Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 10 May 2006

For earlier discussions, see Talk:7 World Trade Center/archive1 Template:TrollWarning

Picture of new building

Shouldn't there be a picture of what the new WTC 7 will look like? I feel it should be there...maybe a picture of the old one as well when it existed. (Jamandell (d69) 14:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC))

Durin...seems the puffs of "air" come out before building 7 even starts to fall. How could your theory of air from inside being forced out hold water? the building isnt falling while the puffs come out of the building! It doesnt add up to support your claim.

concerned 63.224.35.58 00:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

According to FEMA, the collapse sequence took more than 30 seconds to complete, of which the last several seconds were the most dramatic and visible. There was substantial collapse happening inside the building during the collapse sequence before the ultimate catastrophic failure. --Durin 02:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

durin...ty for the reply. that theory is very plausible as well.unsigned edit by 63.224.35.58 (talk · contribs)

I haven't read all of the debate in the archives, so fault me if I'm wrong or off base, but I think Durin is correct: This talk page isn't a place to argue about unknown facts. Since we don't know what actually happened (for sure), we need to describe the collapse in terms of what people say it is. As long as we say "according to..." or something similar, and as long as we show both/all views proportionally, the article has a neutral point of view. Where do you see bias in this article, Alfonslof? Please cite specific quotes. If there really is bias, we want to get rid of it. But stating the "other side" isn't grounds for an NPOV tag. ElAmericano 02:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has answered, and I don't see any bias. I'm removing the NPOV tag, but if someone presents some justification for it, I'm fine with that, too. ElAmericano 22:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The building is complete, big party next weekend for it.

The building is not complete. No party yet. CoolGuy 15:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Can we move the conspiracy theories to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Most of this is redundant to that page as is. I think it would be best to have a brief mention of the theory here and then put a link like

or something. I'm not sure why these theories should be like 3/4's of the page. --Quasipalm 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That might be better. However, if we do that, the 9/11 conspiracy theories page should probably have an entire section devoted to WTC7, rather than dispersing various pieces of WTC7 information throughout the existing structure of that article. Further, the few existing tidbits of WTC7 information on that page should be integrated into that section. My $0.02. --Hyperbole 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the explanation from the promoters of the 9/11 conspiracy theories for how tens of thousands of people involved in the official investigation of the collapse of WTC7 were kept from revealing the truth? patsw 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving it to one place would make sense. There is a tendency to write the same article over and over again at all points, rather than a focussed article on one thing at one point. Repetition should not be mistaken for force of argument. There probably are not so many as tens of thousands of people who get a look at the building for the purpose of explaining its collapse, and like the conspiracy theorists most of them will be unable to make sense of it. however there will have been enough before and after that a conspiracy theory seems unlikely. Midgley 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Collapse

Why are the advocates of the official story glad to have the Larry Silverstein "pull-it" comment on here, but balk at allowing the aspects of the collapse that resemble demolition to be posted? Seems odd that some questions are okay, but others - the ones that are not refutable - aren't. And the reason they are removed keeps changing. 67.170.205.59 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Due to the subject of the article, quite a number of reversions have happened. Quite a large number of them have been because people have attempted to lace the article with unsubstantiated speculation. One of the frequent claims is that the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprints. This is factually false in all cases. But, people who believe the buildings were intentionally demolished attempt to use this as a basis for proving they were demolished. So, they want to lace the article on this building and others in the WTC complex with similar wordings. Another common claim is that WTC 7 collapsed in just a few seconds. This is also factually incorrect. The collapse sequence took about a minute. Another claim is the puffs of material prove explosives. This is also factually incorrect; if a building collapses, the pancaking floors are going to cause material to push outward, as air is being forced out. That this looks like puffs is not proof of demolition charges. The point is, we base encyclopedia articles on *fatual*, verifiable information. We do not write articles based on speculation. The vast majority of information available that supposedly supports various conspiracies theories (ranging from windowless 767s firing air to ground missiles to underground nuclear explosions causing the buildings to "jump" and everything inbetween) is either itself pure speculation or based on speculation. I recall one conspiracy theorist insisting he had proof because a Ph. D. said the buildings were intentionally demolished. Turned out the Ph. D. was a professor of...recreation. This is not a credible resource. --Durin 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed...we have to stick to facts, not speculations...facts are that those that claim almost no steel frame buildings have simply fallen down due to fire fail to recognize a few things. Firstly, large building fires are actually very rare...one recent fire in Omaha Nebraska of a 12 story building in which the entire central section collapsed was national news due to the size of the fire...and that is a 12 story building, not almost a 50 story one. Secondly, as was the case in WTC 7, there was a large corner of the building that was severely damaged by the collaspe of the north tower of the WTC...some of the steel frame from WTC was projected all the way into the central core of WTC 7, damaging the support structure. Fires were burning throughout the building for many hours and were essentially out of control and the loss of life already by firefighters made the unnecessary attempts to fight another deadly fire too much, especially since the real need by that time was to try and locate missing persons from the main towers. Lastly, much of the collapse is "in the dust"...once the building gets to the 30th floor, you can't even see the remaining collapse as it is obscured by dust it is creating. The combinations of severe structural damage, persistant fires and ground destablization is why WTC 7 failed.--MONGO 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"One of the frequent claims is that the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprints. This is factually false in all cases." Hardly.

They did not fall sideways.

They did not fall partially.

They did not tip to one side and gradually slide down on one side.

They fell *straight* down and although the debris *clouds* were large, they mushroomed symmetrically around the centers of each falling tower, which are documented in the FEMA reports. The image is at the bottom of this page

"Another common claim is that WTC 7 collapsed in just a few seconds. This is also factually incorrect." Look at the videos and time them yourself for chrissakes! Physics Professor Steven Jones timed it with his entire class of students and they got about 7 seconds (6.6 sec). It doesn't take a mathematician to look at a watch and look at a video. Please show me the video where it took a MINUTE for the building to fall. There are videos all over the internet. Show me one.

"Firstly, large building fires are actually very rare." They are documented here and include 4 steel frame skyscrapers burning for multiple hours.

More later . . . Bov 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The references you cite are not mainstream...they are looking for evidence and they have to dig deep...tell me...how many steel frame structures do you think exist in Manhatten alone...I'm not sure...I couldn't even guess, but at least 1,000...and that is just in that one city...now how many homes do you think burn up in New York state every year? Many...hundreds. Steel frame structure fires are incredibly rare, so much so that they cite only 4...and of those four, how many were one block from the destabilizing effects of hundreds of thousands of tons of just collapsed remains of the twin towers. Did the 4 buildings cited there also experience massive destabilzation and structural damage to their southwestern corners, as happened at WTC7? Buildings do not fall over...they fall down.--MONGO 01:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• As documented by FEMA, the collapse sequence of WTC 7 took 37 seconds. Please see , page 5-23. Note that the collapse sequence isn't timed from the point at which global collapse initiated. There was considerable structural failure prior to the initiation of global collapse. Once global collapse initiates, the building will obey the laws of gravity just like any other falling object. That the gobal collapse of the building was just as fast as any other object does not prove demolition; it proves the existence of gravity, and nothing more. --Durin 16:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison You have removed the link to a video of Larry Silverstein's quote. I don't see any reason for this removal. Isn't one of our goals on wikipedia to give fully sourced information. Here is the quote from the article:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

Here is the link to the video that you removed: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=trade+center+7&pl=true Kaimiddleton 18:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Would this be the video titled, "Larry Silverstein Admits to Demolishing World Trade Center 7 on 9/11"? Tom Harrison 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is in fact the title. One might say "If the shoe fits wear it". More to the point, though: The video exactly represents the words of Larry Silverstein in much more clear form than ascii text. If we're to be a premier information source then we should give users tools to evaluate the arguments in the milieux. Pretty much any information source is going to be biased one way or another on this issue. If we're willing to put in links to Fox broadcasts of the content of Bush's speech after 9/11, or such, why shouldn't other publicly available sources be acceptable as well? From the quote alone some ambiguity might exist. But from hearing the video, the "juror" (the wiki-reader) can form an opinion based on much clearer evidence. Kaimiddleton 21:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote in context, cited from a reputable source, is better than a video with a leading title, chosen to support a conclusion. Tom Harrison 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. I reiterate my point about understanding video over a transcript. I give a further example from Salon.com:

On his latest public relations offensive, President Bush went to Cleveland Monday to answer the paramount question about the Iraq war he said people have on their minds: "They wonder what I see that they don't." After mentioning "terror" 54 times and "victory" five, dismissing "civil war" twice, and asserting that he is "optimistic," he called upon a citizen in the audience, who homed in on the invisible meaning of recent events in the light of two books, the Book of Revelation and "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. Phillips, the questioner explained, "makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the Apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse? And if not, why not?"

Bush's immediate response, as transcribed by CNN, was, "Hmmm." Then he said, "The answer is I haven't really thought of it that way. Here's how I think of it. First, I've heard of that, by the way." The official White House Web site transcript alters the punctuation, dropping the strategic comma, adding "the" and thereby changing the meaning: "The first I've heard of that, by the way."

Note the part I emphasized: the transcript was misconstrued in a way to benefit Bush's point of view. If Silverstein wants to backpedal from his use of "pull" to mean "demolish the building" then why give him the strength of relying on a transcript? The audio argument is much stronger. Kaimiddleton 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Well, I disagree with you." Yes. Choosing the sources to present the strongest case is not encyclopedia writing, it's advocacy. Tom Harrison 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If there really are concerns that the transcript of the video is somehow inadequate, we could try linking directly to the video file at several locations, including here . However, I really do feel that the video has been accurately transcribed and that actually seeing it doesn't give any significant additional information. --Hyperbole 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Quoting from Misplaced Pages:External_links: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." It seems clear to me that the "alternate theories regarding the collapse" links must be, at least, fairly represented, if not preserved in their entirety. That WTC7's collapse was not caused secondary to the plane crashes earlier that day is a widespread POV; removing that section entirely amounts to nothing more than rank censorship. --Hyperbole 05:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added what I believe are accurate comments informing readers of the POV of two of the "alternate theories" links. With respect to "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," that link more properly belongs on the main "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, and since it is represented there, it does not, in my opinion, need to be represented here. --Hyperbole 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the engineering department at BYU doesn't support Steven Jones' opinion...nor does the mainstream press, the U.S. government or any other foreign reputable government. It's junk science. Jim Hoffman link is the same. Misrepresentations of the evidence, misquotes, miscues to deliberately slant the "evidence" to make it appear they have a case. We don't cite in an encyclopedic forum unpeer reviewed original research. Those websites are by the hundreds and all they sell is the same old thing.--MONGO 06:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your POV on this issue is very clear. What isn't clear is whether you think there is any reason, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:External_links, that external links representing the other POV should be excluded from the article. --Hyperbole 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we not not give undue weight to junk science and try to call it encyclopedic.--MONGO 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It meets the external links policy to my satisfaction. Whether any of the information in those links should be added to the article, and those cites used as references, raises the question of whether the links are encyclopedic. When they exist only as external links, the only question we need to address is whether one common POV is being adequately and fairly represented. I think those external links do a good job of representing the POV that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. --Hyperbole 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Brought down by explosives. Sure...they were blown up right? Okay. See:WP:NOR and the section about undue weight ...so few people with more than 12 brain cells believe that there was controlled demolition, aside from cranks and politically inspired (and anti-American) POV pushers that even linking to their bogus websites is undue weight. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."--MONGO 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, MONGO, your POV on the issue is crystal-clear, and arguing the actual point is not the purpose of this talk page. The viewpoint that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is in no way an extremely small or vastly limited minority view. For just one example, polls show that one in five Germans - somewhere on the order of a million people in that country alone - believe the U.S. had a role in the destruction of the WTC. It's a common POV both inside and outside the U.S.; like all common POVs, it deserves representation. You yourself said that "these websites appear by the hundreds" - "extremely small minority view"? --Hyperbole 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what my POV is. Most of the Germans don't think the U.S. should be fighting in Iraq either, so what. It doesn't deserve representation becuase it is nothing but fabrications and misrepresentation of the facts...explosives to bring down the building..want kind of. There are hundreds of websites on Bigfoot too...does that make it factual...of course not. It is not a common POV inside the U.S. or even outside, unless these internationals have been deliberately mislead by their media and newspapers. That's okay, I just take the nonsense you peddle out and others will too when they have a chance to chime in. What kind of moronic fools would believe something so completely ludicrus? Oh gee...not one shred of proof of any of it...none! But I guess these people must also believe in the tooth fairy and UFO's too, eh...12 brain cells indeed.--MONGO 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you're being deliberately insulting and rude. The POV that the WTC7 was demolished by explosives has thousands if not millions of adherents. It has, as demanded by the Misplaced Pages guidelines on NPOV you cited, significant proponents who are easily named (you named two in this very discussion). It has support at the highest levels of academia. No matter how strongly you feel that the theory is false, it is a significant POV, and your work to exclude its mention in no way improves the article and only makes it less NPOV. --Hyperbole 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No one believes that the buildings were brought down with explosives. It has support by a few rogue acadmics (who are mostly politically opposed to the current administration), none of which are structural engineers or experts on controlled demolition. As I said, there are countless websites about this looniness, and thousands about the loch ness monster, UFO's, Bigfoot...and none of them, any more than the websites you keep trying to put in here, have one shred of proof about anything. Nothing. Most of them are just bloggish misrepresentations, pulling at straws, trying to find something, oh anything that would constitute proof and they all fail miserably. Stop reading these websites...they will twist your mind.--MONGO 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate, that a fw signatories or names on some list in a silly website do not constitute anything more than an extreme fringe group that are not even worth mentioning. It's just conspiracy theory bunk.--MONGO 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it to you this way: If millions of people believed in Bigfoot, the article on Bigfoot would deserve external links representing that POV. Otherwise, it would be an NPOV article. Or, to give another example, millions of people *do* believe in Scientology - that the alien Xenu put billions of people to death on Hawaii thirty-million-odd years ago - and that POV is (properly) represented in the Scientology article. Just because you believe a POV is "hogwash" is not a proper reason to whitewash it out of an article, *especially* the external links. --Hyperbole 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I disagree with your edit summary, "Links violate WP:SPAM, WP:EL and have not been published by a reputable neutral party" when deleting an external link you consider to be unreliable. As long as it is properly flagged, extreme POV articles are allowed to be linked. Are you censoring the article? Guinnog 12:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Due weight

In trying to deterime what is "due weight" and what is "undue weight" there's an editorial consenus in this article and all the WTC-related articles that a link to the conspiracy theory article is the due weight this POV merits in accord with the Misplaced Pages policies.

