Talk:7 World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.

---

Contents 1 Conspiracy theories & the harm you are letting them cause to Wikipedia 2 When exactly did WTC7 catch fire? 3 New Picture 4 Collapse 5 Status of NIST Reports 6 Fire causing collapse 7 Opinions from structural engineers 8 wtc7.net as source 9 Deletions to the conspiracy theory paragraph 10 Split article? 10.1 Cleanup tag 11 Related article 12 Split pages 13 7 WTC is Green? 14 I will split this into two articles... 15 7 WTC vs WTC 7

[edit] Conspiracy theories & the harm you are letting them cause to Wikipedia

The firemen knew that it was going to collapse and told the public to get away from it seconds before it collapsed. this is not a conspiracy theory it is known fact and can be seen in various news clips about the event. This is an important FACT and should be included in the normal discussion of the collapse.

A lot of important information is being moved from various articles to conspiracy theory articles. Many users seem to be following exceptionally flawed logic...

Information that has been used to support one or more conspiracy theories is NO LESS RELEVANT solely because of this.

This page gives a perfect example. This article is about WTC7. Larry Silverstein was the lease holder and insurance policy holder of WTC7. WTC7 collapsed. The lease holder's account of what happened to the building that this article is about is not here, simply because some people have used it to support conspiracy theories. Allowing things like this to happen is insane. This means that anyone can invalidate any information on Wikipedia simply by coming up with some conspiracy theory surrounding it. Kernow 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The quote from Silverstein doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there. Silverstein simply acknowledges the building came down. Whether people choose to claim it as proof of conspiracy theory or not is irrelevant. All that quote does is state the obvious; the building came down. Introducing it, when it has been a main focus of a conspiracy theory, irresponsibly tilts the article. To correct that tilt, there'd need to be very significant additions to the article indicating possible interpretations of the quote, usages in context, uses elsewhere, and so forth. This would create a situation of undue weight for a single quote to be included in an article when the quote adds nothing of value to the article. --Durin 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't agree. In an article about the building we can surely quote the owner of the building talking about the collapse, without invoking any conspiracy theory in particular. --Guinnog 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue though is that the quote is non-notable; the only reason one would want to include it is to create support for their conspiracy theory du jour. -Quasipalm 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd (tepidly) support including it, and I definitely don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory du jour! I think what the owner of the building verifiably said about the building's collapse is, almost by definition, notable in an article about the building. --Guinnog 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Surley he's said a novel's worth of quotes about WT7. Should we include them all? Why single out this one little, oft misunderstood quote? It seems to me that a lot of people here are playing dumb about their true intention, which seems to me to be to mislead the casual reader. -Quasipalm 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do hope you're not being self-deprecating here! Let's assume good faith, and assume we're trying to make the article better. Given that this quote is oft misunderstood, why don't we either quote it and quote the controversy about interpreting it, or else maybe you can find a better quote from the guy, and reference it. --Guinnog 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if there are other quotes from Larry Silverstein about the collapse then let's see them. Kernow 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote does give information not already in the article:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" - This tells us that the fire department realised that they may not be able to contain the fire. Assumably this meant that they knew that the building would either collapse or the fire would spread to other buildings.

"and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." - This tells us (assuming the non-conspiracy theory interpretation) that because of the number of fatalities the decision was made not to try and further contain the fire. It seems to infer that they knew this would lead to the building's collapse.

