Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Links from this article with broken #section links :
]

• Analysis
• Citation bot
• External links

Free Fall Collapse Should be Acknowledged

One of the most controversial facts about the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 is that the building (or some claim what was left of it) underwent a phase of collapse at exactly gravitational acceleration for over 2 seconds. This is officially acknowledged in the final NIST report, NCSTAR 1-A, (section 3.6 pp 45-46 including fig. 3-15), although it was initially denied in the draft report until public criticism of the draft by members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth forced NIST to revise its claim.

This fact (no longer disputed) is extremely significant, since even buckled steel columns must provide significant resistance to compression and collapse, despite the claim by NIST (p 45 of NCSTAR 1-A) that the 'buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face'. This is true even if we are only considering a single facade of the building, supported only by buckled perimeter columns, although there is absolutely no empirical evidence at all to support NIST's claim that only one facade of the building was in free fall. Either way, it is acknowledged that all or part of WTC 7 underwent collapse indistinguishable from free fall for 2.25 seconds, through a distance of about 25 metres, or roughly 25% of the entire height of the building. This implies that the steel columns supporting that part of the building (most likely all 82 steel columns throughout the building), whether buckled or not, were compressed through about 25% of their length, using no energy whatsoever, since all gravitational potential energy was converted to kinetic energy in this phase and was therefore unavailable to do work on the structure. Critics of the official report point out that this would be a physical impossibility, unless the columns were all removed simultaneously by some means such as controlled demolition using explosives and / or incendiary components.