To have text which explains the theory of the destruction of 7 WTC by controlled demolition appear in the article itself is to give it undue weight.

I do not deny the existence of several incompatible theories on the cause, nature, and consequences of the attacks, I assert that the due weight for their appearance in this article is a link and not the theory itself. patsw 17:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely...that was my point, albeit, not as eloquently spoken.--MONGO 00:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's "precisely" made your point, why do you keep removing the link to the conspiracy theory article, if that's the due weight this POV merits in accord with Misplaced Pages policies? --Hyperbole 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A link with a very short description of the link seems acceptable to me - to simply put an "Alternate theories about the collapse - main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories#World Trade Center 7" seems abrupt and unencyclopedic. --Hyperbole 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that linking at all may give undue weight. I don't think there is a clear consensus that we should link to it. Tom Harrison 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is really not an uncommon POV that the official story about the collapse of Building 7 doesn't wash. No one has polled Americans on the issue, but in one poll, half of New Yorkers said they believe the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. . Right there in that one city alone are millions of people who believe there was *some* conspiracy in connection with 9/11. If mention of conspiracy is excluded from the WTC7 article, it is not because that POV is insignificant. It is more likely because people of certain politics want to censor the reference. --Hyperbole 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In your edit summary you wrote "Revert censorship", and just above you say "people of certain politics want to censor the reference." Do you mean to say that my edits are driven by malign political motives? As I wrote above, I don't think there is a clear consensus that we should link to the conspiracy theory. It looks to me like every historic event has its associated conspiracy theories. Over-linking to them risks presenting them as more prominent than they are. The main article on the 9/11 attacks links to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think that's appropriate. I don't think every person, place, and thing related to 9/11 should be linked to its corresponding conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but many theorists consider WTC7 to be the "smoking gun." It was a building filled with top-secret government offices that mysteriously caught fire and collapsed much later in the day. There is a significant section on it in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Thoeries article. You'd see, if you looked, that I certainly am not advocating a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the WTC6, Pentagon, United Airlines Flight 93, etc. page. This one is different. --Hyperbole 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it is different. I think the same argument you use here could be used to argue for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory link in virtually any article. As to my familiarity with Misplaced Pages's coverage of conspiracy theories, I invite you to look through the relevent articles' edit histories and judge for yourself. Finally, if we are to work together in good faith, I'd appreciate an answer to my question: Did you mean to say that my edits are driven by malign political motives? Or did I maybe misunderstand you? Tom Harrison 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory links only belong in articles on subjects where there is a widespread, noteworthy belief that a conspiracy occurred. The John F. Kennedy assassination would be one example, the Moon landing perhaps another. Both of these articles do include a link to their conspiracy counterparts; the former gives it prominance, whereas the latter relegates it to "See also" status. The vast majority of articles obviously do not merit a conspiracy link, because there is no widespread or notable belief in a conspiracy in connection with their topic. The belief that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is probably less common than the belief that Kennedy's assassination was a coup and probably more common than the belief that the moon landing was faked. I would personally argue that its due weight is a subsection of the article, but I concede that a link (with a brief one-sentence explanation) to the section on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is acceptable. It is certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, noteworthy enough to merit a mention. --Hyperbole 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

>>I think the same argument you use here could be used to argue for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory link in virtually any article.

I understand the fear of these links popping up all over the place. But I think that where there are conspiracy theories about an issue which are reaching mainstream media, those issues should have at least a link if not a brief explanation.

As for undue weight being given to the particular conspiracy theory that Building 7 was demolished with explosives, that theory was already covered this week in New York Magazine, on CNN's 'Showbiz Tonight' with a 911truth.org representative and Webster Tarpley, and via actor Charlie Sheen on Alex Jones' Prison Planet.

That's just this week.

Coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement is increasing all the time, so saying it can't be even mentioned on a page on wikipedia talking about the most well-agreed-upon issue in the movement, and when it's already been discussed in these venues, seems unencyclopedic.

It sounds like there should be a policy, but I'm not sure what that would be.Bov 01:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

huh. Tom Harrison 03:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The coverage given by New York Magazine is to show the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. To cite it as a reason to include a conspiracy theory in this article is chutzpah. patsw 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's been covered this week in three different major publications, how on earth can moderators claim with a straight face that it's such a non-notable fringe theory as to not be afforded the due weight of a *link*?! However strongly you believe the conspiracy theory to be true or false has no bearing on how notable it is. If the Moon landing includes a link to the theory that it was a hoax, it is *ludicrous* that WTC7 wouldn't include a link to the theory that it was demolished with explosives. --Hyperbole 06:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy...we don't give undue weight to conspiracy theory nonsense at the expense of losing encyclopedic credibility. We don't pander to the far out, nor is this resource to be used to peddle outlandish innuendo.--MONGO 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the policy is that an individual editor's POV on what is "nonsense" does not define what is notable enough to be encyclopedic. --Hyperbole 06:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You think wrong. Misplaced Pages is not a random collection of misinformation, just to provide balance or equal weight if there is no equal weight offered by conspiracy theory pundits.--MONGO 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider the theory that WTC7 was brought down with explosives "misinformation" is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether it is a notable belief about WTC7. Misplaced Pages does include entries on Bigfoot, UFOs, and everything else you've labeled as nonsense. Furthermore, those entries attempt to be NPOV. Misplaced Pages is not "The Truth According to MONGO." --Hyperbole 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We should, and do, link to 9/11 conspiracy theories from September 11, 2001 attacks. We do not link to Reptilian humanoid from Kris Kristofferson, David Icke's notable theories notwithstanding. Tom Harrison 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So what's the bright line test? Obviously, it's exactly the same reasoning that suggests linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories from 7 World Trade Center as that suggests linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories from September 11, 2001 attacks. Those two links are inarguably more similar to each other than linking anyone Icke accuses of being Illuminati back to Icke. I would also assert, although this is admittedly impossible to prove, that the people who believe WTC7 was demolished vastly outnumber the people who subscribe to Icke's theories. --Hyperbole 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That there are edge cases does not mean that there are only edge cases. It seems we agree that this is not an edge case; we disagree about which side of the line it falls on. There's little purpose in each of us repeating arguments the other has not found persuasive. How do you suggest we proceed? Tom Harrison 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could each revert the page three times a day for the rest of eternity?

Okay, maybe not. But it's hard to see a compromise in such an obviously binary issue: include a link, or don't include a link. Personally I would always err on the side of including more information, since it seems apparent that people are interested in that information. What is the benefit of including less? I still think it's significant that Moon landing includes a link to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations - it's just hard for me to imagine how, if *that's* an "edge case", the demolition of WTC7 falls on the Illuminati side thereof. --Hyperbole 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what people think. It's a matter of whether it is encyclopedic to pander to the obviously ridiculous. Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to parrot wild ideas and speculations just to be "complete". The controlled demolition bunk is based on complete speculation. Look at any college level book on Physical Anthropology...they mention nothing about Bigfoot...why...because it is not based on any empirically based evidence. We do the same thing here. There is no reason to even mention completely unscientific opinion and innuendo.--MONGO 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I invite you to read Bigfoot yourself. There is a very large group of people who do not share your perception that the controlled demolition theory is "obviously ridiculous"; that makes it notable. You should not try to control an article's content based on your own opinions of which POVs are right and which are wrong. --Hyperbole 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read bigfoot, and got a POV pushing troll there banned for trying to insert nonsense in the article about the Bigfoot being from outer space...it was nonsense and his behavior was both disruptive and insulting, hence the end result, a one year ban. Also notice on my userpage that I have Bigfoot on my list for a complete rewrite. There is no nee dto even have a link to the conspiracy theory junk just to appease those that want to turn this forum into some bizarre version of National Enquirer instead of an encyclopedia. As I mentioned, and as an comparisn...Bigfoot isn't mentioned in Physical Anthropology textbooks becuase there is no proof that he exists, we will not have conspiracy theory bunk here because there is no proof that anything they have to say refutes the facts of the case. This junk would be thrown out of a court of law.--MONGO 03:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot isn't mentioned in most physical anthropology textbooks; it is mentioned on Misplaced Pages. That's because it's notable. So I don't exactly understand the analogy you're trying to make. --Hyperbole 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reality check: the edit war isn't over a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories but over having the text which explains the conspiracy theory appear in this article itself. It is this text which has been frequently deleted in different forms. That is what I've called undue weight. patsw 01:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit war involves two editors who are removing *any reference* to the controlled demolition theory. I have pared down the reference to as close to "a link" as I think is encyclopedically feasible; it's two short sentences that explains why one would, you know, click on the link. --Hyperbole 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting the words controlled demolition into the article text is undue weight. I concur with the editors who are deleting any reference. I think you stop the edit war, and perhaps in the future with more evidence revealed to support the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory, there will be a new editing consensus to include it in the text. patsw 01:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, those exact words (which are incidentally the name of the contractor that cleaned up the site) do not appear in the article. I assume you mean "planted explosives." That being said, I can't see *why* you're asserting that the words themselves carry undue weight. There is a very notable group of proponents of the theory; frankly, they're the reason this page even exists in its current incarnation (compare 6 World Trade Center - nobody cares enough about it to write an article because it doesn't throw off the red flags that 7WTC does). --Hyperbole 02:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually 6 World Trade Center does throw up a few red flags. You see, a missile from one of our military planes fired at the second hijacked plane when it went into the South Tower. The missile hit in the vicinity of WTC 6. You guys are a bit behind the curve.216.174.52.68 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparing a low squatty building to WTC7 is odd. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? No, okay, so why are you wasting everyone's time.--MONGO 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that a diesel fire caused the building to collapse? You continue to be deliberately insulting, rude, and unhelpful. Please knock it off. --Hyperbole 05:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a link to the page under 'See also' and removed the commentary. Tom Harrison 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Any objections? Tom Harrison 16:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have an objection — you've given no reason for deleting the single sentence on the alternate theories. I'm sure that you're familiar with the polls that have shown that a majority of New Yorkers do not believe the official government story of Sept 11. Misplaced Pages reports on controversies. Deleting the single sentence on the controversy constitutes a clear failure to be neutral on the subject. — goethean ॐ 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The description of the conspiracy theory gives undue weight to a fringe point of view. I think even a link to the conspiracy theory article gives undue weight. In a spirit of compromise I'm willing to consider including it under 'see also', since some think that a link is appropriate weight. Tom Harrison 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you respond to my comments, please? — goethean ॐ 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad...conspiracy views aren't held by a majority of New Yorkers. Only by 49.3% of them. — goethean ॐ 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>"The description of the conspiracy theory gives undue weight to a fringe point of view." That's right everyone, encyclopedias need to censor those 'fringe points' of view which question and discuss how a building collapsed in NYC on 9/11, the same 'fringe' that includes CNN, MSNBC, New York Magazine and the Village Voice, not to mention the original 9/11 Family Steering Committee -- the families of the victims -- who have asked what happened to Building 7 specifically. But apparently, like the 9/11 Commission, mention of their questions, along with the discussions taking place on mainstream media, cannot even be included in a single line on this page. Bov 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did include a link in 'See also', though I think it's unwarrented. Bov, be careful of that argument. It's going to make it difficult for you to then say that other's can't, on this or other pages, include descriptions of theories you think are bogus, or links to websites you find distasteful. Tom Harrison 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with someone including a *single line* describing the theories about pods and holograms -- sure I would like them to not be there but I can't censor them out of existance. When people pointed out to me that a google search for "missiles" and "wtc" came up with just as many hits as a google search for "explosives" and "wtc," regarding the types of theories about why the towers came down, I had to back down -- the disinfo promoters are massive and we literally don't have the resources to go up against people with endless resources on the internet. Similarly, I backed down and left 9/11 blimps' link on the page, and instead tried to pursue a policy, rather than censorship. All I can really do is post the debunkings of those theories, and let nature take its course. If those theories were true -- that pods and holograms were involved -- one would expect that more and more people would come onto here to promote those as more info came out to support their truth. That's a natural course of events. But that isn't happening. And I think it doesn't happen for a reason. In the same way, I think that defenders of the official story are going to gradually get swamped on here with more and more people asserting that the official story isn't true. Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, etc.

