Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Bazant and/or Seffen

Peterhoneyman has replaced a reference to a forthcoming paper by Keith Seffen with a reference to a paper by Zdenek Bazant that has been submitted to the same journal but has not yet been accepted. The advantage of Bazant's paper, as Peter points out, is that it is available online. The advantage of Seffen's, in my view, is that it has been peer-reviewed and accepted. We do, of course, have to take a press release from Cambridge at its word, but I think that it passes WP:RS. The sorts of things we are reporting here are, to my mind, covered adequately in the press release. I would prefer sourcing them to the peer-reviewed paper.--Thomas Basboll 15:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

bažant's tech report also meets the WP:RS standard. (i expect both papers will be published in j engrg mech within a few months.) but i am not comfortable citing a paper that i can not get my hands on. if no one has read the paper, i don't think we should reference it. Peterhoneyman 02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still say there is a difference between a submitted and a forthcoming paper. But you may have a better sense of whether or not J Eng Mech will accept Bazant's paper than I do. Like you say, in a few months this won't be an issue in either case. Perhaps we could reference just the press release for now along with Bazant's paper? Surely it (or the BBC's coverage of it) count as a reliable source of knowledge about research into the collapses.--Thomas Basboll 07:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't know whether j engrg mech will accept bažant's paper, but there is nothing wrong with citing a tech report. i don't put much stock in secondary sources; even the claim that seffen's article has been accepted for publication is second hand. Peterhoneyman 13:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are used throughout WP (and this article). For our purposes here, they are fine and conform to WP:RS. That doesn't mean you (as a reader of the article) have be satisfied, of course. But I think that Seffen's results (and especially the background that the press release presents) is informative and credible. It does have to be presented as "forthcoming", of course, and it was.--Thomas Basboll 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

i view the press release and bbc article as (fairly) reliable sources about the paper's existence and its pending publication. but as to the content of the paper, proceed with caution: none of us knows what's in the paper; i don't view the press release or bbc article as reliable sources about that. Peterhoneyman 22:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the BBC piece just a common example of science journalism? It tells us what a researcher has discovered (specifically, the residual capacity of the WTC towers) and why he set out to discover it (to refute conspiracy theorists). Like I say, we rely on sources like that all the time.--Thomas Basboll 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

it all depends on what seffen's paper actually says. i made a third request for a preprint yesterday. grumble. Peterhoneyman 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Basboll: I think the 'earlier' BBC report gives more insight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc Wowest 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i remain disappointed in my attempts to obtain a preprint of seffen's paper. i suppose it is understandable: i have read on some truther blogs the nasty letters accompanying their requests, so i guess he is just placing all preprint requests in the circular file. but this leaves us with no way to verify what he has done. as far as i am concerned, we lack certainty that the paper has been accepted anywhere, submitted anywhere, or even written. under the circumstances, i don't think it is appropriate to cite seffen's mythical paper. Peterhoneyman 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

i think we should stop referencing seffen. he is not distributing preprints and has not answered my multiple (very polite and proper) email requests. the press release gave someone else's email address for preprint requests; i wrote three times (again, politely) and got no response. something is fishy here. Peterhoneyman 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking into this myself and found this interesting bit of info on Seffens Cambridge published papers webpage.
"K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", (2007) ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press"
Problem is that it says the paper is in press but the ASCE apparently has not heard of it. I did find a mention in an Irish newspaper (Seffen is Irish) that the paper is due to be published by ASCE in February 2008 (it's a monthly journal so why so late?) so we need to wait till then before risking a mention. My guess it's a paper Seffen wants to write and Cambridge messed up by assuming it was already written. All media mentions seem to use the Cambridge press release (or a source that used it as their source). Then we have Seffens position as senior lecturer at the University (which gives his "paper" added weight), according to this it is only a temporary appointment due to the unexpected resignation of both the Master and Senior Tutor at the same time. Wayne 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything is necessarily fishy here (though this wouldn't be the firsty hasty press release in the history of science). I think it is fine to wait for the publication of the paper before putting it in. BTW, I can't find any mention of Seffen in the current version of the article. Am I not looking in the right place?--Thomas Basboll 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

actually, it is not mentioned in this article. over to CDH; cheers! Peterhoneyman 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I just followed Peterhoneyman here to put my 2c in lol. Seffen should be removed from the CD Hypothesis article then (for now)..... and lets not mention him here either. Wayne 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bazant is incontrovertible?

Without "an alternative that stands up to scientific and engineering scrutiny," says Peterhoneyman, "the NIST/bažant explanation is incontrovertible" (above). Well, ref 26 refers to a paper by G. P. Cherepanov that claims (in a journal that Bazant serves on the editorial board of) that the progressive collapse hypothesis does not square with the observed facts. It also provides an alternative (fracture waves) that has passed peer-review.--Thomas Basboll 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How can an educated person such as yourself believe such crap?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he used the word 'claims'. Looks more like bringing up a verifiable fact (that a paper has been written on this, and passed peer review) than 'believing crap'. Skittle 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i downloaded cherepanov's paper (and a followup: Cherepanov, Genady P. (2007). "Progressive Collapse of Towers: The Resistance Effect". Int J Fract. 143 (2). Springer Netherlands: 203–206. doi:10.1007/s10704-007-9060-y. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)) today, skimmed them both. i intend to give them a close read later this week, but until then, i don't have an opinion on whether they are incompatible with bažant. Peterhoneyman 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished reading several papers supporting progressive collapse and noticed a problem. They assume a "typical" load rating for the towers of 3. In fact the towers were over engineered according to the builders to have a load rating of >10. Is there a reason for using "typical" instead of the actual (apart from the typical needing 4 times less damage to initiate a collapse)? Wayne 05:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting the towers were compromised by having many of the columns destroyed and the fires severely weakend many of the floor trusses...the additional weight of the aircraft was but one of many contributing factors.--MONGO 05:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The weight of the aircraft is completely insignificant. What is 100 tons compared with 300,000 tons? The example commonly given as a model for understanding the aircraft impact is to push a pencil through the screen part of a conventional screen door and notice whether the door falls down. But what evidence is there, MONGO, that, say, the twenty minute low-temperature fire in building two weakened ANY floor trusses?