Both of these points give us important details about the events leading up to the collapse that the other evidence does not. Kernow 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here we go again. --Durin 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Does this mean you agree with me? I doubt it, but you don't seem to explain why what is said is wrong. You said that "The quote from Silverstein doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there", so I told you some things that it does. Comments like that make it look like you can't find anything wrong with what I said. Another thing I feel the quote informs us of is the involvement of Larry Silvestein in decisions regarding the fire department. Personally, I was unaware that fire department commanders sought advice from the owner of a burning building regarding whether or not the situation is too dangerous for the firemen. Kernow 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I believe Durin is saying that we've argued this point around and around in the past, and most often it takes this form: The quote is inserted. The quote is removed as being rather problematic. A discussion begins on the talk page, with proponents of including the quotation arguing that the quote adds value to the article and is not explicitly supporting a conspiracy theory, while opponents state that its value as a quotation has been compromised by conspiracy theory, yes, but more importantly and to the point, it's simply not that meaningful a quotation. As you yourself have demonstrated, Kernow, is that you have to explicitly state your personal inferences in order to demonstrate the value of the quotation. The implications you point out are nowhere near obvious, and clearly analysis of what you interpret the quotation to mean could not be included in the article. All that is left, then, is a quotation that doesn't add much explicit, new information, and which, yes, has been heavily deprecated by the conspiracy crowd. The quotation has minimal net value and too much of a bad history. The frustration Durin is expressing (and I do hope you'll forgive my putting words in your mouth, Durin) lies in the fact that, even though these points have been explained in arguments in the past, the issue still comes up; furthermore, if those past arguments are indications of how future discussions (i.e., this one) will go, proponents of including the quote will gloss over or ignore altogether the reasons pointed out here in the pursuit of their goal. This, at least, is what has frustrated me on this and other similar discussions on this page. JDoorjam Talk 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • The fact that a quotation has a "bad history" can't have any implication in the decision to add it or not. The best you seem to be able to say to prevent people from inserting the quotation is that you find it "non notable" or "not informative" but it is your personal opinion and possibily not a neutral one if it is influenced by the history of the quotation.--Pokipsy76 10:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Without having a particular POV on this, what frustrates me on this and similar discussions, is that the reasons for excluding significant and verifiable quotes from the owner of the building about its collapse, have never been explained properly in terms of wiki policy or even in terms of common sense. Like with the exclusion of the Zogby poll, I get the feeling that people looking up this topic in an encyclopedia will expect to see the information and be disappointed by its poor state. The article currently only serves the purpose of reminding us just how poor a group of editors can keep an article from (presumably) well-intentioned reasons. --Guinnog 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies to both the quote and the poll. Quotes are problematic in that they are cherry picked in a way to support a POV. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • JDoorjam, I don't have to state my explicit inferences, and I should have known it was a mistake of me to mention them. Ignore the last sentence on each of my paragraphs (which are my inferences). The fact that "the fire department realised that they may not be able to contain the fire" and that "because of the number of fatalities the decision was made not to try and further contain the fire" are not inferences.
      • Kmf164, "Quotes are problematic in that they are cherry picked in a way to support a POV". There is no "tree" of quotes to pick from here. No one has provided any other quotes from Silverstein relevant to the building's collapse. Kernow 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • So it's because it's POV you're not including it in the article? Many(most?) people in the USA know this quote, so it's definately part of information connected to WTC7. So why not include it to let ppl around the world know what is it all about? It's POV? it's "selective"? (among what other important quotes or info?? - right there with you, Kmf164). If conspiracy theories are bu***it it won't hurt anyone as it is a part of culture, information relevant to this article. If one of c.theories is somehow right, it should be included, too. This article is not too long, so as far as for now relevant information can/should be added.

What I dislike most is trying to convince everyone that it's better to hide some information because selective information can be POV-pushing. What i think is that properly, carefully commented information is never a cause of problems - it's lack of information that leads to trouble. If some of you think that this quotation is POV-pushing then please try to find some balancing, well referenced info and add it. Pity that most of admins, that edit WTC articles prefer to conceal info, like they were afraid that someone might read it and think "who knows what". If this person is provided with whole spectrum of information,then he/she can make up his own mind. If C.T are bull**it then ther should've been maaany sources that prove so without doubt and info from them could have been included. Now, it seems that some of c.t.are disproved, some not - this is our world, welcome to it, and face it.