I think a policy is the best way to deal with these things. But if a single line isn't even allowed, if there is no breathing space, it can escalate emotions.Bov 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Emotions? breathing space? How about simple honesty? A huge number of people believe in the conspiracy theories and it is simply dishonest not to mention it in this article. That fact is the reason behind the escalating emotions etc. Creationism is wrong. It doesn't follow from that that we should not have an article on creationism. That is precisely analogous to what Tom Harrison is arguing. — goethean ॐ 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Zogby is the least respected pollsters in the U.S. the questions provided by the 9/11 organization were loaded as to give a relativelyu false end result percentagewise. It doesn't matter what people beleieve, all that matters is that Misplaced Pages not support in equal time those items that have no basis in fact. Not a small bunch of those "polled" by Zogby have a resentment of the Republican party...we are talking about New York...and that resenment in that region is also oftentimes anti-southerner...Bush is Texan of course. It is hardly a scientific sampling or a wide enough coverage to be a fair poll. But the conspiracy theorists have taken the end result and twisted it and stretched it into more than it really means. You say that we have articles on Creationism...we know that...is this linked off the article on Jesus, or the Bible...if so, (as I havene't looked) then all it would deserve if anything at all, would be a passing mention...that would be in accordance with not providing undue weight.--MONGO 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a poll by a more respected pollster that gives a different result? — goethean ॐ 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point...opinion polls do not make a lot of issues true. If you polled a random 1,000 people in the U.S. about whether UFO's are real or not, I would imagine that a fair number of those responding would say they believe that UFO's exist...even though there is not one shred of verifiable proof that they do. No one has bothered to my knowledge to ask this poll as Zogby did, which was commissioned, no less, by one of these conspiracy theory groups. I can't blame Zogby, but I would not rank them as a trustworthy source as say Gallup. Regardless, why would anyone take a poll on these issues...if you have one, it would be interesting to see it as a comparison, but again, the poll one way or the other is based on people's beliefs or opinions and not necessarily the facts of the case. The results of this poll have been twisted to equate with governement coverup...but the findings actually simply indicate that New Yorkers think the U.S. government knew the events were going to happen and failed to do enough to prevent them from happening. In other words, it is a poll which essentially believes the government is a mess, disorganized, has lousy communication between agencies, and what not.--MONGO 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is you who has missed the point. There is a poll, whose methods you personally reject (as if that is relevant) which found that approximately 50% of New Yorkers believe in the conspiracy theories. You appear to have no evidence to show (a)that the Zogby poll is faulty (b) that New Yorkers do not in fact believe in conspiracy theories. Yet you insist that this is such a tiny fringe theory, so undeserving of attention, that it would be a terrible, terrible thing if this articvle includes a single sentence on the subject. You do not have a argumentative leg to stand on. — goethean ॐ 02:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't missed any point...the poll is meaningless if there isn't any proof to back it up. What the heck difference does the poll make as far as science goes...does the poll prove that 50% of New Yorkers are correct, even though there is nothing to back up their beliefs aside from their opinions? Go ahead and put it in...our real goal here is to be fantastic and eyebrow raising...not encyclopedic, right? Oh, that's right, we are doing our readers a disservice by not including opinions. "In a poll commissioned by ? , Zogby reports that 50% of New Yorkers think......" but the comment needs a qualifier too..."the poll has no basis in fact and is just an opinion held by certain individuals".--MONGO 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to find sarcasm very productive. Misplaced Pages is here to document the facts. The fact is that 50% of New Yorkers don't buy the official line. What, exactly, is wrong with documenting that fact? I don't want Misplaced Pages to claim that x or y caused the collapse. I want it to document, according to a poll, what people believe caused the collapse. Portray this as an affront to science or however you want — it is clearly nothing of the sort — goethean ॐ 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly would be your wording for such a passage...how do you make it NPOV and provide a qualifying statement? Go ahead and put it in the article then and we'll play with it...I will confess that if 50% of New Yorkers are this kooky, then it actually supports my biases...I would have expected no less from an opinion poll of that sampling.--MONGO 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Explanation

Well, now we have a bit of a problem in that the article claims that the "official explanation" for the collapse is accepted by most, but makes no mention of what the official explanation for the collapse is. Nor does the article specify what is meant by "official" - if the Commerce Departmnet's explanation is slated for a release in a few months, it obviously can't be "accepted by most." --Hyperbole 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't controlled demolition. That we can be clear on.--MONGO 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did some research, and found that there actually is no "official explanation" for the collapse; FEMA made preliminary findings that it was due to fire, remarked on the fact that that had never happened before, did not make final conclusions, and urged further study. I wrote it up in the article. --Hyperbole 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The recent article in NY Magazine quotes Sunder here:

"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.”"

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html Bov 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I confess, yeah, we've known for some time that the building was imploded deliberately by explosives...news at 6 today, stay tuned for the latest.--MONGO 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Appendix C to the FEMA report on WTC7 that discusses the mysterious evaporation of the WTC7 steel? Is that junk science?

Three Reports

Just to clarify something - there were/will be three reports on the WTC collapse:

• 1. FEMA - made preliminary findings that the collapse of 7WTC was due to fire (and not debris impact), but did not reach final conclusions and urged further study.
• 2. 9/11 Commission - made absolutely no mention of 7WTC.
• 3. NIST - from what I read, released its report on 1WTC and 2WTC, but "decoupled" 7WTC from its report and delayed its release until sometime this spring.

The article doesn't make any mention of the 9/11 Commission in its current incarnation, and a reference was just reverted under what appears to be the erroneous assumption that the 9/11 Commission is the same thing as NIST. I'm not sure whether we should mention the 9/11 Commission or not. --Hyperbole 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening date

The date of May 2006 has been removed because it can't be cited. It was in New York Metro but I can't find it online. Hey, it's probably going to be delayed anyway. CoolGuy 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Video Footage

There is a clip of the Larry Silverstein quote regarding the demolition on Google Videos here. I put a link to this after the quote but it was deleted. This is clearly a valid link. Kernow 14:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the article, it refers to Larry Silverstein's clarification on the "pull" comment as being directed at the firefighters. How does it=firefighters? He said "Pull it" not "Pull them". --Spindled 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And, strangely, NIST tells Popular Mechanics that "There was no firefighting in WTC 7" Curious. --Hyperbole 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• "It" refering to either efforts or the team. There most definitely were firefighters in WTC 7 that day. Even various conspiracy sites have transcripts of firefighters in the building. --Durin 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we would be going to extreme, unlikely interpretation when we interpret the "it" as firefighters, efforts, whatever... The most likely interpretation (also in regards to context) is that he was referring to the building. What should be observed here is that the "anti-official story" mind is only trying to follow logical routes, and not bizzare far-fetched conduits like the "pro-" mind. However, the media and others will still like to force the idea that we are charlatans, coming up with outrageous conspiracy theories. As Bush once said "Who is trying to fool America?".

External Links, Part 2

I can't see any possible justification for deleting the wtc7.net link. Even if there *was* an editorial consensus that the information contained therein was "junk" - and there is not - that would not be a reason for exclusion of the link. According to Misplaced Pages:External links:

(Normally avoid) any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless... it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view.

wtc7.net is unquestionably the most notable proponent of a POV about 7 WTC - so notable, in fact, that most searching for information about 7 WTC brings up that site. Deleting it appears to directly contradict Misplaced Pages policy. --Hyperbole 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• You've made a reasonable claim (and thank you for doing so!), but it is lacking in several areas.

• When I type in World Trade Center demolition into Google, the site you want to reference in external links does not come up in the list until link #35. Leading proponent? Hmm. At link #6 there is a reference to 911research.wtc7.net, but that is not the same site as you'd like to reference.
• Please observe WP:RS#Partisan_websites. wtc7.net is strongly anti-government and certainly qualifies as being partisan. That in itself might not be enough reason to exclude the site.
• Misplaced Pages:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links #5 tells us not to link to sites that violate copyright. wtc7.net claims fair use of a number of images and video segments taken from CBS, NBC and others. The chief problem I see here is that quite a number of photographs on the site are unattributed. If we were to hold that site to the standards at Misplaced Pages, we'd fault it for {{nosource}} in a large number of cases. If we're to include references here on Misplaced Pages, it is reasonable to expect that those sites pass some basic copyright standards.
• Misplaced Pages:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links #4 tells us not to link to sites that exist primarily to sell products or services. On the very front page the site hawks a DVD. There's also a link in the main navigation bar to the store, where it lists three books by the same authors as the DVD. This strikes me as a site that wants to get people to buy books and other materials from them. It's not overburdened with attempts to hawk their materials, but it does attempt to make sales.
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority; note that at the list of articles on wtc.net, the very first article is writtne by a professor whose current field of research has to do with dueteron and proton beams impacting on metal. While his research area might be slightly tangential to the subject matter, it's a weak connection. The next author attributed document on that list is attributed to "anonymous". The third authored document is attributed to David R. Kimball, whose qualifications are not listed. I note that his "fact #3" states that no significant debris impacted WTC 7. This is flatly false, as the building was damaged to at least a depth of 25% of the width of the building by falling debris.

• I could go on for a great length of time about the factual inaccuracies on the website, and the willful misinterpretation and omission of information as a means to prop up a particular viewpoint. wtc7.net is highly biased towards a particular point of view, and no surprise given they are trying to sell books and DVDs. They'd like to make their theory sound as believable as possible. While some of the information presented on the site is referenced, it excludes ample amounts of other evidence that undermine the site's position. It is not a leading proponent of the theory that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, it is poorly referenced and researched, makes false claims of authority, and presents a highly biased viewpoint that contributes little of encyclopedic value. Our mission here is to create an encyclopedia, not to be a link site to websites hawking books and DVDs of limited value. --Durin 13:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me that none of those are appropriate standards for the exclusion of wtc7.net. First of all, it is the leading proponent of the theory that 7 WTC was demolished - and this is an article on 7 WTC. Googling "7 world trade center demolition" bring it up second, after Alex Jones's Prisonplanet. We could include Prisonplanet as a link representing the demolitionist POV, but wtc7.net seems more appropriate on an article about 7 WTC because it is more specific to the building that is the subject of the article.

• WP:RS#Partisan_websites is a policy on sources, not on external links. wtc7.net is not being used as a source for the article.
• It is not Misplaced Pages policy to exclude an external link because of a vague concern that something, somewhere, on the site might be copyrighted and not fall within fair use. If that were Misplaced Pages policy, something like 90% of Misplaced Pages's external links would have to be excluded. An external link should only be excluded when a specific copyright violation can be pointed to that clearly violates fair use.
• wtc7.net obviously does not exist primarily to sell merchandise. It obviously exists to espouse a POV; selling merchandise is tangential to that. There's no problem with Misplaced Pages's link policy there.
• Finally, "beware false authority" is another policy on *sources*, not *external links*. It's perhaps one of the reasons we can't write "World Trade Center 7 was demolished by explosives (see wtc7.net)" in the article. It has no bearing on the website's suitability as a link.

wtc7.net is described in Misplaced Pages:External links in the "What Should be Linked To" subhead:

On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.