Wowest 15:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The towers were designed to survive losing 90% of their support columns. According to NIST WTC 1 lost 12%, WTC 2 lost 34%. I will accept the statement NIST made on it's own investigation "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse". Supporters of the official theory conveniently overlook that NIST did not actually investigate how or why the towers collapsed but only the events leading to a point before the collapse. In it's official reply to Dr Steven Jones criticisms, NIST stated it's conclusions are based almost entirely on visual evidence of the collapse rather than scientific models because "the computor models are not able to converge on a solution". Wayne 10:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think so...I have read every paper I have found which discusses the building's capacity to support itself and nowhere has it stated that the building was designed to remain standing if it lost 90% of it's support columns. The vast majority of structural studies that were done and implemented involved the ability of the strutures to withstand severe winds, such as those that occur during a minimal hurricane.--MONGO 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to research to find stuff. It was the architects and engineers who designed the towers who said that. In fact they also said that the towers could lose the core columns and most of the perimeter columns and the perimeter columns on one side could still support the structure on their own. This is because each perimeter column could support 2000% more than their load rating. BTW.. Todays news headline "The NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable". Wayne 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A) you are talking about static loading. Falling floors are dynamic. b) what temperature do you think the load rating was calculated at and c) saying that something could support more than their load rating makes no sense. It's like saying a 1 gallon milk carton can hold 10 gallons. d) as I recall, it's the opposite of what you said. The tower could withstand losing it's perimeter, not it's core. Again, static forces only, not dynamic. --DHeyward 05:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the designers did not say that the towers could lose 90% of their support columns and remain standing; nor is it true that the perimeter columns could support 2000% more than their load rating. And that "headline" you speak of is nothing more than the usual willful and deliberate misinterpretation that conspiracy fantasists apply to anything that does not fit their fantasies. In reality, the NIST smacked down the Request for Correction submitted by Morgan Reynolds, Kevin Ryan, etal, and conspiracy fantasists have cherry-picked one sentence out of that smackdown in a lame attempt to spin it into something entirely inconsistent with what was actually imparted. It's sad, really. Jazz2006 01:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree. here is the sentence that was picked out: "As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." and here is the previous mention to which it refers, which explains why the NIST computer models were not run past the point "where the buildings reached global instability": "At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." representing this as an "admission that the total collapse is unexplainable" is a lie. concluding that NIST is "implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down" is another lie. it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the NIST report or the CDH; these are lies, spread by liars. Peterhoneyman 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead External Link

In the NIST Report section, more specifically in the subsection called "Scope and limits", the link in footnote #51 is dead and a search at the Wayback Machine generates no matches. Jazz2006 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased Censorship by Admin "Fram"

TheEmac 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what "Fram" is continuing to remove.

ALL information is factual and correct and referenced when necessary.

TheEmac

The 911 Commission Report states that the South Tower (WTC 2) collapsed in 10 seconds.

The more recent NIST Report states that the estimated elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground

after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately
11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

The height of the Towers at roof level was 1,368 feet.

The distance an object will fall in 10 seconds in a vacuum, absent of any frictional drag, is 1607 feet.

The Towers were NOT in a vacuum.

please review the section titled "Comparison of Collapse Duration with Seismic Record" starting at the bottom of p. 12 in

• Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007-05-27). "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?" (PDF). 2007-06-22. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c. Retrieved 2007-09-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Peterhoneyman 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your references dispute your content. From the reference for time of building colapse:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

-Improbcat 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cherepanov "agrees" with Bazant?

I don't think we should say that Cherepanov and Bazant agree about the collapse times, and that their models agree with the seismic records, without saying they disagree about the mechanics of collapse.--Thomas Basboll 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

cherepanov's collapse model predicts a duration of 73% greater than free-fall. the difference is probably due to oversimplification in his model; in particular, he assumes mass is distributed uniformly. bažant's model is more precise, and more accurate. so far, so good — they both predict a collapse time greater than free fall, and are in reasonably close agreement with one another and with the LDEO observations. cherepanov then goes on to develop his fracture wave mechanism to explain why the towers collapsed in free fall, which he asserts without citation. the LDEO data moots cherepanov's theory. Peterhoneyman 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cherepanov's paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal while the LDEO data is cited (and interpreted) in a working paper. Data can't (for our purposes) render a disagreement that Cherepanov insists on (and has gotten through peer-review) moot. Also: as I read Cherepanov a more realistic assumption about the distribution of mass would slow the modeled collapse still further. More importantly: as he point outs, his calculation doesn't even take the resistance of the structure (only its mass) into account. Finally, in his footnote he says that once safefy factors are also taken into account "progressive failure [is] absolutely impossible". Cherepanov was being imprecise but in a commonly accepted way. Like NIST, he obviously meant "the buildings collapsed essentially in free fall with the lower portions apparently providing almost no resistance". The disagreement is about whether this (shared) observation conflicts with the "progressive collapse regime". We should report that disagreement in the article.--Thomas Basboll 06:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

