| Revision as of 01:19, 21 November 2007 editDavid Barba (talk | contribs)386 edits →Addendum Is Absolutely Necessary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:38, 1 September 2024 edit undoEpicgenius (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers331,003 edits Revert trollingTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=21:12, 19 September 2007 |
|
|action1date=21:12, 19 September 2007 |
| Line 6: |
Line 9: |
|
|action1oldid=158428949 |
|
|action1oldid=158428949 |
|
|maindate=November 21, 2007 |
|
|maindate=November 21, 2007 |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|
|action2 = FAR |
|
|
|action2date = 2024-07-13 |
|
|
|action2link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result = demoted |
|
|
|action2oldid = 1229835027 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{TrollWarning}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=FA|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |911=yes |importance=Low |911-importance=High |portal1-name=United States |portal1-link=Selected article/12}} |
|
{{WikiProjectFireService|class=FA}} |
|
|
{{Skyscrapers|class=FA|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |importance=mid}} |
|
----- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Firefighting |importance=High}} |
|
{{archive box|box-width=13em|<small>For earlier discussions, see:</small><br> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
], |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=tpm}} |
|
], |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
], |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
], |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
]}} |
|
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
== Construction above power substation == |
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive %(counter)d |
|
''The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building on the site, which would be 25 stories and contain 600,000 sq ft. The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building, which also covered a significantly larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built''...can we elaborate what design changes were implemented to accomodate the original building? Or possibly expand on how they were able to build a 47 story structure when only a 25 story one had been originally considered?--] 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:I have expanded upon what factors made the building unique, in terms of structural design, and how engineers were able to build on the site given those issues. Is it clear enough now, or is there anything that's still confusing? --] <small>(])</small> 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
::I'll check it out and see, but this looks excellent now.--] 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|target= Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive index |
|
|
|
|
|
|mask= Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive <#> |
|
== Collapse video == |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
Link to web resources for viewing the collapse of WTC 7 returned. As it represents one of the few (of three, actually) skyscraper collapses in history, readers should be encouraged to view its significant collapse. At least, there is absolutely no reason not to link to online material showing its collapse. ] 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{copied|from=7 World Trade Center|to=7 World Trade Center (1987–2001)|date=2023-09-15}} |
|
:YouTube and Google videos are not generally used as resources for articles. Your link to a list of google videos is not pertinent to this article since all refs need some introduction as to what they are viewing. Not all the videos on that link have valid copy rights. I'm not sure why you are removing pertinent info from the middle of a paragraph. Please discuss before making changes and if you are reverted by more than one person, you do not have consensus of the editors for your changes. WP works by consensus. --] 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{archives|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}} |
|
|
|
|
* The video you linked to is highly misleading, as it only shows 6 seconds of the collapse. In reality, the east penthouse began to collapse 8.2 seconds before the global collapse (what you see in the video you link). The overall collapse took at least 16 seconds. The link is definitely not appropriate. |
|
|
* What you say about "no steel recovered" is not the whole story. The FEMA/ASCE teams, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Dr. J. Gross, a structural engineer at NIST, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley were among those that had access to Fresh Kills Landfill and other locations where steel was taken. They were unable to identify with 100% certainty any pieces as being from WTC 7, and not from the twin towers. But, they had the opportunity to look and did collect samples for the twin towers. |
|
|
* Also not accurate that NIST relied solely on "videos and eyewitness testimony". WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi). NIST also worked with structural design drawings and talked with people involved in designing the building. The steel used in WTC 7 was typical, and properties of the steel can be estimated, in order for modeling to be carried out. |
|
|
* Adding "There are numerous resources for viewing the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the Internet, including Google Video." in the middle of the article is entirely inappropriate. --] <small>(])</small> 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
- If the video I linked to is "misleading", feel free to suggest a better one! The important thing is to link to *some* decent-quality video showing this major collapse. If a link to the collapse video "in the middle of the article is entire inappropriate" (why?), let us find a better place for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
- As regards NIST's "no steel was recovered" statement, it is noteworthy that NIST gives the impression that it has not had access to steel from this collapse. Steel from WTC 7 would have been relatively easy to isolate from that of the Twin Towers, as the building stood for hours after the Twin Towers' collapse and had a smallish debris field. |
|
|
|
|
|