"Lack od information is root of all evil."

To conclude - my opinnion is to add the quote not making any connection to conspiracy. Information is vital and we haven't run out of article space yet. SalvNaut 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Larry Silverstein said "pull it". The only thing he could have meant from this was to "pull it down", or using correct construction terminology to "demolish it". If he meant for the FD to no longer attempt to control or subdue the fires he would surely have said "pull out". --Jskw 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• This has been argued ad nauseum in countless forums external to Wikipedia. It gains no traction here because there is nothing to substantiate the claim. We do not base articles on Wikipedia on speculation, or inferred meanings. --Durin 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When exactly did WTC7 catch fire?

From the Wikipedia entry for Larry Silverstein( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#September_11.2C_2001_attacks) ... "7 World Trade Center is said to have caught fire when debris fell from the North Tower. The building collapsed shortly after 5 p.m. -- 8 hours after the attack."

I have read numerous timelines (including CNN's archived on 12Sep2001) that said "reports of fires in WTC7" occurred around 70 minutes before it collapsed, i.e. 6+ hours AFTER the North and South towers collapsed... Kinda strange for it to not catch fire until so long a time it got hit by "debris" isn't it? :-\

Okay, some information re. the timing and INTENSITY of the WTC7 fires can be found here, in the FEMA report (2002) with highlights... http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/archive/fema_403.html#5.5.3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.190.31 (talk • contribs) .

Just to clear up: The FEMA report says that firefighters checking the damage observed fires "fairly early on". No doubt there was a lot of confusion immediately after the attack, so there probably is a CNN page out there somewhere saying that there were reports of fires 70 minutes before the collapse. If it says that the reports of fires 70 minutes before the collapse were the first reports of fires, then it's wrong. As the FEMA report notes, there was news coverage of smoke emanating from WTC 7 at 1:30 PM. Which probably means the building had begun burning well before then, and in the chaos nobody noticed until there was enough smoke that somebody had to notice. --Mr. Billion 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture

Somebody please add this old picture of WTC 7 pre-9/11. The website is here- http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

I'm not sure we can argue fair use, especially since the blog doesn't indicate a source or say who's photo that is. It would be best to try and find something that can be used without strings attached. My best suggestion is to see if the Skyscraper Museum, New York Historical Society, or other such organization has something. If they do, try and clear the rights with them or whoever is the copyright holder. I may be willing to take it up with them. Though, it would be best to try that, in conjunction with bringing this article up to featured status. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse

The same FEMA report quote appears twice, with two dates (2002, 2004). This needs cleanup and verification.

I think it part of the "history" of the investigation, so it provides a chronological order of what has been learned over time.--MONGO 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction regarding 'controlled demolition' should be resolved. In the first paragraph, Silverstein states he 'pulled the plug', controlled demolition. Later on the liklihood of a controlled demolition is dismissed and referred to as a conspiracy theory.

[edit] Status of NIST Reports

This NIST page dated September 2005 lists the planned schedule for WTC 7 Reports (referring, of course, to the collapse of the first WTC 7)

• January 2006 Completion of technical work
• March 2006 Draft reports for review
• April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
• May 2006 Reports for public comment
• June 2006 Publication

I can't determine from the site if any of these project milestones were reached. It certainly seems to be the case that there was no publication of a final report. Does anyone have more recent status from NIST on them? patsw 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• See [1], question 14. --Durin 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to click on the link, here's the answer to my question:

It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

patsw 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire causing collapse

Isn't it relevant that this is the first large steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse solely because of fire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.197.127 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 September 2006.