cherepanov says: The comprehensive data of the collapses collected in many reports of NIST evidence the free fall regime of all collapses on September 11, 2001. Evidently, the WTC towers were disintegrated at the very beginning of each collapse. the remainder of his paper uses fracture waves to explain that phenomenon. but if the free-fall assertion is invalid, then the fracture wave theory does not apply. (moreover, it suggests that fracture waves did not play a role in the collapse.) the disagreement between cherepanov and bažant amounts to the duration of the collapses. do you want to add a section on collapse time? Peterhoneyman 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(back to left)Peter, I think you are forgetting that Cherepanov claims to "prove that the collapse in the regime of progressive failure is much slower than the free fall even if we ignore the resistance of the underlying, intact structure" (page 288, my emphasis). By "much slower" he means at least 1/3 the accelaration, which means it would take 73% longer. But, like I say, the underlying structure still hasn't been taken into account.

Bazant and Verdure say that "the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top." NIST says that "the building section above came down essentially in free fall". And Cherepanov (rightly) summarizes this as a general consensus about the "free fall regime" of the collapses. In fact, they appear to have taken about 50% longer than free fall (consistent with Bazant and Verdure's definition of "not much longer"). But Cherepanov's calculations show that even positing a very unrealistic structure (essentially no structure) the collapses would proceed at less than half the acceleration of free fall and would take at least 73% longer.They in fact took at most 53% longer. Cherepanov says that "the collapse in the regime of progressive failure is much slower than the free fall" (p. 288); Bazant and Verdure, like I say, say that "the collapse duration could not have been much longer than the duration of a free fall". This is why I say that it is not "free fall" as such that they are arguing about. It the question of whether or not it would take much longer than free fall. Cherepanov and Bazant (and NIST and Seffen) agree that it didn't take much longer. They disagree about whether it should have.

I am not at all against writing that the collapses took about 50% longer than free fall. I am against suggesting that this jibes with Cherepanov's model of progressive collapse. To repeat: he says it would take 73% longer if there were no intact structure underneath (just the mass of the floors). And he also says that once that structure is factored in (with its safety margin), a progressive collapse is "absolutely impossible" (note 1). We simply can't have Bazant and Cherepanov sourcing the same claim about the match of "model" and "calculations" in the engineering literature.--Thomas Basboll 14:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of mainstream sources from controlled demolition section

A long list of sources that support the received view (NIST's) of the collapse of the WTC cannot be used to support the claim that mainstream engineering scholarship has "rejected" CDH. Leaving them there would be tantamount to saying that the Chicago Manual of Style has "accused" Kaavya Viswanathan of plagiarism, i.e., using the CMS as a source of the claim that she has been accused of plagiarim (because she has in fact been accused of doing what (we think) the CMS (would) call(s) plagiarism). See Wikipedia's policy on the synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.--Thomas Basboll 07:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how the example you provide about Kaavya Viswanathan has anything to do with removing information that is referenced and accurate regarding the collapse issue. I'll look it over again, but I hope you can explain it to me why that section was so vastly reduced.--MONGO 07:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay..I guess what you are saying is that these sources don't say anything about whether CD happened or not and therefore, can't really be used as fodder to support an anti-CD discussion...correct me if I am wrong.--MONGO 07:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's about right. Here's what I had just written before the edit conflict: To my mind, the section was not vastly reduced. Rather, a long list of references that did not reject controlled demolition were removed as sources for a sentence that said that "the theory was rejected by ... mainstream engineering scholarship". Those sources only "reject" CDH on the line of reasoning explicitly barred by WP:SYNTH). The CMS would no doubt see Viswanathan's work as an example of plagiarism, but, as a matter of fact, it doesn't mention her. Likewise, these engineers would no doubt reject the CDH, but, as a matter of fact, they ignore it.--Thomas Basboll 08:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative research as external link

If you look at the external links, it's a pretty rag tag bunch of sites, most of them are not RS at all. Nor should they be. RS doesn't really apply in this section (certainly hasn't so far). So we need a better argument than "conspiracy drama" to bar it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly amend and or remove any links that are not reliable. Biased sources or those that mislead have no reason to be here at all.--MONGO (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