In view of the importance of this point, it should be acknowledged in the article, with a reference to the appropriate section of the NIST official report, NCSTAR 1-A as I have given above. This is especially in view of persistent claims by self-styled 'conspiracy theory debunkers' prevalent on the internet, who disseminate the misinformation that WTC 7 was never in free fall. The confusion usually stems from a misunderstanding of the difference between instantaneous acceleration and average acceleration, coupled with a misunderstanding of the significance of free fall, even over a short period of time, such as 2 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The causes of the collapse are well known and do not include explosive or incendiary components. Please see WP:RS. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reference explaining how the structural elements of WTC 7 (including 82 100-metre high steel columns) could be compressed through 25% of their length using no energy, as the official report implies. I have read through the entirety of NCSTAR 1-A and no such explanation is forthcoming which, as someone with a PhD in engineering mathematics and a physics degree, I would expect. Also, there are no peer-reviewed scholarly articles on this subject. Your statement that the causes of collapse are 'well known' is a palpably false and completely evidence-free assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The only source that the implied compression is required is you. Feel free to publish on the topic and get back to us. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Familiarise yourself with an elementary physics textbook. Maybe get yourself a 1st class degree in the subject or a PhD in engineering, as I have and then I'll get back to you. OK, you want a reference? Try this one.Sonmi 451 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Right now, there are few, if any reliable sources which claim that WTC7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia and so we cover mainstream viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he's just wrong like all the rest of them. The initial buckling provided resistance. Then it buckled. Then it fell. Then it started to pile up. There is no requirement for compression nor is freefall of a facade during the middle portion of a building collapse controversial when the support structure has collapsed. Columns buckled outward, not down so no compression required. --DHeyward (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Were any 100-metre long buckled columns found in the debris pile? No. Is there any evidence on film for any buckling of perimeter columns? No. But it doesn't matter, either way. If a column is buckled, without being severed, the height is shortened and the building is collapsing - we agree thus far. In order to shorten the column further, it is necessary to deform that column further (which is what I mean by 'compression' - i.e. compression of the length). Any form of deformation requires energy; it requires energy to bend, as well as to 'compress' a structure. So where did this energy come from? We have established that it could not come from gravitational potential energy, since that is all being converted to kinetic energy during free fall. There is therefore no escaping the deduction that the columns must have been severed. Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi, you might want to look at some of the discussions in the archive that have already happened (for example here). Misplaced Pages makes it very easy to search the archives and find out what has been discussed. It seems that every couple of months someone looks at the article, gets the idea that nobody on Misplaced Pages has heard such-and-such unassailable fact about WTC7, and comments. In most cases we've been through this. If you look through the archive and notice that something important isn't mentioned in the article, and you have a reliable source to back it up, let us know. Be mindful, though, that users can be sanctioned for tendentious editing of this and other 9/11-related articles. -Jordgette 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If it comes up every couple months, why not create an article FAQ? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother frankly. The CTers have long tried to promote the notion that IF WTC 7 was imploded, then it is at least somewhat plausible that the twin towers were as well. While CT's about Bigfoot, UFO's and Apollo Moon Landings have some element of humor in them in their preposterousness, the 9/11 CT's are so incredibly ignorant that they are beyond humorous...they are instead simply sad and sick.--MONGO 02:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Bigfoot, UFOs or the Apollo moon landings have to do with 9/11. But if we are playing the childish game of denigrating a position by trying to associate it with other more easily ridiculed notions, allow me to join in: Many who repudiate so-called 9/11 'conspiracy theories' are themselves climate change deniers, which immediately tells me they have no ability to evaluate complex scientific data. They also often use the well-worn trope that it would be impossible for 'the US government' (a somewhat vague signifier) to be primarily responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as they are simply incompetent. The same 'logic' would lead you to believe that they were too incompetent to organise the moon landings too. So which is it? Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Jordgette, and I do realise that Misplaced Pages will only ever endorse what they believe to be the 'mainstream' view, regardless of how wrong that view may be. I have no desire to edit Misplaced Pages articles directly, as I have better things to do than take on the astro-turfers who doubtless stake out these controversial articles. However, I do believe that where articles omit important facts, they should be called into question for the sake of completeness. Where genuine controversies exist, they should be highlighted, rather than swept under the carpet. Encyclopaedias should not pretend that a consensus exists when in fact there is none. Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally, there is, in fact, a perfectly good peer-reviewed academic paper, which has never been challenged in any genuine academic forum, which does show with very high probability that explosives were used in the destruction of at least one and probably all 3 towers to fall on 9/11. It is the paper by Harrit et al (2009), "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". Detractors (usually non-scientists) often claim that the paper was not peer-reviewed or that the journal is some sort of 'vanity publication', thereby displaying their total ignorance of the Open Journal concept and always failing to engage with the evidence presented, preferring cowardly ad-hominem attacks or making totally unsupported allegations instead. As a published scientist myself, I find this kind of ignorance and refusal to engage with evidence pretty offensive. Anyway, I simply refer to it as an example of a good, reliable, verifiable source which Misplaced Pages refuses to acknowledge (without good reason), and which is therefore airbrushed out of its histories in Stalinist fashion. Meanwhile, the papers due to Bazant, Seffen and others, which have been absolutely torn to shreds in the very same academic journals in which they were published, are accorded some sort of godlike credibility, along with completely non-academic magazine articles (e.g. Popular Mechanics) and even marketing white papers.Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to edit the article. It will be interesting seeing what you add since you're like a published scientist and all.MONGO 20:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi - When you say the papers by Bazant, are you referring to the 2007 and 2008 papers in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Because I looked through the 29 papers citing the first and the 6 citing the second, and saw none of them "tearing to shreds" the original, certainly not in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Care to point us to those papers? They sound interesting.

It's really not worth your time arguing your pet theories here. According to the ASCE's publication (which practices true peer review, unlike Bentham Open), "allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered" (Bazant 2008). To challenge this on Misplaced Pages we need a reliable source; otherwise you're just typing at nothing. -Jordgette 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1) The fact that Steve Jones' paper (aka Harrit et al.) is not published in any peer-reviewed journal is not related to anyone's "total ignorance of the Open Journal concept". 2) Without reliable sources to the contrary, claims that Bazant, et al. have "been absolutely torn to shreds in the very same academic journals" are, frankly, ludicrous. If, in fact, there was any tearing or shredding it was done by Bažant. 3) Reliable sources are also required to support your claim that Misplaced Pages editors have "airbrushed" information out of articles "in Stalinist fashion" (this is also the wrong article for such claims). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to Bazant & Verdure (2007) and the discussions published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley and Gregory Szuladzinski, both of which carefully dismantle Bazant's thesis. A link is provided above by ArtifexMayhem, although this user seems to think that Bazant answered his critics adequately. That's his opinion but I do not share it. In any case, the discussion shows that Bazant's views are not universally accepted by qualified professional engineers. Further refutations were also published in the same journal, by Anders Björkman and Crockett Grabbe (concerning Seffen's paper). Whether or not you agree with Bazant's thesis regarding the twin towers, it must be noted that he has never tried to apply his analysis to WTC 7, since it is quite obvious that no amount of ad hoc mathematical modelling can describe a steel-framed building collapsing in free fall, unless all structural supports are completely removed (e.g. by explosive demolition).