Also isnt it weird that the firemen KNEW that it was going to collapse and told the public to get away from it! how would they know? this is the first day in history that buildings collapsed supposedly due to fire. they would have no way of knowing. unless ... it was about to be "pulled"

• No, because it's not the first large steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse solely because of fire...because it didn't collapse solely because of fire. --Durin 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right on two counts. The first large steel-framed buildings to collapse due to fire were the twin towers seven hours earlier. Also, the cause of WTC7 collapse is officially unknown. Saying it was due to fire is OR. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions from structural engineers

If unsourced opinions from NIST, not substantiated with publications have their place in the collapse section, then I'm sure that opinion of two demolition experts, and structural engineer form Swiss university have their too. Sentences I include are very NPOV and I see no reason why you MONGO would like to remove them. You have to give arguments.--SalvNaut 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a valid argument and matter of relevance to the article. Where are the unsourced NIST statements? Tyrenius 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wtc7.net as source

Unless someone is accusing them of fabricating the photograph, it's not clear to me why they are not a suitable source. However, I have substituted globalresearch.ca. They identify themselves as "an independent research and media group of writers, scholars and activists. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada...Numerous universities, libraries and research institutions have established a link to Global Research on their respective web sites. Global Research is classified by Alexa (the web-ranking organization), as The Number One Globalization Site. Global Research has about 20,000 unique visitors per day. Global Research has received for four years in succession, the Goodwriters Democratic Media Award, classified among the best 80 alternative news sites." Please do not delete this source without explaining your justification in this space. Thank you. Ribonucleic 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that Steven E. Jones specifically mentions Jim Hoffman at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, in particular the references he found at Hoffman's WTC7.net website, as the inspiration for more seriously investigating the evident controlled demolition of WTC 7, the Wiki should not pretend the site is not noteworthy enough to mention in the 7 World Trade Center article. Ombudsman 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The notion that 7 WTC fell within its footprint is often brought forth as 'proof' by the conspiracy theorists that the building was intentionally demolished. The reality is that buildings adjacent to 7 WTC all suffered significant damage from its collapse. It most definitely did NOT fall within its own footprint. For evidence of this, I cite [2]. In particular, page 20 (as numbered, 25 of 42 actual) shows significant damage to the building just north of 7 WTC, 30 West Broadway. Page 21 shows more images of this, as does page 22. Controlled demolitions do not cause such damage to neighboring buildings. In fact, great care is taken to not damage neighboring buildings. But, it doesn't stop there. Keep going through that document and you'll see damage to the Verizon building, just west of 7 WTC. This article also notes that the Verizon building was damaged by the fall of 7 WTC. Positions of these buildings relative to 7 WTC can be seen with this little map. Lastly, a review of this image shows that 7 WTC clearly did not fall within its footprint, and this image too shows the damage to 30 West Broadway. The idea that 7 WTC fell within its footprint is simply, and as I've shown, provably false. Inclusion of commentary in this article asserting that 7 WTC fell in this manner is thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Durin 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea that a controlled demolition results in the debris of the demolished building piling up completely within the building's footprint is both unfounded and against common sense. No CD, especially of a tall building, can achieve such accuracy. On the other hand, assuming that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives, it is difficult to imagine why doing everything to save the surrounding buildings from damage would have been a high priority. The closeness of WTC 7 to the surrounding buildings can be seen clearly from this aerial photograph (click the picture to enlarge it).

  WTC 7 came down just as accurately as could be expected of a controlled demolition. Saying that it caused some damage to the buildings across one street on all sides goes nowhere near refuting the CD hypothesis (besides, the damage to two of the three neighbouring buildings was really quite small). By contrast, if the building had toppled—which is how tall buildings normally collapse, on the rare occasions they collapse—the damage to one or more surrounding buildings would have been much more extensive.

  But of course, the greatest challenge to any explanation of WTC 7's collapse centering on fires and debris damage is the fact that the roof of the building came smoothly to the ground—and did so in approximately 6.5 seconds, meaning that there was simply no time for a gravity-driven destruction of intact structures. As the accident researcher and Doctor of Engineering Heikki Kurttila points out, the "observed collapse time of WTC 7 [...] is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account."