CR is not especially biased; the page I've linked to is a perfectly good resource. I would of course never use it to source a claim in an article but it could easily be used to locate reliable sources. Much like a Wikipedia article. (We link to them, but we don't use them as sources.) BTW, what gives you the idea that CR is biased or misleading in this case?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason exists to link to less than completely accurate sources, highly regarded and as being peer reviewed and published or publishable. See [1]--MONGO (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:SOAP that says you can't link to less than highly regarded and peer-reviewed/able sources. But I note that WP:LINKS explicitly says that "sites with ... meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" should be linked and "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" should be considered. (CR is nothing like the things listed to be avoided.) I think policy is clear here: Cooperative Research is a perfectly good external link.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...please cease interpreting policy to suit your needs.--MONGO (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What part of the policy on soapboxing do you think linking to CR violates? And in what way is my interpretation of the guidelines on external links mistaken?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the CR link and editing the links section. I am of course still open to discussing it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I took it out again. It's merely a website that cherry picks refs to support a view that is not altogether anywhere near accurate. It's also bothersome to see their donate link at the top left of their website...donate to what?...their pockets? Sorry, we're not in the business of providing a link to their fund raising efforts.--MONGO (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that CR is very much like WP? Like WP, users provide CR's content and, like WP, CR asks for donations. As far as I can tell, CR does not cherry pick: it just gathers most of the press coverage on a given topic together and organizes it chronologically.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As an object of comparison consider the link to Z-Axis [2], which arguably advertises a piece of software. I think there are good reasons to keep that link because the animations are of obvious interest to readers of this article regardless of the business interests of Z-Axis. We want to inform readers, and the CR link provides a useful overview of media coverage regardless of possible ulterior motives at the History Commons project.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If Mongo can't accept CR because "It's merely a website that cherry picks refs to support a view that is not altogether anywhere near accurate' then we need to get rid of Popular Mechanics and other similar references as they can be accused of exactly the same thing in regards to this subject. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You have to apply the same standards to everything regardless of which side it supports. If you also want to only allow links to "peer reviewed and published" references then we will be left with maybe 3 links for the whole page. Please try to be NPOV instead of concentrating on debunking and throwing out anything that you personally don't like. Wayne (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative Research is not a reliable site. Even in the links section, we need to include the best quality sources. The cooperative research timeline seems to word things in a misleading way with many weasel words. For example, on the timeline concerning United Airlines Flight 93, scroll down to where it says "(After 10:06 a.m.): Witnesses Report Lack of Plane Wreckage at Flight 93 Crash Scene". It seems they are selectively choosing quotes and sources to imply something that the references really don't support. For example the timeline only quotes Frank Monoco, "If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap. There’s nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It’s just littered with small pieces" The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reference supporting a "lack of plane wreckage" also says quotes Jeff Phillips "There was one part of a seat burning up there, that was something you could recognize." [3] Cooperative Research, given its anonymous nature and the way it puts sources together, is not a good reliable source that we should include here. Not even in the external links section. --Aude (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I think this is way too detailed a discussion to have to settle the question of an external link, here's the context of Phillips' remark:

"It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane," Barron said.

"There was one part of a seat burning up there," Phillips said. "That was something you could recognize."

"I never seen anything like it," Barron said. "Just like a big pile of charcoal."

It is clear that the burning seat (part) is presented as the exception that proves the rule, namely, that there was nothing there that resembled what observers expected of a plane crash (i.e., there were only few recognizable airplane parts). CR is not cherry picking here, they are choosing representative quotes to illustrate a point that the source is emphasising.

Like I say, I don't think we need to have the discussion at that level. We don't have to fact-check our links. They don't have to qualify as reliable sources. The list of victims and the CameraPlanet video are not RS either, but perfectly informative. So is the research done by CR.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What? I thought we were here to write a factual and reliable encyclopedia...if that is not your mission, then you're on the wrong website.--MONGO (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be disagreeing with me about something completely different. I don't see any ambiguity in WP:LINKS. It says we should consider the inclusion of "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". That's what we're doing now: considering it. There is no need to raise any doubts about anyone's mission when having that discussion.

CR's objective seems to be to find every mainstream media source (and some official documents) that report on whatever topics they are interested in. It clearly contains "information about [the collapses] from knowledgeable sources". It would do so even if examples of the sort of cherry picking that Aude is driving at could be found. In the case he mentions, however, I don't think CR has displayed any bias or infidelity to the source.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So far, I haven't found above a constructive argument that would link CR with a Wikipedia policy that it allegedly violates. Thus, the conclusion for now should be to include it. It's a very well organized RS news database on the topic, nothing more.(I really don't know how one can be finding a Conspiracy Theory in the site construction itself... unless at the same time he's finding it in the RS news sourced there.) salVNaut (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL, etc. are written to cover a broad range of articles. If we are looking for standards to apply to this article, then we should apply only the highest standards in hopes of achieving featured article status. Why FA? Given the amount of world attention given this subject, there is no reason to aim for less. If we wanted the reader to wade through a bunch of crap, we would just provide a link to Google's search results. Instead, we should seek to include only those external links which best assist the reader in understanding the various aspects of this particular topic, and we should frame this discussion along these lines. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can't imagine this article ever being more than it currently is with so many conspiracy theory POV warriors camped out here. But I do agree that the only references this article needs are those that are completely factual.--Beguiled (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Edits?

Mongo has made what I consider POV edits. I did leave some edits he made that were borderline legitimate but these below were too POV for me to let go. See here for context.
1. Mongo wants to include "but not necessarily those that involved aviation fuel".
This sentence is irrelevant as NIST concluded the fuel fire was minor. It is covered elsewhere in the artical and serves no purpose here other than to reinforce the OCT view.
2. Deletion of mention that NIST accepts that the WTC were designed to handle an aircraft impact.
It is relevant as the next sentence says that building codes have no requirement that buildings handle an aircraft impact. Without qualification this implies that neither did the WTC so why can't it be mentioned?
3. Severe editing of the engineering artical in the critism section on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory.
The source is a peer review publication with referenced critism supported by experts speaking in their field of expertise. It does not qualify as an "alternative" theory and makes no claim regarding support of any CT.
4. Deleting the qualifier "Though they did not investigate controlled demolition" to the sentences claim that NIST rejected CD. I said i would remove it if he could show that they did investigate. Mongo said in the edit summary that "NIST didn't investigate it because it is nonsense". A case of "I don't like it"? No qualifier makes it falsely give the impression to the reader that NIST did investigate.
I'm open to legitimate reasons for the edits. Wayne (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I saw was that Wowest did a wholesale revert because "Jet planes don't use "aviation fuel (obsolete)" they use jet fuel.)" Ridiculous.