There are persistent claims by editors here that Bentham Open Chemical Physics is not a peer-reviewed journal. This amounts to a serious accusation of fraud against Bentham Science Publishers and that specific journal's editorial board. The evidence for the allegation is scant and concerns a single unverified case of a nonsense paper being allegedly accepted by a different journal in the Bentham range - but not Open Chemical Physics. The allegation against Open Chemical Physics is thus baseless and you would be on shaky ground in a libel case.

However, the whole discussion around this topic simply reveals a totally hypocritical and asymmetric attitude towards the question of 'reliable sources' by Misplaced Pages editors. Non-peer-reviewed articles in the non-academic commercial magazine, Popular Mechanics, are frequently cited in support of NIST's official theories, so clearly peer review is not considered necessary for a source to be deemed 'reliable'. The NIST report itself (NCSTAR-1A) is not peer-reviewed and also contains glaring outright falsehoods, such as the claim that no explosions were heard by witnesses or captured on audio. By contrast, the Harrit paper was peer-reviewed and appears in an academic publication, yet is not deemed 'reliable'. Do you care to explain the double-standard? Moreover, Harrit et al's findings have now been independently replicated by professional chemical engineer, Mark Basile. No one has ever refuted these findings in a proper academic forum, although they have been welcome to try for nearly 3 years now. The only criticisms I can find are completely hilarious attempts on non-scientific internet forums to postulate a remarkable sort of 'paint' which explodes just like nano-thermite and fails to dissolve in an industrial solvent. Would these critics like to publish their own analyses in a peer-reviewed academic journal? No. Why? Because they are laughable.

Further corroboration for Harrit's paper comes from the completely independent insurance report by R J Lee (WTC Dust Signature Report, 2003), which reveals that 6% of the dust particles from the collapsed buildings were composed of microscopic spheres of elemental iron (a by-product of a thermitic reaction). The report concludes, probably incorrectly, that these particles were formed by the melting of steel at extremely high temperatures within the buildings. This, of course, could not be achieved by the fires in the buildings, but it could be achieved by explosive demolition using nano-thermite and there is absolutely no other plausible explanation for such a high abundance of elemental iron microspheres. This report was clearly good enough for a court of law, so does it count as 'reliable' enough for Misplaced Pages? Seeing as it corroborates Harrit's findings and supports a controlled demolition hypothesis, I guess not. Sonmi 451 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and the archives of this talk page before continuing down this path. Without proper sourcing your ideas will get no traction here. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, thanks. Clearly, Harrit, Jones, Gourley et al are all recognised experts in their fields, with numerous scientific publications between them, as is R.J. Lee, so they all fit the description of 'reliable sources'. However, Misplaced Pages editors consider a non-peer-reviewed commercial magazine such as Popular Mechanics to be a more 'reliable source'. I rest my case, as I have no desire to 'get traction' here. I think I've made my point, which is simply to show that this article on WTC 7 omits numerous important facts and controversies and is therefore hugely biased, disingenuous and unreliable. Sonmi 451 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A journal that charges authors to publish submissions is a vanity press, not a scientific journal, and therefore not a reliable source. Seeing that New Scientist wasn't sued for libel for its accusations, I think we're on safe ground here. Checking Artifex's link, I see that these supposed refutations were e-mails, not peer-reviewed papers like Bazant's. I also notice that James Gourley is a patent attorney. A "recognised expert in their field" -- really??