  Thus, the roof of WTC 7 came down more quickly than an object dropped from the same height reaches the ground when resisted by mere air. In other words, there was no structural resistance. It will be interesting to see if NIST even mentions this fact. My guess is no.Vesku 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The footprint issue is not going away anytime soon, despite the above reasoning. Beyond the fact that there were thousands of gallons of fuel in the lowest stories that likely contributed to collateral damage of nearby structures, the prima facie evidence of a controlled demolition has only continued to build since the 'official' 9/11 omission report. The whitewash of WTC7 in the 9/11 omission report speaks volumes about the lack of any substantive theories about why WTC7 collapsed, conspiratorial or otherwise, proffered by the Bush Administration and its allies. Like any sharp culprits, those behind the collapse seem to have done quite a bit to ensure that any actual evidence of their crimes was removed and effectively disposed or destroyed. But it was the prima facie evidence of a controlled demolition, in videos at websites like WTC7.net, that caught the attention of scientists like Steven Jones, whose subsequent paper on the physics involved with such collapses led to a concerned citizen sending him WTC evidence samples, which in turn allowed Jones to determine exactly what type of detonation took place. Jones found that the explosive used was thermite -- more to the point, he determined that the specific brand used for the controlled demolition was thermate.[3] Ombudsman 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• wtc7.net is not going to be linked. This has been discussed at great length before. Since nothing has changed in regards to the problems with wtc7.net, there is no reason to revisit the discussion to potentially come to a different conclusion. --Durin 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pray tell, what makes you so adamant about suppression of WTC7.net? The website is clearly noteworthy, as the foremost repository for information about the building and what brought it down. How and why do you assume that censorship of this sort should be upheld? Your contention seems eerily like that of the 9/11 omission commission, which totally avoided any and all reference, aside from a footnote, relating to the destruction and coverup of WTC 7 evidence. While you are at it, if you have a moment, could you please explain why you seem to think so much like the omission commission? What is it about your beliefs, with regard to the evidence presented by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman at WTC7.net, that leads you to conclude that discussion of restoring the link should also be suppressed? Ombudsman 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• As I noted above, this has been discussed at length before. Please see the archives of this talk page, which are linked at the top of the page, for the relevant discussions. There is no need to rehash the debate, as nothing of significance with relation to the debate has changed in regards to wtc7.net. --Durin 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it's been discussed, but certainly never resolved: nothing resembling a consensus has ever been reached. In my view, some of the reasons given for excluding wtc7.net from the external links were nothing short of ludicrous - like the unsupported charge that some of the pictures on that site might be under copyright, and the idea that Wikipedia's copyright policies extend to anything any article links to. --Hyperbole 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several valid reasons for it's exclusion, the discussion can be found in the archives. I think you took part in them. There was a consensus and nothings changed since. Remember, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Otherwise we'd be paralyzed. Rx StrangeLove 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing even resembling a consensus; if memory serves, there were about six users who voiced opposition to including wtc7.net and about five who felt the site should be included. I continue to believe that, while WP:RS prohibits using wtc7.net as a source, WP:EL requires that it, or another notable site of its POV, be included in the external links. --Hyperbole 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whether consensus existed in one direction or another is actually irrelevant; wtc7.net as a resource for Wikpiedia violates a number of our standards. Policy can and does on occasion trump consensus. For example, if consensus said we should violate copyrights left and right, policy must win over to protect us against lawsuits. The failure of wtc7.net to meet our standards was discussed at length and can be reviewed in the archives. A number of administrators agreed with the position. I'm sorry you take issue with it. Since this already went to an RfC without any more light being shed, you should be taking the next steps in the dispute resolution process rather than attempting to rehash the same arguments here. If you want to get wtc7.net included as a reference, then rehashing the arguments here is not going to get you what you want. --Durin 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I don't want to get wtc7.net included as a reference; I think that would violate policy. I would like to see it included as an external link - and as I