I think it's only fair to say that NIST didn't look into CD because there was no technical reason to and didn't feel it was worthwhile, not because they didn't "like it". So if you're gonna say they didn't look into it, then we should say why (as they explain it) and not leave it to interpretation. RxS (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary was accurate..they did not have unlimited time and or budget to examine the ridiculous.--MONGO (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the OCT view?--MONGO (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What does Wowest's revert have to do with anything? He was only restoring the page to it's original state and didn't need to say anything in the summary. I was probably not clear above. Mongo made the first edit which included all 4 of those items in a single edit and his summary made no sense as he claimed he was reverting a conspiracy theory. If Mongo is concerned that NIST didn't feel CD worthwhile to investgate then say so in the artical instead of leaving the text to read as if they did investigate before rejection. Wayne (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Blindly reverting is not ok, and reverting without comment (as you suggested he is justified in doing) is edit warring at it's worst. This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and he does not own this article (nor do you). Let me me repeat, "and didn't need to say anything in the summary" is completely mistaken. RxS (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mongo had already had his edit reverted 3 or 4 times so it was obvious there is a dispute and from experience the summary tends to be neglected more often than not after a few times by everyone. If you want to critisize him for it then have a go at Mongo as well for his "informative" original summaries. Instead of "reverting (to Mongo) because there is no consensus", is it not normal to leave the original version if a major edit is disputed and the editor is not willing to compromise even when shown to be in error? It seems strange to me that the original, and in some cases long standing, text suddenly needs consensus while the new mass edit doesn't. Wayne (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact is that the 1964 analysis did not consider the effects of fire, due to jet fuel and burning of office building contents. Mention of that belongs in the section. Also, the wording of the section in the version by WLRoss, saying things like "passive fire protection is designed to allow for the burnout of all building contents without collapse." is not needed. The fires on 9/11 were not ordinary fires, burning only building contents. There was also jet fuel, and don't forget all the columns severed and other structural damage. --Aude (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The burnout issue is noted in NIST report and is currently being discussed in the WTC7 investigation. I don't have access to the PDF right now (slow connection) but I don't think there are any facts about the 1964 analysis that say that the fuel and fires were not considered. In 1993, in any case, Skilling said that they expected most of the damage to be caused by the fires that would follow the large amounts of jet fuel that would enter the buildings. BTW, I wrote the stuff you are attributing to Wayne.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that listing all the things the NIST didn't invistigate is helpful to this article. They probably didn't investigate UFO intervention, either, but listing that fact here does nothing to improve article quality. Rklawton (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this [4] proposed change?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire protection and anticipation of aircraft impacts

This has nothing to do with CT/OCT debates. Read the relevant sections of the NIST report (which I have sourced with page numbers for easy reference) and explain how I am getting the facts wrong. My aim in making these edits, line by line, with detailed explanations in the edit summaries, was to get the fire protect issues and aircraft impact issues as clear as possible. My edits simply deserve more than "rv CT" ... even if I have misunderstood NIST.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about these issues one at a time, not as question of pushing the article towards or away from CTs.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In examination of your "improvements"...well...here's the diff which I just reverted...you changed:

• But NIST was unable to find any further details about the study and stated that without the original calculations which were used to render such conclusions, any attempt to compare the performance of the buildings to design expectations would be "speculation". In examining the collapse of the towers, NIST also stated that, "No building code in the United States has specific design requirements for impact of aircraft, and thus, buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial aircraft."

to

• Unnable to locate the original calculations, NIST declined to comment any further on the document. While buildings are not designed specifically to survive commercial aircraft crashes, NIST found documentation that "clearly indicates that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact."...

that is a huge change...from the buildings not being designed to withstand the impacts to that they did recognize they could be subject to aircraft impacts...sorry, wikipedia is not a soapbox.--MONGO (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• You say NIST says the "the buildings [were] not desined to withstand the impacts" but if you look at the quote you can see that's not what NIST says. Your understandable misreading of that sentence is exactly what my edit was trying to avoid. NIST says that buildings in general are not designed to withstand them but that the WTC towers did in fact specifically take such contingencies into account.
• The important fact that no building codes required this is preserved in my version. Before my edits, the section seems to end by having NIST contradict both Skilling and Robertson. My version simply gets that section of the NIST report right.
• The version you propose says that NIST says that "any attempt to compare the performance of the buildings to design expectations would be 'speculation'. But that is not what NIST says would be speculation. NIST says any further comment on the content of a report they couldn't locate would be speculation. (The version you are defending misquotes the NIST report.)
• You have also removed (by reverting rather than editing) perfectly good information about fire protection. Please read the parts of the NIST report we are talking about and propose corrections.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see...so you are suggesting that removing the part about speculating...is accurate? Is there a problem with that word? They took into account that the buildings could be hit by an airplane, but I know what you're getting at...and this is simply a twist on the same old news...no...they never anticipated that the buildings would withstand high speed imapcts....they never even looked at that possibility when the buildings were being designed since...they considered (at best) a low speed impact by an airplane on takeoff or in approach for a landing...one that would be flying less than 150-180 mph. Please stop soapboxing conspiracy theories in serious articles.--MONGO (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't know what I'm getting at. On page 71 of the report in question, NIST writes "Without the original calculations of the original aircraft impact analysis, any comment on the document would be speculation." The sentence you are defending in effect quotes NIST as saying "any comment on the topic would be speculation." That's a pretty straightforward error. Please tone down your rhetoric and read the sources we are arguing about.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you know what I am getting at either, Thomas.--MONGO (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt our failures to communicate interest the other editors working on this article. Did you have anything to say about the article content and the sentence about "speculation"?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I did...already...above.--MONGO (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the corrects of a quotation. You have not done anything to show that your interpretation of what NIST dismisses as "speculation" is the right one. Please do.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of mischaracterizations?