- My formulation did not indicate that NIST relied SOLELY on "videos and eyewitness testimony". I wrote "including videos and eyewitness testimony". Please refrain from distorting. ] 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I added a link to a collection of WTC 7 collapse videos to the External Links section. The link is to http://wtc7.net/videos.html If you are not satisfied with that selection or site, feel free to suggest an alternative. It is absurd that the article currently has no link to any collapse video of the building. Could a collapse video be somehow embedded to the article? ] 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The wtc7 link is not suitable. It says things like "they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish.", which is not at all the case. The collapse took 16-18 seconds in entirety. We don't link to sites like that here. We now have a link to a different video. --] <small>(])</small> 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Inconsistencies in and lack of investigations == |
|
|
|
|
|
How can it be that building 7 World Trade Center collapsed because of the debris and the fire? While the structural design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand enormous damages before it would ever collapse, if ever. And why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire, like it should? Skyscrapers should be able to withstand much larger damage. That's why engineers tend to take them into account and use extra safety margins on top of that. |
|
|
Still it is said that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column. So a much stronger then usual critical column failed. I'm talking columns which even under normal building principles, where no tower extension is planned, are not only the strongest colums of the building but are also build with extra safety margins. |
|
|
And that while the debris had only hit the base of the tower and a corner while these colums lie in the center of the building. This means the fire did the trick. But how can that be, buildings like this are engineered to withstand much larger fires of longer duration and above that are even constructed with a sprinkler systems. So things happened that could not have happened under sound engineering and operating principles. This article should have a note on that and it should present the facts on where engineering and/or operation failed and why. For instance, which mistakes were made in engineering, constructing, maintaining and using building 7 so that it collapsed, and building 6 did not while building 6 was hit harder and should have been weaker. There should be reports on that. And if there are not, than what has taken them so long to do find out which under other circumstances would have been clear by long? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
# The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps; it was not an automatic system |
|
|
# Sprinkler system may have been damaged by debris. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; damage there would have meant no functioning sprinklers. |
|
|
# The sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers |
|
|
# Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers in the first place, even if they were still functioning. |
|
|
# Low water pressure also meant that firefighters were unable to do much to manually fight the fire. |
|
|
# Buildings are not engineered to withstand much larger fires of longer duration. WTC 7 had fireproofing that was designed to last 2-hour for steel beams, girders and truss, and 3-hours for columns. The fires burned for much longer than that. In normal circumstances, that should allow time for firefighters to work on the fire or at least evacuate occupants. Firefighters had little or no water, the building was unstable and in danger of collapsing, and they already lost hundreds of firefighters (need not risk more) since occupants were evacuated. --] <small>(])</small> 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
yeah right. -] 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Move collapse section to collapse article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
How does everyone feel about moving the information about the collapse to the ] article? The section links there with the promise of a "main article", but the section here is much more substantial than the section there. (Alternative: move the main article link to the collapse article. But that seems counter-intuitive.) If we move it, we should of course leave a summary here.--] 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oppose any major changes to this article. It just became a featured article.--] 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I adjusted the links here.--] 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Making this a "See also" link as MONGO did is appropriate. Aside from that, no changes are needed here. --] <small>(])</small> 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question == |
|
|
|
|
|
In this ABC picture, what are we seeing. A desription of the picture would be really helpful.--] 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The caption says "Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. From a news helicopter, ABC News captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, ''including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories.''" What about the caption is not clear? --] <small>(])</small> 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Where in the picture is the gash?--] 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
= Some concerns about the collapse section = |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the section is very informative and interesting, but I have a couple of concerns about the sources. |
|
|
*The first description ("volcanic erruption") comes from a response, not just to conspiracy theories, but to a popular talk show host's version of them. There are much better sources to support statements about the effects of the collapse of the North Tower on building 7. I would recommend confining all the sources that pertain to these theories to the paragraph devoted to them. (Rosie is of course one of the most notable cases of promoting WTC7 as a demolition; she is an important part of the popular mythology that surrounds WTC7.) |
|
|