Unless a specific copyright violation can be positively identified on the site, with more than a vague hint that something, somewhere, might violate fair use, I don't believe anything you've given supercedes that policy. --Hyperbole 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Start with the first image showing the building in mid collapse with no attribution. Has another unattributed image showing the Interstate Bank Building on fire. Has an unattributed image of the remains of WTC 7. So does . Contains an unattributed image of investigators. Contains an unattributed pre-9/11 image of WTC 7. Lastly, all of the background images on each page are unattributed potential copyright violations as well. In fact, I can't find a single properly attributed image on the website. The only thing that is properly attributed are the videos. Given that the site is attempting to hawk published books and a DVD, the use of fair use claims for the site's usage of the videos and still photographs is legally suspect. I hope that clarifies any vague references you felt I'd made. Please note that the burden of copyright clearance proof lies before we use material, not after. --Durin 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the website does not source its images as Misplaced Pages itself would does not mean that we must operate under the presumption that the images are not being used in a way that violates fair use. If that were Misplaced Pages's policy, the vast majority of external links on Misplaced Pages would have to be removed. It only if there's evidence of a copyright violation - not a lack of evidence that no copyright violation is occurring - that we should hesitate to exclude an external link. --Hyperbole

• Please see above where I note the burden of copyright clearance proof lies before we use material, not after. Regardless if we had a hundred thousand external links to sites that have possible copyright violations, it doesn't change the fact that we should not be linking to them. --Durin 02:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on use of wtc7.net for reference

There's now an ongoing edit war regarding the inclusion of a link to wtc7.net. Some of the arguments for/against inclusion are above on this talk page. Given the presence of the edit war, I'd like to take a straw poll to see what contributors here feel we should do regarding this issue. Please sign in the appropriate section below what you feel should be done. Please do not engage in lengthy conversations in the poll; start another section on this talk page for that. Thank you.

Support inclusion of a link to wtc7.net in External links

1. Support, along with Popular Mechanics link for balance. I do not believe the conspiracy theories, but the behavior of administrators on this talk page almost makes me want to. The shameful record of administrators opposing the inclusion of neutral information about the conspiracy theories in this article should be extremely disturbing to everyone here. It is certainly very disturbing to me. Not so long ago, two administrators were insisting at length that not a single word about the theories could be included on this article. Fortunately, things have not gone their way. — goethean ॐ 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per Goethean. Seabhcán 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Misplaced Pages:External_links, which states that notable proponents of a POV should be represented. The only valid concern about the site seems to be copyright issues, and the fact that the site does not source all its images does not mean there should be a presumption that their use does not constitute fair use. The site is absolutely not first and foremost a commercial site, and the presence of a single DVD for sale does not somehow turn its presence into adcruft. --Hyperbole 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Goethean. --Spindled 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
5. support: per above, and due to the fact that Don Paul has been a well known and credible figure in several communities for decades. Ombudsman 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of a link to wtc7.net in External links

1. Oppose per my reasons state in the prior section to this. We're building an encyclopedia, not advertising someone's books for sale. --Durin 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There is a link to wtc7.net on the conspiracy theory article, and that seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 10:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Tony and Durin's earlier comments. Every subject has some conspiracies associated with them, that doesn't make them relevant or notable for the main articles. We don't for example, on the Abraham Lincoln page have a link to the claim that he was assasinated by a British conspiracy even though it does exist. However, Mongo's comment below shows a lack of respect for consensus which I find troubling. JoshuaZ 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strongly Oppose. WP:NPOV and WP:EL doesn't mean giving equal billing to extreme minority conspiracy theories. The place for the link is 9/11 conspiracy theories and not here. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose There's no traction to this at all...if and when something mainstream comes along use that. In the mean time 9/11 conspiracy theories is the place for it. This is no where near main stream or notable enough for inclusion, and the fact that the main proponents profit from the success of this "theory" makes it worse. Find something that isn't selling a POV, then we can talk but for now there is no way this belongs on this page Rx StrangeLove 04:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Other

1. There is no need to have this "vote" continuously demanding that unscientific websites be linked to is ridiculous. This is not a blog, so irregardless of this "vote" I will continue to remove all links to any website that disservices JImbos decree that "we make the internet not suck".--MONGO 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'll take a wild shot in the dark and assume that it is you who decides what does and what does not meet "scientific" guidelines. I'm glad that you are here to supervise what people should and should not be viewing. — goethean ॐ 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   The other implication of your comment is that we can go around and delete any external links that we feel "suck." Or maybe it's only you that is allowed to do that. Either way, it's untenable. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed. Misplaced Pages is not "The Truth of the World According to MONGO." --Hyperbole 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. wtc7.net is not a reliable source of information for anything except what its proprieter thinks. It has no editorial oversight, no fact-checking, and no peer review except insofar as conspiracy sites within their walled garden swap links and cite each other as references. For 9/11 conspiracy theories it is a primary source. For the World Trade Center it's no source at all. And voting is evil. Tom Harrison 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   An external link is not a source, and there are completely different policies for the two of them. Misplaced Pages is not reporting the claims of wtc7.net as truth; that would make it a source. Rather, Misplaced Pages is including a notable external link to a notable POV. That is not only permitted but demanded by Misplaced Pages:External_links. --Hyperbole 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   Already within the body of the article we link to that viewpoint with "For more details on this topic, see 9/11 conspiracy theories#7 World Trade Center." That page appropriately links to wtc7.net. The reader already has a link to that viewpoint. Giving wtc7.net yet another incoming link may boost its google page rank, but it does nothing for our readers. Tom Harrison 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure Google page ranks don't work that way - they don't tally individual html pages as multiple "votes" for a site. More to the point, wtc7.net has a notable POV on both 7 World Trade Center and 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's no valid reason it shouldn't be an external link on both pages. --Hyperbole 00:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   To the extent that point of view is notable (as an example of a conspiracy theory, not as information about reality), the reader already has a link to it - 9/11 conspiracy theories#7 World Trade Center. Tom Harrison 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   Your — incorrect — idea that conspiracy theories are not part of reality (and thus should not be documented by Misplaced Pages) is precisely what is holding you back from grasping the issue here. This argument would have us pretend that creationism doesn't exist either. — goethean ॐ 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

   9/11 conspiracy theories are discussed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, so we're not ignoring them but this isn't the place for them. I think we need to trim the amount of conspiracy theory discussion included in this article. Such as deleting the Silverstein quote, which is redundantly mentioned here in addition to 9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

wtc7.net violates our policy against advertising so it cannot be included...we routinely remove any website link that is attempting to sell their products...see WP:SPAM as well as WP:EL--MONGO 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This puts the question to bed...we do not allow spam advertising and any further addition of this link is a violation of guidelines and policy.--MONGO 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages links to dozens if not hundreds of sites that happen to sell a product in addition to performing their main function, whatever that may be. wtc7.net exists to disseminate information; it does not exist to sell DVDs. It is not spam, and WP:SPAM is not a valid policy for its exclusion. --Hyperbole 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is..end of story..it stays out.--MONGO 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that you personally define an editorial consensus? Or do you think your adminship gives you the right to unilaterally dicate the contents of an article? If either is the case, you're sorely mistaken. Bottom line: wtc7.net does not exist primarily to sell merchandise; therefore, it does not run afoul of WP:SPAM. Misplaced Pages:External_links demands the inclusion of sites representative of notable POVs. The link should be included. --Hyperbole 08:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that I am the only one that opposes the inclusion of the link? Hardly. Right there, soon as one clicks the link to that preposterous website is a link to a their DVD which is not free...it is FOR SALE...what are you trying to sell us Hyperbole? It is spam and advertising and is not compatable with this forum becuase inclusion of the link to that website violates guidelines and policies. So it stays out.--MONGO 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what you think it accomplishes by dictating "what happens" on Misplaced Pages as though you have the right to do so. Have a look at Homestar Runner. Or, I don't know, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Perhaps World Wrestling Entertainment. There are *hundreds* of Misplaced Pages sites that have external links that include a shop. The bright line test is whether the site *exists* to sell merchandise, not whether it happens to sell merchandise. And, frankly, sites like Homestar Runner or World Wrestling Entertainment's homepage are *more* questionable under that test because they are commercial sites. Yet no one sees anyone challenging them as external links - because they don't contain a POV that any editors object to. Trying to paint wtc7.net as "spam" is utterly transparent; if you really objected to any link that sells a DVD, you'd be going through Misplaced Pages rapid-fire and ripping out a third of the external links on the site. And I notice that no deletionist here has made any attempt to replace wtc7.net with another site that shares its POV but doesn't sell a DVD. Curious, mmm? --Hyperbole 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On Homestar Runner, the homestar runner link is the official website for the topic. Same with WWE - official sites for the article topic. Per WP:EL, "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one." With 7 World Trade Center, wtc7.net is not at all the official website. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL also says that on topics with multiple points of view, sites representing each point of view should be included - so I'm not sure where you draw the distinction. --Hyperbole 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MONGO on this point. --Durin 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. wtc7.net does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy, except for reference on the 9/11 conspiracy theories of what conspiracy theorists are saying. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As a mere external link, Misplaced Pages is not a link directory, and I don't think wtc7.net meets WP:EL. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, This is sounding a lot like what the media and government was doing with the Iraq war, I mean, WMDs, 9/11, Iraqi freedom, whatnot... Why not stick to one objection here. When you change your objection, you are implying that you are no longer convinced with your original objection. And that is no way to debate. --Spindled 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate, if inclusion of nonsense that also is spam is in question...what on Earth are you talking about? If website ahs multiple reasons (aside from it being nonsense) for exclusion, then they should all be explained. Uh?--MONGO 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse if you label it as "nonsense" it would seem so, but don't forget that the "nonsense" part is really only your opinion, as quite a large group of people find this much more sensible than the official story, and it would seem to that group that the official story is quite a better candidate to the term "nonsense". So, if you want to be objective, you have to forget the nonsense part and accept this as being a different point of view. As for the SPAM comment, I tend to disagree that this is actually SPAM. They are not selling you junk, they are just trying to promote their POV in a sensible way. And really, the DVD portion of the website is insignifact to the amount of information on that website. Exaggerating this DVD thing seems to me to be just an alibi. However, a better way to solve this problem is probably to link to http://911research.wtc7.net instead. --Spindled 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Large is a pretty subjective word. I'm sure there are a lot of people that believe wtc7, but objectively it's a pretty small minority compared to the number of people that think it's nonsense. This hasn't anywhere near critical mass. Also, I don't think anyone profiting from a POV can be objective enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Rx StrangeLove 20:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Giuliani's bunker in tower 7 used to remotely control planes?

That's what a former German minister of defense is saying on interview with Alex Jones. The link: Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack. No mentioned yet in this article. He is the highest profile politician to make these accusations.--tequendamia 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I never would have figured that, but I thought that Giuliani had the Batman alert spotlight down there though.--MONGO 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea has been around for three years already:Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste. Piper Verlag GmbH, München 2003, ISBN 3492045456 y 2004, ISBN 3492242421 (The CIA and September 11 (book))--tequendamia 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There was NO firefighting in WTC 7

Silverstein Properties' statement about Larry meaning to pull the firefighters cannot be true. According to people at NIST, FEMA, and the New York Times, there was no firefighting in WTC 7. Links to verify these facts are near the bottom of: http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/silverstein_answers_wtc7_charges.htm

The statement by Silverstein Properties is therefore an outright lie. CB Brooklyn 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a classic card-castle made of lies. These are just lies piling on top of lies, end eventually, it will all collapse and the truth will come out. What they need to understand is that the more they lie, the greater the damage in the future is going to be for them. So, best thing to do for them is to just tell the truth now. They are fabricating a story, and obviously there are numerous loop holes in it. Silverstein is just adding to these loop holes ofcourse by first giving that interview, and secondly, lying afterwards about what he meant by "it". For God's sake, should we teach them English or something?? --Spindled 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The card castle is the presumption that if there were no firefighting efforts, there must have been no firefighters in the building. We know this is false, as even some conspiracy sites have transcripts of radio communications with firefighters who were in WTC 7 that day. --Durin 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe that a bunch of firefights rushed into a burning skyscraper and then stood around doing absolutely nothing, until the owner of the skyscraper decided to "pull it" and ordered them out, at which point the building collapsed into its own footprint on its own. That really stretches credulity. --Hyperbole 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is hard to believe because it didn't happen that way (as I'm sure you know). WTC7 was professionaly demolished. There's no examples of buildings fallling in that manner (near freefall speed, straight down, puffs of smoke coming out the side in rapid sequence, molten metal underneath for weeks afterwards, steel members that appear to be partly evaporated, etc) from anything other than controlled demolitions. Yet on 9/11 it happened three times? Very weird! --CB Brooklyn 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• It also presumes the guy knew whether there were firefighters inside at the time or not. It seems to me he was talking via phone & not even at the site --JimWae 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think believing they were "controlled demolitioned" is silly - though there were resemblances. I do not think this article serves readers well if this issue is not discussed at all, however. Better to present the main points from both sides - without undue weight --JimWae 21:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the site I listed above:

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Sounds like there was no one in WTC 7 as on 11:30AM on 9/11/01

CB Brooklyn 05:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• What time was the phone call to Silverstein? --JimWae 05:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. I see what you mean CB Brooklyn 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Tower in the 7 World Trade Center article

How is politics over the design of the Freedom Tower relevant to this article? patsw 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

7 WTC

After WTC7.net was added back tonight, I removed it. There is no consensus here or on AN/I for it inclusion. The site still sells the DVD and as I stated above, if someone is profiting from a POV, it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. And WP:EL under the links to avoid section:

"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research..."