Could Luke please list them?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

MONGO mentions the main problems above. His wording wording, while not perfect, seems more in line with the sources to me, without engaging in unfounded extrapolation. On that note, the New Civil Engineer article seems to have been misrepresented. It should explain that the requests were refused because NSIT had not developed the visualizations. The wording was also POV and undue WEIGHT—naming the scientists which the NSIT supposedly refused. For further reference, here is the text of the article from Factiva:

6 October 2005 New Civil Engineer English © Copyright 2005. Emap Construct Limited. All rights reserved.

News

WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.

Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.

The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its fi ndings (NCE 22 September).

NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.

University of Manchester professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.

"NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost, " he said.

University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers "would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST."

NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasistatic processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.

But it said it would 'consider' developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the fi nite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fi e models. "By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated, " he said.

"The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.

"This doesn't mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far." Dave Parker

Document NCENG00020051006e1a60000a

Cool Hand Luke 10:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "per MONGO" revert on the first section. Thanks for drawing attention to the other problem. I hadn't noticed that those changes were part of the diff between the two versions.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My main issue is that the revision selective quotes a lengthy document to make the NSIT sound sinister. The quote choices are particularly revealing. For example, the italicized snippet about adjusting the models until they lead to collapse. Unless you have a good secondary source, it seems odd to pluck this line out of the document. To my understanding, complex physics models often have to be tweaked, so you should instead find a good source that criticizes their methodology in regards to their adjusts. Otherwise, it's just an uncontextualized quote plucked from a lengthy document. Cool Hand Luke 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I think we agree on that. My concerns are about the fire protection and aircraft impact stuff (see below).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this diff is helpful. There was a lot going on in the earlier reverts. I don't know anything about the building code subject, so will probably stay out of the discussion, but it seems strange that the Port Authority's consideration of an aircraft is being highlighted. As MONGO points out the aircraft they contemplated would have been traveling at landing speed. Cool Hand Luke 11:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we have agreement. Actually, MONGO is emphasizing one engineer's recollections (Robertson) over another that actually appears to be more credible. This is from the Seattle Times article (a source in both versions): "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." NIST was able to document the existence of the study Skilling refered to (positing a plane going 600 mph, not one landing in fog) and found no trace of the study Robertson recalled. Given the cause of the collapses, it isn't strange at all that everything we know about the design of the WTC towers in re aircraft impact is being noted (in a specific section devoted to it). I'm going to revert to my version for now (that way the page numbers of the relevant passages are more easily available.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted "the italicized snippet about adjusting the models until they lead to collapse" myself a while back as it comes from another source. Nist themselves admitted they adjusted the models until collapse occured and that is a problem because the parameters they eventually used exceeded the visual evidence they had (both photographic and eyewitness). That is probably better off in the CT page than here. Wayne (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire protection and aircraft impact

I've created this version to highlight the points on which we disagree. I still don't see any specific mischaracterizations. But all the sources are there in my version (the one prior to the self-revert), so let's hear it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop editing and discuss instead

There is a lot of confusion right now. I would suggest not making any more changes, and dicussing the issues. This section is not getting better. I think we need to agree about the actual claims. (1) Were aircraft impacts considered? (2) What kind of plane, how fast? (3) Was the fuel and fires considered? (4) What sort of fire protection was applied? Things like that. The section is pulling in too many directions on each of these points right now. But as far as I can tell there are uncontroversial answers to all of them.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In regards to (3), for example, it would be worth deciding what the relation of the June 2004 progress report is to the final NIST report (2005) in questions about the content of the 1964 study. What did NIST ultimately conclude could be said about the anticipation of fuel fires? Also, how do we reconcile this with what Skilling said. The 2004 progress report is obviously not "in line" with Skilling, who claimed that it was precisely the fuel and the fires from it that would be so devasting (albeit not structurally).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting rediculous. The artical has been relatively stable and now we are getting editors popping up all over claiming they are deleting POV edits. You guys are feeding the conspiracy theories by censoring content that has mostly been on the page not only for months but is incontrovertibly factual material. I dont care how stupid you think CT's are NPOV treatment must come before your own views even if they vaguely suggest problems with the OCT. Wayne (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing from this dispute until the new year. At least three different edits are being treated as one at this point. There has been no real discussion of the substance of any of them. I'll try some of them again (on the talk page first) one at a time.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the current version against Dec 19 and it had a sentence missing (which i added), a sentence with the last few words missing so that it made no sense at all (I added the end of the sentence) and an extra sentence that had been edited in after the dispute began (I left this in to avoid further dispute). Except for that extra sentence I didn't touch the section reads the same as it did before the very first of Thomas's edits. If others are prepared to wait till the new year, I'll wait as well. I hope we can work something out then that satisfies everyone. Wayne (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make the section make sense. (The tension between Skilling and NIST on fuel fires made the section incomprehensible.) Other than that, I remain out til the new year.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article if the below issues are addressed. I have made several corrections throughout the article while reviewing it. Please address the below issues within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:

