Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

---

Article name

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

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

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

Criticism of NIST Report

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

The inclusion of his comments seems kinda weird, like bias from a conspiracy theorist. Isn't there any more notable criticism of the report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.152.173 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

to answer this question. NO there aren't really any notable criticism of the Final NIST report on wtc7. There are plenty of CT folks who complain, but there are NO peer reviewed engineering papers which say NIST got any of the major parts of their conclusions wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.158.199 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Partially correct. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat wrote a response to NIST's draft report on the failure of WTC 7. In this response, the CTBUH wrote "The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns." (ref) Numerous other questions and concerns were also put forward by the CTBUH. In its final report on WTC 7, NIST retained its column 79 collapse hypothesis. Wildbear (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

His papers on Fire Protection Research and behaviour are highly cited; see google scholar [1]. His back ground bio is located here; [2]. I found google did bring up quite a bit, arguably one could consider creating a wiki page on him that satisfies notability concerns. If it hasnt already been done. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It did have a cite but someone deleted it. Its in the NIST so is not disputed.Wayne (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look and it is cited in the section but not the note which expands on what NIST said about it. I'll add the cite to the note. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Clarification needed in the "Investigations" Section

The Investigations section lacks clarity and includes errors.

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

2011 investigation by SINTEF

In 2011, the norwegian research institute SINTEF published a paper discussing the role of aluminium in the collapse of the towers. See http://www.aluminiumtoday.com/issue-archive/view/may-june-2011/ and http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/New-theory-explains-collapse-of-Twin-Towers/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.162.94 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a section under "other investigations" about this. Maybe there should be a sentence about the conspiracy-crushing impacts of this theory as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.72.60 (talk • contribs)

NRK has reported on this here. I don't speak Norwegian, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:New York City Ground Zero map of damage.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:New York City Ground Zero map of damage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fails to include expert opinion and evidence contrary to NIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classification of planted explosives as a "fringe view" or a radically different "conspiracy theory" from the widely accepted one is not justified when the investigation that this article primarily relies upon failed to test for explosives in spite of the fact that one building had previously been attacked by terrorists using planted explosives.

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards because it fails to mention and provide links to sources that question the NIST report's conclusions in spite of that report's clear failure (as outlined) to qualify as peer-reviewed or rigorous. Carl Hitchon (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless you're going to say what you want to see in the article, and produce citations to reliable sources to support that, there's not much more to be said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

AE911Truth.org...is a conspiracy theory promoting organization.--MONGO 03:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Regarding requirements for validity of referenced material: This article references material that has been discredited. One example is this reference ("How the World Trade Center fell". BBC News. 2001-09-13. Retrieved 2006-07-28.) which states "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." The theory that fire "melted" steel is not supported by science and is contrary to the conclusion of the NIST investigation itself. Moreover, this article points to several different theories of the collapses, the most recent of which is the aluminum/water theory. Each of these theories is different. The NIST report itself purports to prove that a collapse was initiated by fire, but provides scant information to explain how that collapse could progress through the intact structure of 80% of the towers at nearly free fall speed. It also provides no physical evidence from the building components to confirm the claimed steel temperatures were reached in the fire. An absolutely obvious alternative explanation is that the buildings were in part brought down by planted explosives, such as what was attempted by terrorist in 1993. It is quite clear that a theory that explosives were involved is plausible and was never ruled out by actual evidence in the NIST report. Thus theories that explosives were involved and evidence supporting that conclusion are not a priori incorrect and deserve fair mention in this article. Carl Hitchon (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and propose whatever you want. Some editors have explained to you why the article doesn't dwelve into ridiculous and preposterous fables about controlled demolition at the WTC. You have all the appearances of being here to do little other than to promote fringe nonsense...perhaps another venue would be a better place to push such issues, but here at Wikipedia, we don't give much room to such stupidities.--MONGO 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Here is a proposal for a new section to precede the "Conspiracy Theories" section.

Criticism of the NIST Report

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

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

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

That would require citation to a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

These "professionals" have no standing in the engineering community and their opinions have been universally refuted by reputable engineers. Repeat...AE911Truth.org is a conspiracy theory organization.--MONGO 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are giving considerable credibility to a fringe organization that enjoys no credibility within the architectural or engineering professions, nor in reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on coverage in mainstream media and sources to establish weight and credibility. You seek to water down "conspiracy theory" to "criticism," implying that the critics have standing within their professional communities. They do not. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand slightly, since you appear to be relying on assertions of professional credentials, there appear to be no members of AE911 Truth who claim significant experience or professional standing in the design, structural performance or fire performance of tall buildings. In particular, there appears to be a general misunderstanding in their writings of the critical differences between static loading and dynamic loading, which is not surprising, since architectural and general civil engineering studies focus on statics, leaving detailed study of dynamics to mechanical and aeronautical engineering. This means that AE911 is attempting to interpret phenomena that are near or beyond the limits of normal professional training and experience, while claiming no more than a basic level of professional qualification. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

One must conclude that this article is heavily biased defense of a flawed investigation and it's conclusions. The presumed editors utterly refuse to lend any credence whatsoever to any expert opinion or any evidence that is contrary to the conclusions of the article. What are you so afraid of that you must slander all disagreement with your designated experts? Carl Hitchon (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)