It's a wonder why conspiracy theorists never ask themselves why the great Professor Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D. couldn't get his paper published in a reputable journal. Oh that's right, it's a conspiracy, NVM. -Jordgette 21:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And..Jones was a professor at BYU...he no longer is and the reasons why are somewhat easily discovered. I never cease to be amazed when folks show up here, claiming high level educations and call the Misplaced Pages editors biased when all we are doing is providing articles based on the known evidence...because we don't want to wreck articles by adding nonsense, we're "disingenuous".--MONGO 03:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clear to me that neither of you have ever published anything in a 'reputable journal' yourselves and I'd be most surprised if you've ever been through an academic peer review process. As someone who has been through the process many times, I am well aware of its severe limitations as well as strengths. If you had ever been through peer review, you would also be aware that you cannot get a paper into print - in a 'reputable' journal - within 6 months of writing it if it is to be properly peer reviewed. Bazant and Zhou's original paper was written only two days after the 9/11 attacks (i.e. completely free of any evidence and data) and was in print by January 2002, which means it was a 'rapid communication' and could not have been through adequate peer review itself. Everything Bazant has published since has been an attempt to embellish the basic analysis of that original 'back-of-the-envelope' theory which, sadly, fails to account for Newton's 3rd law.

So James Gourley is a patent lawyer, qualified in Chemical Engineering, and Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his seminal papers. So what? Neither Gourley nor Bazant are Einstein, but you don't need to be a genius to understand that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately using explosives (and possibly incendiaries). You only need to understand elementary mechanics and apply it to the steel-framed structure of the building. Even Bazant is well aware that his mathematical model cannot apply to WTC 7, even with the unrealistic assumptions he makes about the twin towers.

You also seem to think that all open access journals are 'vanity publications'. This is also a dead giveaway that you've never practised actual science at post-doctoral level or beyond. As a post-doc at Imperial College London (Maths Dept.), I was always being solicited to submit papers to open access journals. This is annoying, but no more annoying than having to pay fat fees ($30 or more) to academic publishers each time you want to download a paper from their websites. We never published in open access journals, because we had other more traditional options, but my Professor never considered them to be 'vanity publications'. Typically, the author's institution meets the cost of publication, in return for guaranteeing a wide audience. I have a pretty dim view of all academic publishers, as I consider it outrageous that a corporate oligopoly should be able to extract rents for the dissemination of information which they did not help to create. The point of open access is that people do not have to pay to read the results of the research. Clearly, when the research is controversial and of general public interest, it makes very good sense to publish in an open access journal, so that everybody can read it.

Finally, perhaps you would be interested in a new business proposition of mine? I'm going to start a company called 'Uncontrolled Demolition, Inc.' Would you like to contribute say $10 starting capital? With your investment, I propose to buy a can of petrol and a box of matches. That should do it. Maybe you two could write up my marketing literature? I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing prospective clients of my ability to bring down steel-framed skyscrapers symmetrically, at free fall acceleration, with sudden onset, straight down into their own footprints, at minimal cost and with no preparation. After all, Occam's razor says that's how it usually happens, doesn't it?