1. The lead needs to be expanded to a few paragraphs to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for suggested length and guidelines. (I'm sure it can be improved, but it lives up the guideline now.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
2. The weasel word tag in the "Fire and aircraft potentials" section needs to be addressed. I see there is a current discussion to address this, and I hope it concludes well. (The weasel words have been removed. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
3. "After the 2001 attacks, Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, said that the towers had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, "like the B-25 bomber that hit the Empire State building in 1945"." This statement needs an inline citation right after it since it includes a quote. If the statement is from one of the sources in the same paragraph, just use the <ref name="xxx"/> after it. (Fixed. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
4. "unable to find any further details about the study NIST stated that without the original calculations which were used to render such conclusions, any further comment would amount to "speculation"." An inline citation is needed for the end of this sentence as well. (Fixed.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
5. "It has been suggested that "the twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane" (Robertson, 3/2002; FEMA, 2002, pp. 1-17)." Convert the information in the paranthesis to an inline citation. (Removed sentence. The quote is already in the section.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
6. The two images in the "Impacts of airliners" section should be arranged differently, as text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images. Consider moving one image to the prior/next section or move them both to the right. (This wasn't easy, and still isn't perfect.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
7. "Some believe said dust are the impact charges placed to demolish the tower by insiders. This explains the freefall speed of these extremely rigid towers." Both of these statements need inline citations. (This has been removed. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC))
8. "In answer to the question of whether "a controlled demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST says that it "would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."" This needs an inline citation after it. (I paraphrased instead, in line with the best source we have, which was already in the paragraph.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
9. "The scope of the NIST investigation was limited to "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower."" Add an inline citation. (done. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
10. "As stated in the report, it "includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (p. xxxvii, fn2)" Convert the source into an inline citation. (done. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
11. "The fire left two firefighters dead from smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning." Add source. (This wasn't a relevant fact and I've removed it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
12. "Demolition of surrounding damaged buildings was continuing in 2007 even as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement, the Freedom Tower." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on the statement or incoprorate it into another paragraph. There is another occurrence right after this one (also, the heading "The debris smoldering fires" should be removed since it only has one sentence in it, unless it can be expanded). Go through the article and fix any other occurrences. (Done. --Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC))
13. This isn't required for the article to keep its GA status, but some of the references should be converted from the url to including some of the parameters within the templates at WP:CITET (such as author, title, publisher, access date, etc.).

Altogether the articles was an interesting read and is well-sourced throughout the majority of the article. All of the images are fine as well, it's good there are so many Commons images. If the above issues are addressed within seven days I will pass the reassessment of the article. The majority of the above issues shouldn't take too long to fix. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the WikiProjects associated with this article to help drive editors to this article to share in the workload. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good job so far and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article still suffers from a NPOV issue or two and it might be awhile before they can be cleaned up. I can't see how it can be rated as a GA with these issues and will try to detail them over the next few days.--MONGO 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. This is the "reviewed version". Surely the current article is "better" than that (in every respect that these criticisms, including MONGO's, touch on)?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The standards for good articles, as well as featured articles, have increased substantially since then. Articles that passed as featured articles in 2004 or 2005 most likely would not even meet good article standards today. That's why we have featured article review and people involved with WP:GA come around and check articles. They even came around and removed the Crime in Mexico article, which I worked on in June 2006. It passed then, the article hasn't changed that much, but GA standards have and the article was recently removed as a good article. Given the concerns above on this talk page, as well as general concerns about the neutrality of the article, I don't think it meets GA standards now. I don't have time, myself, to work put the time into it until at least after the new year or maybe not for an month or two, due to health problems and other real life priorities. --Aude (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Given the rising standards and the apparently minor problems (present situation excepted!), I think we can give each other a pat on the back. Great work, everyone. Happy New Year!--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It still suffers from a lot of weasel words and POV issues...seriously..this article isn't even close to GA material yet. I'm not sure in it's present form it has much chance of maintaining a GA status...but I don't set those standards, which are generally still way below the featured article expectations...--MONGO 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a look at those POV issues. There's a section that's labeled as problematic in this regard now, and about which a discussion is going on. What weasel words are left?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and list them in the next few days..holidays and all are somewhat sidetracking.--MONGO 11:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on addressing the above issues. I'm still going to leave the article on hold until the issue concerning the POV words/report is addressed. If you guys need some more time to finish it with the current holidays, feel free to take your time. This could probably use some feedback from multiple editors, so there's no rush. Once the issues are completed, let me know, and I'll pass the article. Again, good job so far. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Has the NPOV issue been addressed yet? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not yet. This article is still very off balance. I recommend you not promote it at this time.--MONGO 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about some input on the items you think "off balance" so something can be done about it. Wayne (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing for me to do is set aside some time to see if this article can be more comprehensive and better written. I'll comb through the article and work on cleaning up the many areas that need help yet. I expect to start in a day or two.--MONGO 09:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps review: failed

Although many of the issues I raised were addressd and I left this article on hold for several weeks, the main POV issue still has not been addressed. Because of this, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issue is fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical question (page numbering in recurrent refs)

Does anyone have a suggestion for how to easily refer to the same source but on different pages? We have this problem throughout with the NIST report (and the GA review above hits on it). As I understand it we can't just use the "ref name" option. So we'd have to cut and paste a very long template every time we use it. It'd be great to agree on one way of doing it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't WP be able to alter the template (or have a separate one) to allow an optional "P.X" to be included in the "(x)" that indicates the ref? For example (I'm not comp literate so...) -ref name="xxx"/"P:x"- = (9 P:17). Wayne (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Robertson

