable structural engineering journal such as the Journal of Structural Engineering, a notable engineering society/association of structural engineers such as SEA/ASCE, or a notable individual structural engineer of tall buildings such as Guy Nordenson or Colin Bailey (both of whom have studied the WTC7 collapse and the related NIST data in great depth for insurance cases) — in order for the material to make it into the article. Failing that, we do not have a reliable secondary source for the material. That's just how Wikipedia works. -Jordgette [talk] 14:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The amount of disinformation on talk page is incredible. Structural engineers are experts on structural design. And if they undertake to do a study of a structure, they are by definition, an expert. To denigrate the tunured staff of an accredited university is pathetic and should be immediately suspect. FactFinder3 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion above. The authors are not specialists in the design or engineering of tall buildings. The possession of basic professional qualifications in engineering, as in medicine or law, does not indicate any specialist expertise. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I dont remember in my curriculum the tall buiding course. This fascination with "tall buildings" is in itself disinformation and you should know better, even if wikipedia doesn't. Please stop trying to distort the truth. You will not be successful in this. FactFinder3 (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you again read Acroterion's reply above. These folk are not specialists and you are attempting to insert WP:Fringe theories. That will not work. David J Johnson (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

About splitting the articles into two

Should we have separate articles for the original 7 World Trade Center and the new one? I ask because this article, despite its inbox being the new 7 WTC, has more of a focus on the original building. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion I don't know what other people think, but my personal opinion is that we should at least consider it. However, the fact that it's a featured article means we really should get consensus for a split before trying to split it ourselves. I'm not sure whether the two resulting articles would be up to FA standards; there's a lot of info about both of them, but such a major change may mean a featured article review is needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have to agree; we need a consensus first, and a feature article review would help get a better consensus on this. My opinion now remains the same as it did in September, having this articles split in two makes the most logical sense IMO, the other World Trade Center buildings are split in two, to separate the destroyed buildings from the rebuilt ones (e.g. One World Trade Center/Freedom Tower being the one post-9/11 and List of tenants of One World Trade Center being the one pre-9/11). We also have two pages for each respective World Trade Center complex as well. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

@Aude: This old featured article appears to be in fairly good shape since its 2007 promotion. As part of the unreviewed featured article sweeps, I did notice a few things. From most to least important:

• I notice that there's been discussion above of splitting the article (including by myself). If that happens, the page may no longer be stable and thus fail WP:FACR #1e; however, there's been no other input thus far on a split, so I'd consider the page to be relatively stable.
• Have there been any notable events since 2011?
• This source, Cuozzo, Steve (September 19, 2011). "7 World Trade Center fully leased". New York Post., is deprecated per WP:NYPOST. Is there a good reason to retain it?
• The sentence Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned One World Trade Center. is unsourced. (This is the only unsourced claim in the entire article, which is why this point is lower on the list.)
• The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. - The article doesn't mention by whom this claim is being made. Is it still promoted as such?
• There are several sentences for which wording can be improved. Examples:
  • The lobby of 7 World Trade Center held three murals by artist Al Held: The Third Circle, Pan North XII, and Vorces VII - "Held" may be seen as slightly unencyclopedic.
  • The office tower has a narrower footprint at ground level than did its predecessor, so the course of Greenwich Street could be restored to reunite TriBeCa and the Financial District. The original building, on the other hand, had bordered West Broadway on the east, necessitating the destruction of Greenwich Street between Barclay Street and the northern border of the World Trade Center superblock. - It may be worth combining these sentences to make it more clear that the old 7 WTC required Greenwich Street to be destroyed, but the new 7 WTC restored the right-of-way of the street.
• The word "floor" (e.g. Floor 44, floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30) should be capitalized, or lowercased, consistently.
• Some images are staggered, resulting in minor instances of MOS:SANDWICH, e.g. File:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg is aligned to the right between two left-aligned images.
• Some links are in close proximity to each other, such as Otis destination elevators; it may be worth spacing the links out so they can be distinguished from each other, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
• There are a couple violations of MOS:REPEATLINK, e.g. Larry Silverstein, Salomon Brothers

Overall, this old featured article doesn't look bad considering its age, but it may need a little work before it can be marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Major edit to "original building'9/11"

I made major revisions. But it turned out I violated guidelines, and so it was rolled back. I would like your opinion on whether it can be restored or not.

The rollback can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1081213541

The edits were as follows:

1. Splitting the second paragraph of the section "collapse" into 3.

A.The first one is dedicated to the impact damage and initial firefighting efforts,

B.the second to the spread and loss of control of the fire

C.the third to the appearance of structural damage and resultant evacuation

D.the fourth to the collapse itself

These are different topics that deserve a separate paragraph

2. Removed redundant content in section "collapse". This section is descriptive, not rxplanatory

A.there is no need to mention explosives, as that is covered by the "reports" section

B.ditto for girder expansion and column buckling

3.added to section "collapse" by mentioning that daylight appeared in windows. This detail is important to understanding that the building fell from the inside out

4. Created section "Aftermath' to move all discussion of collateral damage, to reduce clutter in other sections. Anon4z58u770 (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting section "Original building"

I think the subsection on 9/11 should be moved to a new section. It's better not to have to scroll to such a distinct and important topic. Anon4z58u770 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)