*The description of events during the day, observation by firefighters, etc. seems to be a synthesis of statements without any authoritative source. I think we should stick to the timelines proposes in the early FEMA report and the interim NIST report at this stage. |
|
|
Like I say, we should do what we can to keep the section informative, but these issues about sources and synthesis seem important as well. We had a bit of a discussion about it at the main collapse article .--] 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion== |
|
|
::I don't think that Rosie is an important part of anything regarding WTC7...aside from her opinion, which is based on just that, her opinion. I disagree with the changes you are proposing...this is a featured article and passed the featured article process with a complaint only about one of the images. I see no reason to mess with this article at this time.--] 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would be ironic if featured article status made it more difficult to improve an article. The article already does a good job on the CT mythology; I am suggesting we improve it there, and (in line with Tom Harrison's suggestion over on the collapse article) confining CT-related sources to CT-related parts of the article.--] 07:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The only way to "improve" the CT stuff would be to say it is idiotic, but that would be too kind, and not encyclopedic, even though I am sure I can find plenty of sources that have stated this and easily reference it.--] 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In ref 20, Popular Mechanics tells us that Rosie's remarks "renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7" and that NIST has begun to "address concerns of conspiracy theorists". This tells us something about the impact of conspiracy theories on both science and society. While I don't really like this source (it is only the weblog of a popular magazine, after all), I think these two ideas are supported by better sources elsewhere, including PM's book on the same subject. So, for example, both Keith Seffen at Cambridge and Zdenek Bazant at North Western have submitted work to a top engineering journal defending progressive collapse specifically to (using PM's phrase) address the concerns of conspiracy theorists. That's a pretty unambiguous impact on scientific research. Likewise, Rosie received wide (mostly negative) coverage at the time of her remarks. That's impact on society. So it is easy to document that CTs like this are not just the idiotic personal opinions of individuals. Not mentioning them here would be a bit like not mentioning Nixon in the ] article. Do note that in the exemplary mention of the Watergate scandal, not even the word "illegal" is used. That's because it would insult the intelligence of the reader.--] 06:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There is no reason to expand on CT stuff in this article..the more we add, the more credibility we give it. It is our job to rise above this foolishness. Rosie's opinions were a momentary issue that has now since passed...no one with a rational mind was swayed by her opinions.--] 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That's truly unapologetically POV. The notability of a theory should determine its weight in the article. Your personal view on whether the theory is "foolish" is completely irrelevant and has no place here. It is not our job at Misplaced Pages to "rise above" what people believe about the world - it's our job to report it. --] 02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The lack of notability as far as science is all that matters...we don't report on the opinions of non-experts.--] 06:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::In this case we are in a position to report the expert opinions of several engineers (Bazant, Greening, Seffen and others) along with coverage in Popular Mechanics. Science simply ''has'' taken notice. We may find that regrettable, but there's nothing left to do but report it.--] 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::What notice have they taken? Where do you get your information?--] 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Bazant et al.'s tech report (), BBC coverage of Seffen's paper (, press release ). Plus the Popular Mechanics blog source and it's links to NIST (already in article).--] 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Correct yourself, Hyperbole. The job of Misplaced Pages should be to report truth, to the best extent possible. What "people believe about the world" is incredibly ambiguous and self-defeating for Misplaced Pages's purpose. There is objective truth, whether anyone is aware of it or not. |
|
|
PM's description isn't the best. I thought about changing it before, and now have reworded it. --] <small>(])</small> 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:PS - I'm on wikibreak and might respond slowly to queries. Please bear with me. Regards. --] <small>(])</small> 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::That does the trick.--] 14:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Separate section on the synthesis of eyewitness account== |
|
|
|
|
|
To keep things orderly, here's a separate section to discuss the second issue. |
|
|
*The description of events during the day, observation by firefighters, etc. seems to be a synthesis of statements without any authoritative source. I think we should stick to the timelines proposes in the early FEMA report and the interim NIST report at this stage. |
|
|
(Please note that this really has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.)--] 06:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:FDNY chief Daniel Nigro was present on 9/11 and involved with operations during the afternoon. Are you telling me that Chief Nigro is not a reliable source? How so? He was there. FDNY chief Peter Hayden, also on the scene, not a reliable source? FDNY captain Chris Boyle? not reliable? These accounts were published by the New York Times and Firehouse Magazine, which are reliable "authoritative" sources. These are simply descriptions of what was happening and are completely relevant to the article. If anything, I think we could add more description from other firefighters. But, taking any of this out is not an option. --] <small>(])</small> 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::The problem we are going to run into arises when these firefighters (as often happens) offer slightly different accounts of the same events, slightly different chronologies, etc. We are in no position to decide between them. To my mind, the problem is akin to what happens in articles on works of literature: the best policy is not to let our own reading of the texts determine, say, the description of the plot.--] 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="Facts are facts ... but, truthfully, I don't really know."== |