said before, the reasons argued that it would violate policy if it existed in that capacity were laughable (never has Wikipedia held a policy that anything it links to must conform to its own standards on sourcing pictures!). The matter was never settled, and the fact that a group of editors have managed to keep the article in a certain state for a certain period of time doesn't mean that they can hold it there indefinitely just by saying "we already discussed this." --Hyperbole 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was settled, WP:EL covers this, see "Links normally to be avoided": points 2 and 4. Also see archive 3 above. Rx StrangeLove 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL also says that "Links normally to be avoided" is overrided by "What should be linked to" - and that there should be "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." wtc7.net is arguably the most prominent site dedicated to the controlled demolition of 7 WTC POV; the style guide clearly leads us to the conclusion that it should go in the external links. And no, the issue hasn't been settled - some just consider it settled because the article is currently in a state they like. --Hyperbole 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not linking to a biased website that is under the control of only one or a few webmasters...they have no editorial oversight and therefore wtc7.net is simply nothing but a POV pushers website. I think that ends this discussion.--MONGO 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We're linking to whatever we can build a consensus (or, if it comes to it, to use the dispute resolution process) to link to. Here's yet another reminder that you're not Wikipedia's personal dictator; shame I have to keep handing these out to you. You just make yourself look silly when you try to step into those shoes. --Hyperbole 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Consesnus won't work if you violate policy and try to link to unreliable websites...the only thing that will happen is you'll end up being blocked for disruption. That goes for any other POV pushers here as well.--MONGO 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And, as I've pointed out, the only policies being violated by including wtc7.net in the external links are ones that have been invented on the spot by those who do not want it mentioned. WP:EL makes it crystal clear that the site should be linked to. It's a shame you'd threaten to block people for following it. --Hyperbole 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL is a maunual of style...WP:RS used in conjuction with WP:V and WP:NOR eliminates wtc7.net from being a valid source for inclusion...we don't reference biased websites.--MONGO 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't reference biased websites, but we do link to them--WP:EL makes that clear. The idea that internal Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR apply to external links has apparently been invented on this talk page, just for the purpose of excluding this website. --Hyperbole 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• And we're rehashing the same argument again. Hyperbole, let me restate again: this is not going to go anywhere, and will not bring you the results you want. Since the argument has achieved as much forward progress as it possibly can on this talk page, and since an RfC brought no further satisfaction to this for you, your next step in the dispute resolution process is to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Failing that, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Durin 12:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• As I see it, there's a dedicated group of editors obstructing a group of external links for reasons not rooted in policy. It's important to make a record of that, since there are new editors all the time who rightfully notice the absence of appropriate links. Telling them that "We settled this a long time ago" isn't going to fly; we didn't. --Hyperbole 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• You've been directed as to where to go to seek remediation. You feel this isn't settled. Fine. You have your own opinion of the matter. Fine. However, it isn't going to be settled here any further. Continuing to rehash the debate so that newcomers to this can see the debate is not going to help improve the article, and that is what we are here to do. --Durin 15:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could this Finnish page be seen as offering a relatively dispassionate analysis of WTC 7? http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html --Vesku 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• No. That's just a blog. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources". Also, it's rather far from dispassionate. --Durin 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • It is a "blog" only in the sense that it is published on blogspot.com; otherwise, it does not differ in any way from a "web page". Also, I'd like you to point out precisely why it is "far from dispassionate". I don't think there are any factual, calculation, or translation errors (the conclusions of the Swiss construction professors are translated quite accurately) in it -- any more than in the WTC 7 article by a Finnish Doctor of Engineering it links to. Vesku 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions to the conspiracy theory paragraph