Is Robertson's study really relevant? It is only a single source claim with no third party evidence of existance. Skillings earlier study is documented and involves a larger, faster aircraft so whatever Robertson concluded is irrelevant unless it reached a different conclusion. Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson were the lead engineers responsible for structural strength while Robertson was only the lead engineer for minimising wind sway (The WTC was the first skyscraper Robertson ever worked on). We have two studies that give the same conclusions so shouldn't we just mention the existance of Robertsons in a single sentence (if at all) and detail the verified one by a more senior engineer? Wayne (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Robertson's report as published in 2002 by the National Academy of Engineering is not relevent? As noted in that report at top, he is named as the "The lead structural engineer..."[5], so I am either confused why they would refer to him as something other than what he was, or it was simply a mistake on their part. Was Skilling the lead engineer...perhaps he was of the construction phase, but not the design phase it seems.--MONGO 11:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article in the Bridge may have gotten "lead" wrong, but not necessarily. He says he was the "titular leader" of the team that went to New York, but it seems clear that Skilling was his boss and would have known the design at least as well (in fact, he was probably ultimately responsible--it was his contract--so he may have had a better overview of all the studies). Wayne: do you have another source, or are we discussing different interpretations of the same article (in The Bridge)? This short piece [6] just puts them on the same level as "the engineers" for the project. Have a look at the current version. Isn't it pretty balanced?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"They" are not really refering to him as anything specific as he was one of many lead structural engineers (I counted more than 10 that held that title). They just didn't mention of what. Robertson himself wrote that artical and secondly it was written in 2002. The info I used came from engineering magazines mostly from around the time the WTC was built. I found very few mentions of Robertson with the most notable mention being that he was a "young, up and coming" engineer working on his first high rise building. Making him overal lead on his first job doesn't make sense and if that was the case why did no engineering publication mention it before 2001. He had at least four other engineers as his superiors. The only references I found to what Robertson's primary role in the construction was, was that he was in charge of structural design for sway minimisation and he designed the damping system. Robertson himself admits this in your quoted 2002 artical, quote: "Our contribution was to make the closely spaced columns the fundamental lateral-force-resisting system" or in laymans terms...make the existing structure sway less.
You still have not addressed why Robertsons study is relevant as per my concerns. Wayne (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is published via a reputable organization, namely, the National Academy of Engineering and it is recent and is based on his recollections of the issues. If you can find something from Skilling et al regarding this information or similar that is also recent, that would be helpful.--MONGO 10:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is a question of undue weight giving substantial POV. Recent has no bearing on inclusion as Robertson is making no "recent" claims but recalling past events.

• Robertson and Skilling both did studies.
• Skilling's study was in early 1964 and Robertson's in late? 1964.
• Skillings official study is documented to have exceeded 20,000 pages. While Robertson made no claim for length, it is doubtful it exceeded a few dozen pages as he admitted he did the study unofficially "to satisfy his engineer's curiosity".
• Skillings study has third party proof of content while Robertson's is a single source claim.
• Skilling's original study was destroyed in the collapse of WTC1 and a possible copy destroyed in the collapse of WT7. Robertson could not remember what he did with his study.
• Skillings study used a more extreme model and included the expected fires although it is unknown to what degree.
• Robertson's study used a lesser model and excluded expected fires.
• Both studies reached the same conclusions.
  Giving undue weight to Robertson (as the article wording currently does) leaves the reader with the impression that his is more reliable than Skillings study. I tried to address this bias by including what Robertson said about his own study but you reverted it by saying it was not in the source (which you couldn't have read because it clearly is in it). That both studies reached the same conclusions makes Robertson's own study irrelevant as the official study should trump his unofficial one. Wayne (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at "fire and aircraft potential"

MONGO's summary of the edit that added the tag says: "section written commenting about NIST and then offerring refutation of NIST...slanted to give more credence to CT crowd". I don't think the section refutes NIST: what claim of NIST's does the section claim is false? As to the "slant", well, the CT crowd does stress that the buildings were designed to survive what happened on 9/11 and this section says that something along those lines is true. But something along those line is true. We could avoid slanting it by saying "No one had ever considered the possibility that a plane might crash into the WTC," which would give the CT crowd less ground to stand on. But it would be false. (On the narrow question of jet fuel, NIST has not determined that no one had considered it. It found at one point found that one of the design studies probably did not take that into account. But it did not carry that finding into the final report, as far as I can tell.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I only have one POV concern. The undue weight given to Robertson. Someone altered a line to read "the documents pertaining to the relevant studies" which implies multiple studies or that these documents included Robertsons study when the source actually says the documents cited by Skilling. Also nothing is mentioned that Robertsons study was a personal one (not official) with him holding the only copy that he later lost. I'm not saying to use those words but the original quote by Robertson regarding this study gave the correct weight to this but MONGO reverted it, according to his summary, because the quote was not in the source. Strange because I copy pasted the quote directly from the source. Wayne (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW. If facts "give credence to the CT crowd" then that is too bad. Facts should not be presented in a way to avoid this as this is called POV. I'm sure there are also a lot of facts in the artical that "give credence to the official theory crowd", do you want to reword to avoid that as well? The facts should speak for themselves. Wayne (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the sources again, it seems to me we can say (1) the WTC designers tried to anticipate the effects of aircraft impact, (2) they determined that the building would survive the worst thing they could think of, (3) 9/11 was worse than that, but (4) they were not able to model the impacts very precise and the buildings may have collapsed even if hit by a slow-moving 707. After all, the decisive effect was the fires, and they had not developed a model of the fires that would result from the crashes. (I think we can read Skilling as saying that they assumed the structure would be damaged only by the impact. The majority of the lives would be lost -- they simply assumed (not modelled) -- by the fires. They did not expect the fires to have an effect on the structure. And I think NIST supports this reading.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. RxS (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)