|
|
The New York Magazine article that Sunder's "Who's Who of experts" quote is taken from continues as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
:I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report? |
|
|
:This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year. |
|
|
:NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.” |
|
|
:Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” |
|
|
|
|
|
I think some of this needs to go in the article. Sunder is saying that the experts, who have a good handle on the Towers, are still puzzled by WTC 7. The article leaves out the the part of Sunder's answer that specifically pertains to WTC 7. This is especially troubling, by the way, because the WTC7 section in the controlled demolition hypothesis article doesn't leave this point out. That seems to me to indicate that Sunder's words have been inadvertently POV forked.--] 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Forked in what direction?--] 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just had a look at both sections again. I think the answer is both. The CDH article, when discussing NIST, seems slightly biased in the direction of CDH--leaving out NIST's statement that it has found nothing to suggest CD. The 7 WTC article leaves out Sunder's direct statement that he doesn't know what happened to the building, while quoting only his confidence in his team (which, like I say, pertains to the Tower investigation, not 7WTC.) The ideal solution here would be to write a paragraph about NIST's position on the 7 WTC CDH that can be put in both articles. That would avoid the POV-fork.--] 10:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is not the CDH article. Such details need to go there, not here. --] <small>(])</small> 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But don't you see the problem? We are offering a CDH-favourable slant on this exchange in the CDH article and a sanitized version of the same exchange in the 7 WTC article, even though they are talking about exactly the same issue. That looks like POV-forking.--] 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's because the CDH page is full of ], and slanted to give the "hypothesis" more credibility. Sunder's quote is being misconstrued by you guys to give the assumption that because they aren't yet precisely sure which trusses and which support columns failed first, second, etc...and his comment that they are not sure why, somehow equals some other cause aside from long burning fires and severe damage. This article, as it exists gives an excellent overview of what happened. If I have time, I'll go over to that CDH article and clean it up.--] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm sure the CDH article can be cleaned up. I may beat you to it. But in this case the CDH article is more accurate. My view is that since it is the very same issue, the articles should say the same thing. That thing is: when Sunder was asked about the possibility of controlled demolition of 7 WTC he said he didn't really know. When NIST was asked about it later (in the FAQ), they said they had no reason to suspect CD but they were considering hypothetical blast scenarios. The "Who's Who of experts" remark wasn't about building seven. It is misleading to present it as though it is.--] 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yeah, I read that...again, making something out of nothing is not what a scientific treatise incorporates. Sunder's remarks shouldn;t be taken out of context or elaborated on as if he meant more than what he stated. As a scientist...a really good scientist, they are supposed to look at everything...even if it is preposterous. Same can be said about physical antropologists...while they ''know'' Bigfoot does not exist, many do not take the assumption that it is impossible...the evidence that Bigfoot exists is so miniscule, that for all practical purposes, it really is not possible that he does...the same aplies here, and as far as I am concerned, expanding on science fiction for the sake of catering to the CD crowd is not necessary.--] 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::My suggestion here is not to expand, but to properly represent what Sunder said about building 7, since that is what the article is about. All he said was, and all the article should say he said, was that NIST still hasn't got a good handle on building 7 (or at least didn't when he was asked). AS it stands, it looks like he said that they've got it well in hand, that they know "the facts".--] 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The quote, "truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” is already in there, but does need to be there twice. It's also not really related to conspiracy theories. They know that fire caused the collapse, but it has been difficult for them to find the exact point that the collapse initiated and other such details. --] <small>(])</small> 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You're right. I had forgotten to remove the earlier instance. I'm going to revert back (and remove the second), just so we have an alternative. Like the "volcanic eruption" remark, I think it is best to leave, as much as possible, official reactions to conspiracy theories in the paragraphs that are about those theories.--] 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:PS It was important to me to correct the impression that Sunder's "who's who" applied to conclusions reached about building seven.