The source describes it as "the undercover office". The American Heritage Dictionary defines "clandestine" as "kept or done in secret". To delete that word from the sentence is to obscure the plain meaning of the source. So I'm putting it back. The deletion of Morgan Reynolds does improve NPOV though - so I'll have to agree on that. Ribonucleic 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Didn't read the definition all the way through! "Undercover" it is. Ribonucleic 23:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split article?

Has anyone thought about splitting this article? This could address the cleanup tag on the top of the article, by creating separate articles for the old building and the present building. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of that, but not sure it's necessary at this point. There are details that can be added about the new building, about how it incorporates "lessons learned" in skyscraper design and safety. Some which were mentioned in the FEMA report. I think such discussion fits well together with discussion of the old building and its collapse. Though, maybe at some point this article will be large enough, that for article size reasons, it will need to be split. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I did aswell, but i don't think its necessary as it's the same building, although not physically the same building. The new tower was made to replace the old one, and has the same name, and is in the same location. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bm2 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

The article identifies the address not the building. We cannot predict if the former building will fade in importance over time or not, and whether reader interest will be in the current or former building. The article is not long in any case. It should not be split. patsw 22:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's the extent of the discussion, then it's time to pull the split tag from the main article. patsw 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

As for cleanup, here is the article, as it existed when the cleanup tag was added. The article had 10 references, and is now up to 23 references. I'm not sure what more cleanup that person had in mind, but I think the tag can be removed now. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related article

Some of you who observe this article may be interested in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Of note, the here much debated appropriateness of using wtc7.net as a citable reference is used 13 times within that article. The article was up for AfD recently, and closed with no consensus. The closer noted in a plan of action that the articled needed "weeding out [of] improper references". --Durin 12:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I find it necessary to point out that the standards for using wtc7.net as a citable reference are altogether different from the standards for including wtc7.net as an external link. --Hyperbole 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split pages

Maybe we should split the article into two? Such as '7 World Trade Center (1978-2001)' and '7 World Trade Center (2006)'

I think it would help the layout and stop any confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.137.224 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

That was exactly my proposal above, and I still think it's a good idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 WTC is Green?

I have heard that 7 WTD is supposed to be not only very safe, but also very green, and therefore a great addition to lower Manhattan. Can anyone verify this 'greenness'?

Looks like it's already in the article: "The building is considered New York City's first "green" office tower by gaining gold status in the US Green Building Council's LEED program." The reference is here:[4]. It's interesting to note that the architect who designed 7 WTC was hired to redesign the Freedom Tower and made it significantly less green. --Hyperbole 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will split this into two articles...

...unless there are any objections with a good point. If no one has made a good objection within a week. I will split this into 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001) and 7 World Trade Center (2006).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.250.236 (talk • contribs).

Undecided...allow the editors who have worked on this article in the past to chime in...but I'm leaning towards no split and also hoping you get a username.--MONGO 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

On that last point, I agree. I sent them a {{welcomeanon}} as a little encouragement for them to register. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See #Split_article.3F section above. I don't think a split is needed at this point. As we proceed with improving/expanding this article, I may change my mind on this. Status quo is fine for now. The article isn't too long. --Aude (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Status quo is probably fine for now, though I can see a case for splitting. --Durin 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 WTC vs WTC 7

We need to clean this article up a bit. It refers to the titular building as WTC 7, 7 WTC, 7 World Trade Center, World Trade Center 7, Seven World Trade Center and World Trade Center Seven.

I official long name is and was 7 World Trade Center, and for short 7WTC.

Now I'm going to edit this and please could you try to keep your edits in this format? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.250.236 (talk • contribs).

I concur that the official name is and was "7 World Trade Center" and 7WTC. Where the confusion arises is that NIST and FEMA use WTC7 in their reports. [5] [6]. --Aude (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A search of news articles, pre-9/11 finds:

• "7 World Trade Center" - 951 results
• "World Trade Center 7" - 46 results, including some false positives (like mention of events, e.g. "...series at the World Trade Center. 7 p.m., free. Plaza")

And the abbeviations "7WTC" and "WTC7" are not used. I think Wikipedia should also avoid the abbreviations, altogether. --Aude (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)