There is no consensus for inclusion and it doesn't belong in any case. Rx StrangeLove 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with the revert. No consensus here. It's linked at 9/11 conspiracy theories and that suffices. No need to add the same link here. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AN/I seemed to strongly suggest that some link representative of wtc7.net's POV should be included on the page. The contents.html page of wtc7.net seems most appropriate because it does not display any advertisements for a DVD. There is no consensus that there is anything factually inaccurate or constituting unverified original research on wtc7.net. However, it doesn't matter: WP:EL suggests excluding such a site unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. There is no consensus for exclusion, and WP:EL requires that external links exist for each notable POV on a subject. --Hyperbole 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are disregarding the poll above. Five people explicitly voted oppose and two vehemently refused to participate in the poll (Misplaced Pages:Voting is evil) but expressed strong opposition. At that, you don't have majority support for including the link. That said, consensus on Misplaced Pages = much more than a majority. Rather it requires a supermajority. For example, in requests for adminship or votes for deletion, 70-80% support is needed. In the above poll, there is absolutely no consensus for adding the link. If no consensus can be reached, then Misplaced Pages goes with the status quo (e.g. no link). -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You have neither consensus nor supermajority support for removing the link. In cases of no consensus, Misplaced Pages tends toward inclusionism, not exclusionism. A "no consensus" vote on the deletion of an article means the article is kept; why would a "no consensus" vote on information within an article work any differently? --Hyperbole 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

While we aren't voting on this, there is sizable oppositon to the link's inclusion. I won't revert again so soon after the last revert, but I will ask another editor to remove the disputed link tonight if possible. Rx StrangeLove 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no obligation to include a link if an advocate wants one. The due weight called for in the Misplaced Pages policy for such conspiracy theories is to provide a link to the conspiracy theories article. patsw 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The due weight called for in the Misplaced Pages policy is for external links representing each notable POV on a subject to be included. It's right there in WP:EL if you'd like to read it. --Hyperbole 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The key phrase here is notable POV. The one in question isn't by any means, now there's an essay meant to act as an outside resource. The standard is higher than an essay or a website profiting from a POV. It just doesn't belong until the overall theory has a little more traction. Rx StrangeLove 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The POV that 7 WTC was demolished by explosives overwhelmingly meets Misplaced Pages's standards for notability and thus for inclusion per WP:EL. The little polling done on the subject shows that 50% of New Yorkers believe in some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory and that 1 in 3 Germans believe the U.S. orchestrated 9/11. That's hundreds of thousands if not millions of people represented in just two polls who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory - and the idea that 7 World Trade Center was demolished is one of the prime theories. There are hundreds of websites on the subject and dozens of books written about the subject. Misplaced Pages has determined that figures such as Kim Kyung-Jae are notable - and you're going to try to tell me a theory of this magnitude is not?? --Hyperbole 07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a belief in a conspiracy theory (and most countries who believe their government killed 3000 people to make a point don't fill in surveys, they have a revolution, so such a survey might need some further inspection before accepting it as a source) then a single article about it would make sense. User:Ombudsman's edit summaries are somewhat notable in themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman should be noted. In each case the gravamen is reversion and linkage. Midgley 09:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the guideline on external links doesn't find a statement that obligates editors to include an external link made by another editor. Also, there's a subtle but important distinction between a notable point of view and a notable proponent of a POV. The EL guideline refers to the latter and not the former. Who are the notable experts on controlled demolition who have determined that 7 World Trade Center was destroyed by a controlled demolition? The proponents of this particular POV have no expertise in controlled demolition.

My editing position is based on the policy on the neutral point of view that the due weight to be given to this article is a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories and not to promote particular conspiracy theory sites. patsw 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your editing position runs afoul of WP:EL. The policy states very plainly that for each notable POV, there should be a link to "sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." There's no ambiguity there. There's no mention of "notable proponents" of a POV (by which you appear to mean not only notable proponents, but proponents whose authority you personally accept). Controlled demolition is a notable POV and WP:EL demands that it be represented. It's that simple. --Hyperbole 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If firmly repeated assertion were an argument, you'd have me convinced. Tom Harrison 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The only opposition I seem to receive to this assertion is references to irrelevant policies such as WP:RS and stuff about "notable proponents" that is apparently pulled out of thin air. No one has given me a suitable reason why they should be given license to violate WP:EL on this page. --Hyperbole 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that because the percentages you talked about above say that some people believe there's some conspiracy, it makes the controlled demolition theory notable. It doesn't. The polls you cite don't measure that theory at all so you can't use them to support your contention that controlled demolition is a notable POV. That's the specific point you need to demonstrate and you haven't done that yet. WP:EL doesn't demand that we include every single conspiracy theory just because some people think there was some undefined conspiracy. Rx StrangeLove 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The polls do suggest that millions of people believe there is some conspiracy here. Perhaps more to the point, there are hundreds of websites and dozens of books on the theory that WTC7 was demolished - a large and substantial body of publication on the subject. So what do you think is required to make a POV notable - an absolute universal consensus that it is true? The POV that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is far, far more notable than many of the hundreds of things Wikipedians give the notability stamp to every day. --Hyperbole 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

wtc7.net link, yet again

Hyperbole, you are claiming authority to include the link to wtc7.net based on WP:EL. In opposition to that, you've been shown opposition to the link based on WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM. You have repeatedly claimed that this very talk page supports your inclusion of the link in the article. You further go on to assert in one re-insertion attempt that WP:AN/I is a basis for re-inclusion. Yet, no consensus to include the link has ever arisen, nor is it likely to. wtc7.net as a link violates a number of our policies here. It was shown to you how this is so. You were told that the site is not as important as you claimed. All of this should have sent you in the direction of attempting to find a non-spamming, non-copyright violating, authority based website to support this minority view. You've so far failed to do that. If you are so adamant about having a website included which represents this minority view, then at least find one that is authority based, doesn't violate copyright, and isn't trying to sell something. Stop focusing on wtc7.net and re-focus on what it is we're trying to do here; build an NPOV encyclopedia.

Let's be clear here. You are the center of this revert war. This has been going on for more than a week now, with you conducting about a dozen re-insertions of the link. A number of people have been quite patient with you. This revert war will stop, one way or another. Either you gain consensus to include wtc7.net (which is unlikely given the poll above), or stop attempting to include it. If you continue to attempt to include the site against consensus I will begin issuing vandal warnings to you which will ultimately lead to a temporary block of your editing privileges. --Durin 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely and will support Durin in this. Rx StrangeLove 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, Durin, let me respond. WP:EL unambiguously states that a notable POV should be represented in the external links. By removing any attempt to do so, you are breaking Misplaced Pages policy. There is absolutely nothing in WP:SPAM that suggests that an external link is excluded because, in addition to its other functions, it sells a product. And WP:RS is completely irrelevant here because wtc7.net is not being used as a source.

I have been attempting, in good faith, to address your concerns. First, I have attempted to replace wtc7.net with wtc7.net/contents.html (per a suggestion at AN/I) to address the (unfounded) concern that the site runs afoul of WP:SPAM: that link contains no mention of any DVDs for sale. Second, I have attempted to substitute a BYU essay (associated with no merchandise and containing no pictures) in place of wtc7.net/contents.html (also per a suggestion at AN/I). Both of these attempts were immediately reverted.

I'll be frank: the deletionists here have not made a single good-faith effort to comply with WP:EL and come up with a suite of external links that reflect this notable POV. All you do is revert, revert, and revert. A discussion at AN/I led to constructive suggestions about how to bring the article into compliance with WP:EL: every single one of those suggestions, upon my attempts to implement them, was immediately reverted.

What the discussion at AN/I did not suggest is that I, or anyone attempting to include these links, is culpable of vandalism or editing in bad faith. So, go ahead and issue your vandal warnings, Durin. I will continue to try to bring this article in line with WP:EL. It appears no one is willing to work with me in good faith to do so. --Hyperbole 18:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If there was one shred of proof that indeed the building was imploded, I would be the first person to march on Capital Hill looking for an answer. Trust me on that. Wtc7, linked in any manner violates policy because it has a product to peddle. The BYU essay has not been published by a reliable source.--MONGO 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which policy does wtc7 violate, MONGO? Which policy says that any site that has a product is excluded from being linked externally? Which policy isn't being followed on Homestar Runner and World Wrestling Entertainment and hundreds of other Misplaced Pages articles? --Hyperbole 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing those articles..but you're right, if there are attributions that are product webspamming, then they should go too. Feel free to link off my userpage to articles I have written and let me know if you see even one website cited that is trying to sell a product. IN the case of some of the land management articles, I have seen numerous travel related websites that are self promoting and I don't use them as a reference base, even when they have information that compliments what I find in non profit based sites.--MONGO 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, you were previously pointed to Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid #4, which states that sites that exist primarily to sell a product or sell services should be avoided. There's your answer. Is it policy? No. Neither is the basis for your assertions that the link should be included based on WP:EL, since none of that page counts as policy. --Durin 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, your assertions have and continue to miss fundamental issues at hand. Given that prior discussion has failed to gain traction with you, I rather doubt further attempts at explaining this to you will. Let me absolutely clear; revert warring is absolutely NOT a reasonable method of moving an article forward. You have clearly been edit warring and a number of editors have been undoing your efforts at including this link against consensus. If you continue to edit war, I will move forward with warning you and eventually blocking you if you persist. Do not continue to attempt to re-introduce the wtc7.net link into the article without gaining consensus first. This goes for anyone attempting to do so. The poll above clearly shows that no consensus for inclusion exists. --Durin 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Durin, do I really need to point out that you are also revert warring? I have made several attempts to address concerns on talk, including linking to the BYU article and to a advertisement-free page on wtc7.net; you have made exactly zero attempts to move the article forward, preferring instead to simply revert everything I do. Let me also point out that there is no Misplaced Pages policy that a consensus is required to include an external link; you are apparently inventing that policy on the fly. You are way out of line. --Hyperbole 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as true at all. Inclusion, repeatedly, of refuted information based on a multitude of reasons as we have discussed ad nauseum with you and a few others, appears to me that it does fall into the realm of vandalism when you keep trying to reinsert it. Are you affiliated with that website?--MONGO 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, if you feel that way then by all means I invite you to start an RfC against myself and every other person who has reverted your ~dozen attempts at including this link on the article. I reverted you once, and you reverted me asking for further explanation. So, I reverted again with a further explanation and posted again here on the talk page. That isn't revert warring. You will find that those are the only reverts I have done against you and one of those two was essentially at your behest. You have a very, very long road to pave to prove that I have revert warred against you. You should be especially conscious that if I have engaged in revert warring with you, then at a mininum your transgressions have been at least six times as great.
• I stated how this link violates a number of guidelines here. I started a poll to help ascertain where consensus lies. You continue to revert war and claim authority to include the link from this talk page when there wasn't any and authority from WP:AN/I when there wasn't any. wtc7.net violates the guideline at WP:EL regarding sites that violate copyright. You dispute this by claiming that we haven't positively proven that it violates copyright and were told that we must ascertain that it clears copyright before inclusion, not after. You were told that wtc7.net violates guideline WP:RS regarding partisan sites. You were told that wtc7.net violates guideline WP:EL for sites selling products. You were told that wtc7.net violates WP:RS for false authority. You have repeatedly insisted on having wtc7.net included as a link and refuse to consider any other site that might offer up the POV you want to include here when there might very well be a site without the copyright problems, without the partisan issues, without the spam issues, without the false authority issues. I strongly encourage you to go find such a site if you want to have it included in this article. wtc7.net is simply unacceptable as it violates a significant number of guidelines for inclusion. --Durin 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, why are you so focused on wtc7.net? Why are you so reluctant to go find another site that demonstrates the minority view without all the inherent problems that wtc7.net comes with? Why the constant hammering at us that we must accept wtc7.net when you fail to make any attempt at trying to find a more acceptable site? Why? --Durin 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, I did try to find an alternative. MONGO reverted it. No one else has tried to find a single alternative site. I'll be taking some time off of Misplaced Pages now. I strongly feel that Durin has just used admin powers to bully his way into having an article represent his POV. --Hyperbole 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty...I'd have to say the opposite is more likely. Again, if the proof of controlled demolition ever arises, let me know first, cause I'll do a lot more than post it here...I'll be marching on Washington.--MONGO 05:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the WTC7.net link contributes further to the Pollyanna pov of most of the 9/11 articles, which tend to shunt aside virtually all context relevant to the suspicious roles played by various US government agencies in the events surrounding the tragedy. This evidently is the same sort of gatekeeper's stovepiping mentality that spent some $50 odd million investigating a relatively quite tiny indiscretion by Bill Clinton, but only $5 m on the official 9/11 omission commission investigation. Virtually all the evidence from WTC 7 and the twin towers was conveniently destroyed, turned into salvage, or otherwise shrouded by secrecy and an intimidating code of silence, in keeping with the Bush Administration's arrogant ongoing scheme to classify virtually any and all government evidence that might implicate him and his cronies in wrongdoing. The failure of the Wiki to even list the most well known website focused on WTC 7 is about as reprehensible as the omission commission's utter failure to even begin to address what happened to a building that suffered no damage that could conceivably cause its collapse. Larry Silverstein said 'pull it', he and his business partners stood to gain substantially from its destruction, and yet that destruction, for whatever cause, only merited a footnote in the omission commission's final report. The Wiki most certainly ought to at least incorporate a link to WTC7.net, to allow readers to make up their own minds, unlike the treatment rendered by the omission commission, which already had its mind made up to obstruct a vitally important investigation. Ombudsman 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There we go...Bush=Evil, right? That website is junk science...it asks questions and bases it's questions on misrepresentations and exaggerations. Pull it? How many times is that comment going to be used to support the conspiracy theorists beliefs in controlled demolition? I really want someone to show me that this is terminology used by those in the implosion field...in fact, I think I'll contact a few myself and ask them. The WTC7 site is linked from the approriate aricles...the ones that discuss the junk science of controlled demolition.--MONGO 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Silverstein's "pull it" quote is not needed at all, actually. Just looking at the video clips it becomes obvious that WTC7 was professionally demolished. There are no examples anywhere on the planet of a steel framed high rise collapsing with those characteristics from anything other than a controlled demolition. But on 9/11 it happened three times, all in downtown Manhattan. WTC 7 was professionally demolished, and so were the Twin Towers. The NIST report did not prove anything. NIST only looked at the evidence that would support their predetermined "fire" theory. They did not examine the structural behavior of the towers once the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. This means they did not analyse the top 30 floors of the South Tower breaking off, starting to topple, and then pulvarizing to powder in mid air. Nor did they mention that the fire dept made it up to the 78th floor of the South Tower (which was just a couple floors below the impact area). They didn't mention, that just seven minutes before the collapse, the FDNY chief radioed from the 78th floor that there were just a couple of isolated pocket fires and all he needed was a couple of lines to put it out. And people actually think the fire was so hot that it weakened structural steel? NIST made the absurd claim that collapse initiation would "inevitably" lead to global collapse. How could they possibly claim this when a building never fell from fire in this manner before? They "adjusted the input" on their computer simulation so they Towers would pancake. And now they refuse to show the simulations to leading fire and structural engineers calling for them. Molten metal (hotter than burning jet fuel), near freefall speed, straight down, puffs of smoke, FDNY reports of red and orange flashes popping around the building, FDNY Chief of Safety saying they believed terrorists planted bombs in the buildings. This all adds up to controlled demolitions.