--] 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That part of the New York Magazine article is talking about the NIST report for WTC7 and why it's been delayed. |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{quotation|I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report? This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year. NIST did have some "preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::That they have had difficulty is nothing to do with the conspiracy theories, and doesn't belong in the paragraph discussing those. Moving it there takes the quote out of context, and is not an improvement to the article. --] <small>(])</small> 00:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have removed the quote entirely, and replaced it with more recent information from NIST. --] <small>(])</small> 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't agree that it was taken out of context (the whole article the quote comes from is about CTs). But I do agree that the paragraph is better without Sunder's remarks at all. Like I say, the "but truthfully" was necessary to correct the impression that the "who's who of experts" had WTC7 well in hand.--] 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== About splitting the articles into two == |
|
== New photos == |
|
|
|
{{Archive top|result=Consensus to split ] from ] <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 15:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Should we have separate articles for the original 7 World Trade Center and the new one? I ask because this article, despite its inbox being the new 7 WTC, has more of a focus on the original building. --] (]) 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:@] I don't know what other people think, but my personal opinion is that we should at least consider it. However, the fact that it's a featured article means we really should get consensus for a split before trying to split it ourselves. I'm not sure whether the two resulting articles would be up to FA standards; there's a lot of info about both of them, but such a major change may mean a featured article review is needed. – ] (]) 12:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you for the response. I have to agree; we need a consensus first, and a feature article review would help get a better consensus on this. My opinion now remains the same as it did in September, having this articles split in two makes the most logical sense IMO, the other World Trade Center buildings are split in two, to separate the destroyed buildings from the rebuilt ones (e.g. One World Trade Center/Freedom Tower being the one post-9/11 and List of tenants of One World Trade Center being the one pre-9/11). We also have two pages for each respective World Trade Center complex as well. --] (]) 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree, should be separated. Each of the buildings are different and deserve their own articles and their own unique infoboxes. i guess this is already the split page of the original WTC 7 - ] , it has an infobox and description about the building itself. ] (]) 02:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just removed a {{tl|split}} tag from the ] article. It seems that, rather than splitting the "tenants" article, we should move that page to ], then relocate the info from ''this'' page into the 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article. The only reason I have not done this yet is that this is a featured article (albeit an old one), so any major edit requires much more consensus compared to most articles.{{pb}}Incidentally, there is a similar issue with ]. This building also has a predecessor structure, but the old building, old building's tenants, and new building are all described in one article. Honestly, the WTC pages have suffered from this problem for two decades; the combination of old and new buildings into one article makes it really hard to focus on either structure. – ] (]) 15:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support split'''. Both buildings are independently notable. ] (]) 17:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support split''' as well--independently notable and separate buildings. ] (]) 07:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
I have new photos of the new building that can be used in the article. Probably can only add one (or maybe two), and not decided which ones. I'm open to suggestions. Also, I'm having some trouble uploading to commons, and don't have time or patience to upload all. Right now they are posted on --] <small>(])</small> 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:*''' Support split ''' per nom |
|
|
:<span style="color:#006600">] (])</span> 19:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support split''', the article has enough history and notability to warrant a seperate article <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:If this is being kept as one article, the lead should be crystal clear that both buildings are described in the article. Keep in mind that the info box shows the specifics for the present building only. I find it more logical to have two articles, with each referring to the other with the About template up top. That is how the main buildings are handled. - - ] (]) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
:This or another interior might be good: . Outside, this is a great shot: . ] <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I honestly support splitting the two, both buildings are notable and deserve their own articles ] (]) 01:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support split''' per {{u|Epicgenius}}. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Given that consensus seems to be leaning toward a split, I'll let this conversation run for a few more weeks while I figure out how this article's FA status is going to be addressed. More likely, both articles will have to be demoted and then gradually work their way back up to FA.{{pb}}The drafts are at ] and ]. – ] (]) 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:* '''Support split.''' The WTC from 2001 had a depression article- this one should too. |
|
Switched the one in the infobox, and added the other. |
|
|
|
:] (]) 16:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:@] |
|
|
:Of course there should be two articles, because of how notable the original wtc 7 was in terms of both historical context (9/11 history) and scientific context (a very unusual and unexpected structural collapse which sheds new light onto the science of building safety) ] (]) 00:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== There is a Duplicate == |