I know this place isn't for debates, so I will quit this rant...

CB Brooklyn 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There should be an NPOV tag on the article until it can be resolved how the external links will reflect the POV that 7 WTC was demolished. Other people are going to have to make those edits; I'm trying to avoid a ban, here. --Hyperbole 21:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that 'until it can be resolved' may mean in practice, 'until the links are added.' I don't see a basis for that demand. Tom Harrison 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, certain users, including User:Durin have suggested (at least to my understanding) that while wtc7.net should be excluded as an external link (for reasons I strongly disagree with), it should be possible to insert links to other sites expressing the controlled demolition POV in order to bring the article into concert with WP:EL. I believe there are very few users who are arguing that the controlled demolition POV is not notable and therefore should not have any external links dedicated to it at all. --Hyperbole 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, you are correct. You asserted earlier that I bullied my way into having the POV I wanted. Here, you change course on this and accurately observe that it isn't the POV I'm concerned about, but the nature of the site. Thank you for correcting that. --Durin 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the tag, as the whole article is just a bland listing of facts that are easily verified, and the only point of contention is whether or not a link is included. (which does not actually affect the content of the article.--DCAnderson 09:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we remove all these external links per WP:SPAM?

I don't want to edit the article for fear that it will appear I'm making a WP:POINT, but the Emporis pages contain links to $1,855 Emporis software () and both WiredNewYork.com and CBSNews.com contain links where you buy advertising space on their sites.

Furthermore, WiredNewYork.com contains images that are not attributed to any source - they have no copyright information. And Emporis does not cite its sources under its "Facts" heading.

Why are any of these external links acceptable?

Anybody want to tackle this? Why does the principle that an external link cannot sell anything apply to wtc7.net but not to these external links, all of which sell something? --Hyperbole 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this, and it does seem you're being held to a lot of standards a lot more stricly than I've ever seen. I don't want to suggest that anyone is acting in bad faith here, but there certainly seems to be a very strict POV going on here. I've read the 9/11 report and quite a lot of other stuff about this topic, and I'm not sure the article really reflects the very real questions about the discrepancies between the official story and what actually happened. The "no commercial links" and the "no sites which use images of questionable copyright" are often not enforced: after all, the majority of authoritative news sites I look at carry advertising - does that make them commercial links? So it is really down to utility, and of course then mainly to editors' POV whether they think a link adds enough value to the article or not. Is there a less commercial link you could suggest, as it seems many of the objections against the inclusion of a balancing POV external link would be harder to sustain then? Guinnog 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the sites you mention do not profit from advocating a specfic POV. Everyone is selling something, the difference is that wtc7.net profits from the controlled demolition theory and thus cannot be a neutral source. You're comparing apples and oranges and it doesn't work. Rx StrangeLove 23:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Every one of these sites do profit from advocating their POV: they present information they feel to be true, and they profit both from advertising and from selling either their product or advertising space. --Hyperbole 01:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've answered that several times and I don't feel like going around in circles like this. CBS and Emporis are not harping on a single POV and selling it, both work toward fact or news based NPOV. WTC7 doesn't even pretend to. The only reason for it's existence is to advocate a single theory and to profit from it. That's what makes it spam and a non-notable website as far as encyclopedic sourcing goes. Rx StrangeLove 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean, honestly, is there a principle here that an external link is allowed to advertise unless you disagree with its POV? --Hyperbole 01:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Rx StrangeLove 04:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's the principle here, StrangeLove? An external link is allowed to advertise and/or sell merchandise unless it advocates a single theory?? Is there any support for that in Misplaced Pages policies? --Hyperbole 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you may misunderstand. The WTC7 website sells a POV in the form of a DVD and this DVD is not the work of a neutral party. They website seems to me to exist by the sale of this DVD...it's a profit thing. If you find other references linked from other articles that also do this, then remove them. I don't edit those and I always support the removal of spam advertising.--MONGO 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, what's the principle? "It's okay to sell advertising and/or a product as long as you're not promoting an unpopular POV?" Is there any support for that in Misplaced Pages policies? It seems crystal clear to me that wtc7.net exists primarily to spread the message that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. It is not a spam site, and I am utterly confounded as to how anyone could even think for a second that it is. If anything, it is a less commercial site than cbsnews.com or WiredNewYork.com or Emporis.com - while those sites are primarily commercial, wtc7.net is primarily political. --Hyperbole 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The principle which mongo seems to be referring to is point 4 of but I think that mongo should try to prove that the website "primarily exist to sell products or services". Mongo says that it "seems to him" that this is so but we need something more than his "feelings" to apply the principle.--Pokipsy76 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity..the website does exist to make a profit through the sale of DVD's and preys on the weak minded and uneducated with falsehoods and exaggerations in some form of a sick joke I see. Imagine, thousands of people died that day and scumbags try and make a profit off of that.--MONGO 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What are your arguments to prove that "the website does exist to make a profit through the sale of DVD's and preys"?--Pokipsy76 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Right off their main page: "The new DVD 9/11 GUILT: THE PROOF IS IN YOUR HANDS by Don Paul, Jim Hoffman, and Celestine Star proves that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed through planned demolitions, and shows who benefited most from these crimes."...and it's linked to the page that has their DVD, which claims it has "proof"...and it's "compelling"...sure it is...I like the way they comment about who profited from the events...they are the ones that are trying to profit.--MONGO 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a proof that it "exists to" make profit. However the website http://911research.wtc7.net/ don't have commercial advertisement in the main page, is it ok?--Pokipsy76 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think one general principle is that we should not link to a web-site that exists primarily to profit from 9/11 unless we must, as for example from a Misplaced Pages page about attempts to profit from 9/11. Tom Harrison 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't Emporis, WiredNewYork, and CBSNews all meet that critereon? The reason they have 9/11 content on their sites is to draw in more advertising revenue and potential customers. --Hyperbole 18:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd to suggest that WTC7.net exists simply to profit from the 9/11 tragedy. To counter the shroud of secrecy over what really happened that has been enforced by certain elements of the military industrial complex, the webmasters have painstakingly laid out a cogent analysis of the numerous compelling facts that increasingly suggest that 9/11 was either deliberately allowed to happen or facilitated for the purpose of profiting from the ensuing tragedy and enormous chaos. The profiteering and spin doctoring by defense contractors and the oil industry in the wake of 9/11 has absolutely stifled the media's coverage of what happened to WTC 7, much less the omission commission's feigned or studied ignorance. Yet the argument above, presumably being made with a straight face, rests on the logic of denigrating an independent DVD release that probably does little better than break even. Assuming the DVD does any better than simply break even, a logarithm table would be needed to compare the difference between the profit margins in question here. Ombudsman 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope they don't break even..in fact, I hope they lose money. I am more than willing to help them lose money by ensuring that their attempts to make a profit don't occur by advertising through Misplaced Pages.--MONGO 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making your POV clear on this. You should consider desisting from editing this article though, as I'd like the arguments to be based on Wiki policy towards making this article encyclopedic.Guinnog 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad my "POV" is apparent...we don't permit violations of WP:SPAM for inclusion of nonsense articles that attempt to make a profit from the sale of their DVD which is not peer reviewed and violates original research. I strongly support policy...especially what Misplaced Pages is not, as in indiscrimate collection of links.--MONGO 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, MONGO, "we" permit violations of WP:SPAM for inclusion of any article you agree with, but not for any article you disagree with? Fortunatley, we don't even need to try to make sense out of that policy, because WP:SPAM never says that a website that sells a product is ineligible to be an external link - and with good reason: the vast majority of websites (including every other external link in this article) sell something. WP:OR and WP:PR are policies for Misplaced Pages articles - not for external links. Almost all news is "original research" - should we go banning every news site from external links? And who "peer reviews" the news? There is nothing indiscriminate about linking to a notable POV about an article's subject - in fact, as I've said a thousand times (and no one disagrees, but no one seems to take any action to meet the policy) WP:EL says that external links should exist that reflect each notable POV. --Hyperbole 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not "POV" but POV. Maybe you should review that link, which says: "Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Misplaced Pages should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." I would like to see the article (including the links) become more NPOV. Maybe we can use your passionate POV on this isssue, but you should be prepared to compromise. I suggest finding another link with the same POV, but without the commercial element that worries you so much. What do you think of that? Guinnog 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to substitute This BYU article but that was also immediately deleted. Something about trying to apply WP:RS to external links (which would make nearly every external link in Misplaced Pages delete-worthy). But the bottom line is that when it comes to discussing the controlled demolition theory for 7 WTC, wtc7.net is the most topical (as it primarily discusses 7 WTC and not the entire WTC complex), and the best laid out and most user-friendly site. There are no Misplaced Pages policies that exclude it, and there is one that strongly supports its inclusion. It should be in there, except that Durin has declared that if there is no consensus for a link's inclusion (that is, if anyone opposes it, for any reason), then anyone including that link will be banned from Misplaced Pages. I don't know where that policy came from, either. --Hyperbole 19:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, I never said someone would be banned for including the link. I did say that I would eventually block (not ban, there's a difference) you if you continued to attempt to insert the link because you had been clearly revert warring over it, and would block anyone attempting to do so against consensus as it is clearly generating a revert war. Please, be careful in your attribution of intent. You've been mistaken at least twice now. --Durin 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• You threatened to block one side of a content dispute if they continued to edit war - unsurprisingly, the side of the content dispute that you've supported on this talk page. It takes two sides to revert war; I didn't see you threatening to block anyone removing the links. --Hyperbole 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• You engaged in heavy revert warring. --Durin 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there. There must be a solution there somewhere. Give it a day or two to see if we can sort it out ourselves without calling for help. Guinnog 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(A) Topicality, design and user interface are not reasons to include a website as an external link. (B)There are several Misplaced Pages policies that exclude it starting with WP:SPAM. (C) You're assumption of bad faith is starting to border on personal attacks. Please stop. Rx StrangeLove 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Who were you replying to there? I made no such assumption. I am trying to mediate here. It's 'your' btw. None of your three points seems to make any sense taken with the conversation preceding. Guinnog 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My response was at the same indentation as Hyperbole's which generally means I'm responding to him (as you can see, this response to you is indented once), this could also have been understood by reading his post which included sentences like "the best laid out and most user-friendly site..." and "There are no Misplaced Pages policies that exclude it..." Hope this helps. Rx StrangeLove 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(A) Of course topicality and clarity are reasons to choose which websites should serve as the external links to represent each notable POV. (B) I've read WP:SPAM, and absolutely nothing in it excludes wtc7.net. It's a completely inapplicable policy - can you show me what passage in that policy might possibly be construed as disallowing wtc7.net? (C) It is not a personal attack to assert that Durin grossly abused his administrator powers by declaring that he would block anyone who participated in one specific side of a content dispute. There is nothing "personal" about that. --Hyperbole 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I did not state that I would block anyone who participated in only one POV regarding this article. You are badly misidentifying my intent. --Durin 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Despite a straw poll showing that support for those links was almost evenly divided, you stated that you would block anyone revert warring by reinstating the links - but not by removing them. Whatever your intent, you supported one POV - and it was the POV you'd expressed support for in the past. --Hyperbole 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• As I've previously noted, all attempts at gaining any traction with you in this dispute have failed. Your continued posts here are proof of that. You were, by far, the primary person responsible for the revert warring. You have refuse to accept your role in that, and have refuse to accept that you could be blocked for doing so. This isn't my problem. It is yours, for revert warring. In fact, you're continuing to revert war . You should have brought the issue here to this talk page regarding whatreallyhappened.com. Instead, you continued the same pattern as before and insist on revert warring.

Sure can: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." From WP:NOT. And by the way no where on this page did Durin say anything about banning anyone, that's something only Arbcom can do and the fact that you keep attributing it to him is just inflaming the debate here. Rx StrangeLove 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice you didn't quote anything from WP:SPAM. Can we agree that that's not a policy at issue, then? As for WP:NOT, including external links that express a notable POV is not turning an article into a soapbox, a vehicle for propaganda, or advertising. If following WP:EL by representing each notable POV automatically turned an article into "propaganda" for those POVs, we'd have a major problem on our hands, wouldn't we? Finally, Durin flat-out threatened to block anyone who re-introduced the link: "If you continue to edit war, I will move forward with warning you and eventually blocking you if you persist. Do not continue to attempt to re-introduce the wtc7.net link into the article without gaining consensus first. This goes for anyone attempting to do so." Using administrator powers to support your own side in an editorial dispute is a gross abuse of those powers. --Hyperbole 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM is a guideline, WP:NOT is offical policy, which is what you asked for and which is why I quoted from it. As I said above I'm done spinning my wheels on this and answering your objections over and over. Find another resource and we can talk about that...deal? Rx StrangeLove 22:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So far, you haven't managed to cite any guideline or policy in support of excluding wtc7.net that wouldn't exclude the vast majority of external links on Misplaced Pages. And I have yet to hear a suitable explanation for accepting cbsnews, Emporis, and WiredNewYork's profiteering but not wtc7.net's. I don't think you've ever answered my objections - just reiterated that you don't want to see the site on the article. WP:NOT obviously does not exclude wtc7.net - it is not propaganda, soapboxing, or advertising to link to a proponent of a POV. So, with no policy reason to exclude wtc7.net, I believe it should be included. But, out of curiosity, why isn't anybody else trying to find another resource? Is no one interested in meeting WP:EL? --Hyperbole 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

At least we agree that repeated assertion is not an useful way to argue. Tom Harrison 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning for excluding the link, aside from WP:SPAM (the site is primarily profiting off of 9/11), is undue weight (see WP:NPOV). We satisfy undue weight by linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which explains the controlled demolition theory in more detail and has the wtc7.net link. As well, Misplaced Pages:Consensus applies here. We do not have consensus for including the link (see poll above). Without consensus for including the link (70-80% support for the link), then we can't include it. Consensus is the same principle that applies to articles for deletion, requests for adminship, etc. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(A) Again, WP:SPAM has nothing in it that would exclude the site, and every one of the external links already in the article could be said to be profiting from 9/11. (B) Even if we assume the theory is given due weight in the article, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given external links - and WP:EL says it should. (C) There is no consensus to exclude the link. In articles for deletion, consensus is required to delete information - does anything suggest that consensus is required not to delete information within articles? --Hyperbole 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The site's sole purpose is to misinform and be sensationalistic in their "facts". They provide nothing but opinions based on misrepresentations of comments such as "pull it", falsehoods about what was seen and heard, and outright lies about what transpired. They offer no proof. But to make matters worse...they promote their DVD, produced by themselves, not peer reviewed by specialists or even one implosion expert. None of those credited as being involved in the production of the DVD have demostrated that they have one minute of training such as engineering or controlled demolitions in order to render a truly scientific refutation of the "official findings". The promoters of the website concentrate largely on WTC7 in a roundabout way of trying to show that if WTC7 was imploded, then there would be sufficient rationale to assume that the other buildings were as well. The website links clearly to a DVD they have to sell, which done so to make a profit, for websites themselves are cheap, requiring only a small amount of money to keep up and running. The balance of the DVD profits can go whereever they deem is best...surely it's not going to the families of those that lost loved ones on 9/11. That website isn't going in this article, and those that keep pushing for it's inclusion seem to be single purpose editors whose primary purpose in Misplaced Pages is to push their far out POV. This is a misuse of this forum and it is also disruptive.--MONGO 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're flat-out wrong. The site's purpose is to inform people that its authors believe our government demolished the World Trade Center - and they believe they're doing the public a service by providing that perspective. These demonic motivations are entirely in your head. And for the last time, stop dictating what is and isn't going to be in the article as though you'd never read WP:OWN. --Hyperbole 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"single purpose editors whose primary purpose in Misplaced Pages is to push their far out POV", eh? Well, personal remarks like this are forbidden here (WP:NPA), so I will avoid the temptation to throw the same charge at you. But you're wrong, you know. You don't own this article and do not have the right to unilaterally decide what goes in it. Guinnog 06:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for making your POV clear on this. You should consider desisting from editing this article though, as I'd like the arguments to be based on Wiki policy towards making this article encyclopedic.Guinnog 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)" Looks like a personal attack as well...please do a read on WP:NPA and have a glance at this discussion page and you'll see that I am most certainly not acting unilaterally. I'll be blunt so as to not confuse you...that link violates policy if we include it.--MONGO 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that is your opinion, but I do not think I share it, and I have to say I think little of your means and manner of enforcing your interpretation of the rules. And you would be playing games to construe what I said as a personal attack. So as not to confuse you, I'll explain what I mean. Bringing a strong POV to a debate, as you have, can in some cases be good for the article, especially if (as in your case) you are honest enough to acknowledge your POV. But continuing to delete links on the basis of a POV is regarded as unhelpful. More debate here, or failing that asking for extra admin help from admins not tied into the current argument, would seem better ways forward. Hope that is clear; no personal attacks, just a plea not to expect that your POV can always prevail. Nor should any one editor's; that, after all, is a great strength of Misplaced Pages, that it is a joint enterprise. Guinnog 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a bunch of crap. I have no POV...if I do, then it is shared by every major media, every reliable source on this matter and every engineering association and trade journal...calling my stance a POV is ridiculous. I think little of those that wish to use Misplaced Pages to promote nonsense that is based on a POV...you are so completely incorrect about the events and my motives that it is laughable.--MONGO 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. No POV, yet you said above "I hope they don't break even..in fact, I hope they lose money. I am more than willing to help them lose money by ensuring that their attempts to make a profit don't occur by advertising through Misplaced Pages", thus laying out your POV for all to see (and also seemingly evading the point which was being made). Why don't you put your passion into improving the article or even into finding a compromise, rather than into edit-warring? Maybe this is rather basic and I apologise if I sound patronising, but everyone has a POV, particularly on such charged and controversial topics as this. Please try to assume good faith, even in those you disagree with. Guinnog 18:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a POV..that's a mission statement. I don't edit war on the article. As you evolve as a Wikipedian, maybe you'll understand that we don't link to self promoting websites that exist to promote nonsense and make a buck. I really cannot explain it any better than that, so bye.--MONGO 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnong. "Oh dear" is the best response. — goethean ॐ 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to hear your definition of a POV! I can't imagine how your extremely vocal political views wouldn't qualify as a point of view. I'd also be curious to hear your definition of "edit warring," since you've made numerous reversions to this article. --Hyperbole 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I have gone through the article formatted the references, per WP:CITE. The Emporis links are useful as references, as is the CBS link. As such, they are included properly as references. The wirednewyork link provided no added information than the emporis link, plus I thought it did have excessive amount of advertising, so I removed it entirely. There are some other bits of information (e.g. the line According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction...") that need proper references. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job.--MONGO 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Any chance we can follow WP:EL?

I tried a third link to express the POV that 7 WTC was brought down by explosives; it's been reverted by two editors with no complaint specific to the site itself. Notable POVs are supposed to be represented in external links; I can't for the life of me see how you aren't blatantly violating Misplaced Pages policy by removing any and all attempts to link to that POV. --Hyperbole 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear about something: WP:RS is a guideline for sources, and WP:EL is a guideline for external links. The former should not be applied to external links, and the latter should not be applied to sources. --Hyperbole 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

whatreallyhappened.com

After this link was added and removed once tonight, it was added once more so I removed it. Please, you know how contentious these links and this subject are. You need to get consensus here before adding them, there is significant opposition to linking this subject. Talk about this before just adding stuff on your own, show some respect for the collaborative nature of this project. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to glance over WP:BOLD - the way to edit an article is to make changes and see how others react to them. We don't revert changes to an article on the basis that they haven't been peer reviewed on the talk page; that's just not how Misplaced Pages works. If you have a problem with whatreallyhappened.com, let us know - but don't delete material on the grounds that someone might have a problem with it! --Hyperbole 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that you already know other editors will have problems with this, for example it's already been removed once before this. For another example editors including myself have expressed opinions that this subject doesn't belong at all. WP:BOLD does not mean editing against consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of editing against consensus when no consensus exists? And how do you support this argument that the subject doesn't belong at all? WP:EL says to link to each notable POV; this is a clearly notable POV. --Hyperbole 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Strangelove and Mongo, there is going to have to be a link there with a POV you don't like. That's wikipedia though. Guinnog 06:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if it violates policy.--MONGO 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

...and you think whatreallyhappened.com does, why? --Hyperbole 07:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• For virtually the same reasons wtc7.net does. Start off with the title on the page you linked to , "The history the government hopes you DON'T learn". Partisan. First link after "home"? "WRH Store" where they are hawking their wares. Potentially violates copyright with photo after photo unattributed and not even a passing claim of fair use as wtc7.net does (which itself violates copyright). --Durin 11:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a "Partisan" website is not a reason to be deleted from external links otherwise the page conspiracy theories could have no external links. It is clearly nonsense. However, what about http://911research.wtc7.net/? Is it ok? (Mongo I'm still waiting your rebly about it).--Pokipsy76 13:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• The content of any article on Misplaced Pages is not justification for similar content in other articles. Please see WP:RS#Partisan_websites regarding partisan websites. 911research.wtc7.net suffers from the same problems as wtc7.net. --Durin 13:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• For the fiftieth time, WP:RS is a policy on sources, not external links. A source gives information that becomes internal to Misplaced Pages; an external link is information that is understood to be external to Misplaced Pages. What WP:RS wants to ensure is that we don't write something like "The U.S. government demolished 7 WTC (link)." in the article. What WP:EL flatly says is that that link, or a link of its POV, should be represented in the external links. It's a shame that people here continue to confuse the policies. --Hyperbole 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find in WP:RS#Partisan_websites anything that applies to http://911research.wtc7.net/, can you be more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokipsy76 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please see earlier discussion above regarding wtc7.net. It's the same people. --Durin 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I still can't see anything in WP:RS#Partisan_websites that applies to http://911research.wtc7.net/ and it really looks as if you are sadly managing to avoid to reply about this.--Pokipsy76 08:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, combing through all these websites that promote the misinformation they do, it really is obvious that the vast majority of them do indeed have something that want to sell you.--MONGO 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• As does 911research.wtc7.net. See . --Durin 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• As do 99% of all websites. Misplaced Pages does not prohibit external links or sources from advertising, selling ad space, or selling merchandise - because then we wouldn't have any external links or sources. This very project couldn't exist except on a superficial level if we were Puritans about commercialism. --Hyperbole 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the articles I have started, there are no links to websites that exist to advertise a product they are selling. I can look through them again and if I find any I'll delete them.--MONGO 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The articles you've started are besides the point. If you went through Misplaced Pages deleting every external link that sells a product, you'd be banned for vandalism inside of a week. It's not a valid reason to remove external links. --Hyperbole 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• So why is 911research.wtc7.net in the page conspiracy theories if it doesn't respect wikipedia's standards for external links? Why aren't you trying to delete all external links from that page?--Pokipsy76 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• (A) "Partisan" is the wrong word, because it doesn't support the views of a political party. Official Misplaced Pages policy is to link to notable POVs - not to exclude sites because they present a POV. (B) An external link is not a source. WP:RS is a totally inapplicable policy. (C) There is no Misplaced Pages policy that external links must comply with Misplaced Pages standards for the attribution of images. Whether or not an image on another site constitutes fair use is not Misplaced Pages's problem. --Hyperbole 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, you obviously feel exceptionally strongly about this POV. Every argument that has been raised against the inclusion of the sites you want to link to has been rebuffed by several people here to apparently no avail in showing you any other possible avenue of advancement. This discussion isn't going anywhere. There really isn't anything more to discuss. I stand by my original statement that continued revert warring on your part will eventually lead to a temporary block fo your editing privileges. I'm sorry we're at this impasse. At this point, we're just rehashing this debate over and over again. Good day. --Durin 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by my original statement that continued revert warring on your part will eventually lead to a temporary block fo your editing privileges.