|
<gallery> |
|
|
Image:Wtc7 july2006b.jpg|A |
|
|
Image:Wtc7 july2006c.jpg|B |
|
|
Image:Wtc7-2006-0911.jpg|C |
|
|
Image:Wtc7_jan06.jpg|D |
|
|
</gallery> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is a featured one but while searching for the world trade center I found another GA class article named ]. Isn't it a duplicate? ] (]) 12:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
Though, photo A and B would also work. Don't have a preference. --] <small>(])</small> 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:No. DId you read both articles? '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. This article is about a specific building (or rather, buildings) that are part of the WTC site. The WTC (1973-2001) article is about a completely different topic, namely the first complex (which includes the original 7 WTC and also other buildings). – ] (]) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge proposal == |
|
== Addendum Is Absolutely Necessary == |
|
|
|
I propose merging ] into ].] (]) 02:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This draft actually exists because of the split proposal above. It's not a different article; rather, it's an outline of what the article will be like after it is split.{{pb}}A merge implies that all of the content of the draft will be added to the article, regardless of whether the info related to the old 7 WTC will be removed. Since the discussion above is about whether the articles should be split in the first place (and the relevant info copied to the draft), I feel like this merge discussion will confuse people, since the 7 WTC draft is specifically intended for a ''split'', not as a duplicate of this article. Furthermore, the existence of ] and ] is already mentioned above. Therefore, I'm removing this tag to reduce confusion. ] (]) 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== University of Alaska study == |
|
It truly strains credulity to state the pat explanation of WTC 7's collapse and have absolutely NO MENTION of the glaring contradictions and various inconsistencies in its underpinning. It is now common (and NOT fanatical) knowledge that something fishy was afoot in (at LEAST) the collapse of WTC 7. More than a few structural engineers, demolitions experts, some of them on-site witnesses of the collapse, have all come forward (in the face of great resistance and admonishment) and expressed their doubts and reasons for them. These are not crackpots or conspiracy theorists. These are professionals trained in the assessment and maintenance of structural safety and integrity, with thorough knowledge of how and why different buildings collapse. Many years of study and real-world experience inform these people's opinions and yet they are dismissed out of hand due to, at least from one angle, the emotional and social sensitivities of other Americans who are, simply put, too terrified of the possible implications to even entertain these "wild notions." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any truly objective reason why editors keep removing the mention of a formal study written by a qualified professional at an accredited school of engineering? ] (]) 00:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
And let's not start with Larry Silverstein's unintentional gaff of stating ON CAMERA that they "pulled" the building. Please, no semantic discussions; HE SAID IT and so did other WTC engineers. And there are many accounts of witnesses reporting secondary explosions preceding the collapse of all the fallen WTC structures. These all amount to the proverbial elephant in the room. |
|
|
|
:You mean ]? It's because the study is a ] theory, promoted by ]. Per ], "Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." – ] (]) 15:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Post-split FA status == |
|
Long story short, SOME mention of these unacknowledged aspects and their prismatic effect on our perception of the 9/11 events as presented in a "people's encyclopedia" is absolutely a must if faith in Misplaced Pages as an unbiased, living document is to be maintained. ] (]) 06:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To break out the discussion ]. I recommend sending both split articles back through FA since they are both materially different (in content and scope) than the one previously reviewed, as well as the ] to be addressed. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
I agree. The article, as currently written, does not mention any of the inconsistencies or faults of the widely held fire-collapse account but instead presents it as fact rather than speculation, as no official government or professional body has yet to fully explain the collapse. See Lee Hamilton's admission that WTC 7 collapse is still on open question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@], also leaving the implementation/redirection of ] here to you, since you know the content best <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
The small section on alternative theories ("conspiracy theories") for collapse is currently worded with a POV bias. At the very least this part needs expansion in order to justly summarize alternative perspectives on the collapse. Resources for this job are immense and easy to access. I hope someone with more detailed knowledge than me can do this necessary job.--] (]) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Thanks for the ping @]. I definitely was thinking of demoting this page from FA, then sending both articles back through the relevant processes. I will probably be able to split the page in a few days. – ] (]) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, I see you split the article already. I will try to correct some of the links to this article later, in that case, just to make sure they're pointing to the right place. – ] (]) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've fixed all article-space links. Links in other namespaces, such as template or portal, have not been corrected yet. – ] (]) 17:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we have separate articles for the original 7 World Trade Center and the new one? I ask because this article, despite its inbox being the new 7 WTC, has more of a focus on the original building. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