• Why is it edit warring on Hyperbole's part but not on yours? — goethean ॐ 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wondered that too. Also see WP:BLOCK, especially: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith." Guinnog 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole had been reverted by a number of different editors over a long stretch of about a week and in most of his edits, he continued to add the mindless POV pushing website. If the community feels that an editor is being disruptive, is pushing a point and violating WP:POINT by continue to add in links that are always reverted by numerous parties, than that can also be considered disruption on his/her part. It's not like he is adding a sound, scientific website link...it's a bunch of junk science.--MONGO 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Who appointed you the judger what what is an what is not junk science in regards to external links on wikipedia? Or what is an what is not POV? We are all, including Hyperbole, just as qualified as you to judge good science from bad. And your guff about WP:POINT is just that. There is no consensus on this page. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really quite simple you see...if a website promotes items that have not been published by a reputable scientific journal, are not endorsed by even one college or university anywhere, have not been embraced by any reputable media source, are not sanctioned by any trade journels, and in this case, have not been endorsed by even one engineering organization anywhere on the planet...then it sure is not me that has a POV if I too am aligned on the side of the experts. When websites then also make false claims, add innuendo instead of facts and promote a product that they sell at a profit...then, well....exactly who is pushing a POV here? I'm like a firewall...I work to keep viruses out of this forum...if I could do so in every article wikipedia has, I would...but for the sake of the thousands that died that day, I'm concentrate my efforts here to ensure that junk science being POV pushed doesn't tarnish the memory of these innocent people...especially when their deaths are being "used" to make a fast buck. Before you do anymore major editing, please go and read the policy pages.--MONGO 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop talking down to your fellow editors. — goethean ॐ 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you not have little notes about editors you disagree with.--MONGO 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your personal information shared, don't share it. Simple. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole page is an attack page. Shame on you.--MONGO 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You are a fine one to be offering ethical advice. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't make up attack pages on other editors. LOL...if I was a paid webspammer, would I advertise my occupation? At least one of us was there and saw the end result.--MONGO 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are apparently a paid government employee, spending large amounts of time deleting material that the government wouldn't want people to read. You must be aware of how that looks. --Hyperbole 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean reverting...I haven't deleted anything. Asking me to not edit here is like asking a biologist to not edit articles about biology. You spend large amounts of time trying to ensure you don't lose any money if we cut out your website. I see you contribute nowhere else on Misplaced Pages aside from this article and a few related to it...and you keep pushing the same website...that is a POV push if I ever saw one.--MONGO 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was certainly not the only editor trying to comply with WP:EL by offering a link supporting the controlled demolition POV. Not by a long shot; a glance over the history will show that. There is no consensus on this page whether such a link should be included, even though Misplaced Pages policies clearly state that one should. Yet I was singled out to be threatened with a block. I feel that Durin has grossly abused his admin powers here. --Hyperbole 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Then take it to the admin noticeboard incidents or file an Rfc. I see no evidence that others were edit warring as you did.--MONGO 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Then start an RfC. I have nothing to fear. I was not POV pushing, I was not attempting to use admin powers to push what I thought was appropriate for the article. Quite the contrary in fact. I specifically asked you to find a site for the POV you want in the article that didn't have the problems wtc7.net has. I also, despite your claims that my one revert and then additional revert at your behest was revert warring, have not been revert warring. You have done a wonderful job of painting anyone who disagrees with you here as acting outside the bounds of policy and, in my case, abusing administrator powers. Perhaps some circumspection on your part is in order. --Durin 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably take some kind of action once I'm done with finals. Misplaced Pages policy is crystal clear about representing each notable POV on a subject, and the only thing preventing that from happening are inappropriate threats from an admin. --Hyperbole 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good. I look forward to it. Please be sure that you are fair in your presentation and make note that you were never prevented from presenting the POV, but prevented by a lack of consensus to present a specific website that lacks authority, violates copyright, and exists at least partially to sell stuff by the authors of the website. THAT is why I wanted you to gain consensus before including wtc7.net. A site so problematic needs to have significant consensus to override those concerns.
• For my part, I saw an edit war largely caused by you (12 reverts over the same content) and attempted to stop it (though NOT stop the POV...stopping wtc7.net is NOT stopping the POV). I gave a detailed response why wtc7.net is unacceptable, started a poll to ascertain consensus to override multiple points in guidelines that stop us from using such sites. When the war continued despite my significant efforts to keep you focused on discussion and gaining discussion, only then did I warn you about continued revert warring (or anyone else for that matter). For that I was accused by you of grossly abusing my administrative powers.
• Question for you; what would you accuse yourself of if you observed that you reverted people at least 12 times over a handful of days to push content back into an article? --Durin 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I admit that I participated in an edit war. But it was an edit war in which there were two roughly even sides, and seven or eight participants. You moved to stop that edit war by declaring that anyone inserting links that your own POV did not support would be blocked. Those removing links, including you yourself, were editing against consensus as well, but you made no such threats to them. You took a side, Durin, and you used your admin powers to make the article read the way you want it to read. --Hyperbole 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, I did not take a POV stance. In fact, as I've mentioned several times now, I asked you to provide a site that had material on the POV without the problems that wtc7.net had. I was specifically opposed (and remain so) to wtc7.net for reasons I have previously noted. I reverted the inclusion of the link to wtc7.net for the multiple problems it has and asked you to provide another site with the POV but without the problems. I'm not sure how many times I can re-state this and have any reasonable expectation for myself to make this any clearer. I've taken no stance with regards to the POV. If you think otherwise, I'd be happy to clarify the issue for you. --Durin 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do you really think the fact that you used your administrator powers to resolve a content dispute in your favor is excused by the fact that you didn't go so vastly overboard as to seize the entire article and pre-emptively "resolve" all future content disputes in your favor? There was no consensus on whether wtc7.net was a valid link; you chose to enforce your POV on that issue using threats of a block. That's an abuse, Durin, and the only real excuse you've given is that it isn't the grossest abuse imaginable. --Hyperbole 02:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Tom Harrison 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hyperbole, this latest disagreement between you and I is just further evidence of the incapability of any point to gain traction. I have stated several times now that I did not prevent the POV you are adamant about putting into the article, yet above you yet again state that that is what I was trying to do. You yourself said at 22:12, 4 May 2006 that I was amenable to having this POV in the article. So, you are disagreeing with yourself. Yet you continue to insist that I abused admin powers by preventing this POV from being in the article. Frankly, I'm flumoxed at your position. I'll repeat it yet again; I was NOT threatening you with a block for putting a particular POV into the article. I was threatening you for continued revert warring which you by far were the most serious contributor to in this dispute. I'm not going to repeat myself on this again. Further discussion on this point is unlikely to yield any progress. --Durin 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everything Durin said above. But I also think that you haven't shown the POV to be notable in the first place. For starters, notable POV's have lot's of solid and reliable online resources to choose from when picking out links to include in an article. The links presnted so far are weak and not serious, they exist exclusively to push conspiracy and do not show any independent verification. They misrepresent factual data to support a theory that receives little or no serious media/expert attention. Rx StrangeLove 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, as the article rightly says, according to FEMA “Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”

If there was an accepted explanation for why WTC7 fell down the way it did, I might have slightly more inclination to agree with you. Given that the best the agency charged with investigating the collapse can do four and a half years on, is say what (to me) translates as "We don't know. Maybe it was the fires.", having a link to a site that provides alternate views on why it fell down, if clearly labelled as such, doesn't seem so heinous to me. As the article currently says, "While FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse is widely accepted, some individuals and groups have presented alternate viewpoints and theories, usually as part of a larger belief in a 9/11 conspiracy." I would actually quibble about that last clause, although I will leave it as it is likely true. I am not a conspiracy theorist at heart (see my edits on Chinook Helicopter Crash (1994) and Concorde for example, where I've tried to bring in the 'proper' explanation over conspiracy buffs - but not by deleting or removing, by addition).

Another interesting comparison is Apollo moon landing hoax accusations which I think is an exemplar of how to handle a difficult area like this. I've made one or two minor contributions there. I assure you that none of them involved repeatedly deleting links I didn't like - and yet the article is, to me, quite fair and balanced. Maybe we need a 7 World Trade Center collapse theories page?!

Your assertion that the wtc7.net site is "weak and not serious, they exist exclusively to push conspiracy and do not show any independent verification. They misrepresent factual data to support a theory..." is just that, an assertion. Based on your POV, which is entirely proper. But other POVs exist, and you need to appreciate that.

As there isn't any real consensus about why WTC7 fell down, I (and I think opinion polls confirm most people) feel there are certainly awkward questions still to be answered or avoided about just how and why this building fell down. Let's recognise there is a difference of opinion on this one and try to get a consensus (not a vote) we can all live with. It will be hard but I am always up for a challenge. What do you say? Guinnog 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• We did try to gain consensus above, in part, using a poll. It was inconclusive and there has been weeks of debate about this with no headway achieved. From my chair, both sides of this are adamantly in favor of their view and no yielding is taking place. --Durin 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted has very little POV in it...let's break it down:

"weak and not serious, they exist exclusively to push conspiracy and do not show any independent verification. They misrepresent factual data to support a theory..."

• weak and not serious-Logical conclusion from following breakdown
• they exist exclusively to push conspiracy-This is hardly POV, anyone can look and see for themselves. Take a look at either of the sites that editors attempted to add as links. Is there any material not related to some conspiracy or other? I think if you're honest you'll agree that the answer is no and my statement hardly qualifies as POV because it's independently verifiable.
• ...and do not show any independent verification- Again, not POV because anyone can look and see for themselves that there are no independent citations or sources that backup conclusions the authors have made.
• They misrepresent factual data to support a theory-Easily shown NPOV. For example the authors came to this conclusion:

"that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001"

From this quote:

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

By stating:

"There can be little doubt as to how the word pull is being used in this context" and "One thing is for sure, the decision to pull WTC 7 would have delighted many people"

The authors are taking a quote and clearly misrepresenting it. The source of the quote denied the meaning assigned to it so you end up having some "authors" thinking they have a better idea of the quotes meaning then the source. That's twisting a fact beyond all recognition. And before you say "but people lie", understand that the authors have zero supporting factual evidence to backup their version of what Larry Silverstien meant.

The Apollo Moon hoax is a great example of a notable conspiracy theory. It's got loads of attention, films, TV shows, refutations and serious expert attention. The Demolition theory doesn't have anything like the notability the Moon landing hoax has and you can't compare them. We don't just throw in every single POV because a small group of people are pushing it. And deleting POV edits is a perfectly acceptable way of improving an article.

Let's move on, we won't agree and the next step is either dispute resolution or a conversation about where else in Misplaced Pages this belongs, if anywhere. Rx StrangeLove 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that dispute resolution is necessary. All we need is a link that expresses the very common point of view that there was something unusual about the collapse, that also meets our standards. Shouldn't be that hard. Guinnog 14:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Including that link on this page would be giving Undue weight to conspiracy theorists. Links to conspiracy theories belong on 9/11 conspiracy theories.--DCAnderson 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure? This is something that, polls say, half of New Yorkers believe. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poll your are citing was not about whether WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, but whether people think the government knew something was going to happen or not, yes? These are entirely different topics. --Durin 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)