If you don't like that one, I've got another one for you. I propose a plan to reduce 10-ton trucks to scrap metal, simply by driving a Volkswagen 2CV into them, starting at low speed and accelerating around 6 m/s^2 (hmm, ok we might need a BMW). According to Dr Bazant's most excellent theory, this should be no problem. In fact, he might volunteer to drive the car? I'm sure you'd also be happy to invest in my new scrap metal business. Sonmi 451 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi, two large airplanes crashed into two large buildings. They fell down, taking with them some adjacent structures. That's about it. And you reference Occam's razor? Hello? Antandrus (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about WTC 7, which was not hit by any aircraft. Also, the official report makes it very clear that debris from the twin towers played absolutely no part whatsoever in the collapse of WTC 7, which is considered to be a unique fire-induced collapse (according to Shyam Sunder of NIST). The damage from aircraft impact is therefore completely irrelevant. Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly (and succinctly) what change is being proposed, and what is the reliable source to be cited for it? If the reply is another long screed, I propose it be removed for misusing the talk page as a soapbox. Tom Harrison 22:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi 451...It's clear to me that if the harder and more complex explanation is the right one, as you've postulated, then you need to review the Occam's Razor principle....which is the reverse of what you're POV pushing...if you don't have some facts to back up your POV pushing, then you need to stop wasting time here.MONGO 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Occam's razor is the rule of thumb (approximating to the use of a 'prior' in Bayesian inference) which exhorts that 'simple' explanations be preferred to ones which posit more unusual or inherently less likely mechanisms. Every tall steel-framed building which has ever collapsed completely and suddenly onto its own footprint has always done so as a result of controlled demolition using explosives. This is therefore the explanation favoured by Occam's razor (or a Bayesian prior), not the NIST theory, which posits a completely unique mechanism of progressive collapse which is also totally at odds with the evidence. Whilst we're on that subject, I should point out that evidence is more important than Occam's razor. For example, Occam's razor would suggest that the earth is flat and that space and time are absolutes. The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence in the case of WTC 7 clearly favours controlled demolition, and so does Occam's razor. We're not even talking about a 'conspiracy theory' here; just a collapse mechanism.

The change I request to the article is very simple and not controversial: just to acknowledge that WTC 7 underwent a stage of free fall collapse for over 2 seconds through a distance of 25 metres, since this is a unique and surprising feature of the building's destruction which many people are unaware of, but which does inform debate about collapse mechanisms. The reason they may be unaware of this is that the draft report attempted to deny it (because it totally destroys their thesis), before NIST was embarrassed in public by the physics teacher, David Chandler. Chandler's criticism forced NIST to backtrack and acknowledge in essence that they didn't understand the difference between instantaneous and average acceleration. In reality they do, but the report's function is to obfuscate. Anyway, the 'reliable source' for this information is now the NIST Final Report itself, NCSTAR 1-A. It's a fraud, but Misplaced Pages seems to like it (along with the 9/11 Commission Report), so you'll have no objection to my proposed change, I'm sure. Perhaps one of the regular editors would like to word it, so as to maintain a NPOV?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs)

The final NIST report on WTC 7 is "a fraud"...okie dokie,MONGO 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks for another hilarious A and E for "truth" Youtube video...those guys are better than the 3 Stooges!MONGO 19:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so you'll no doubt be prepared to substantiate, by reference to appropriate academic sources, that the NIST report is a "fraud." Otherwise, this is a prime example of another attempt to exploit any inconsistency that can be found to cast aspersions at a less-examined aspect of a secondary subject (WTC 7) in the hopes that the primary subject (WTC 1/2 and 9/11) can be discredited. This kind of doubt-by-degrees is characteristic of conspiracy theories, in which any disputed or poorly-understood aspect of a subject is enlarged upon to "prove" the conspiracy thesis. Unfortunately, rather than a bottom-up approach (by which a "proof" can be devised for practically anything), we expect to see a top-down approach. As in a story in the New York Times confirming beyond doubt the existence of a massive conspiracy to perpetrate 9/11, naming names and giving reasons. Show us that. We see far too many conspiracy theorists mistaking "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for a license to publish their own ideas about The Truth. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

True that. So the worldwide community of engineering and fire-safety professionals can be taken down by one high school teacher with a question, one patent lawyer with an e-mail, or one Misplaced Pages editor with a Volkswagen analogy. It's funny, the creationist Ray Comfort famously "disproved" evolution by natural selection, by pointing out that life doesn't evolve in a jar of peanut better. I can haz edit the Evolution article now?

ps. Adding details about the varying rates of descent (a.k.a. NIST ADMITS FREEFALL!!) has been discussed and discussed again. -Jordgette 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Choosing factoids to make controlled demolition seem less unreasonable would give undue weight to a fringe opinion. The change suggested would mislead our readers, and isn't something I'd support. Tom Harrison 22:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi –

In "free fall" it takes aproximatly 3.9 seconds for an object to fall a distance of 242 feet (on this planet).

It took the north face of WTC7 aproximatly 5.4 seconds to fall a distance of 242 feet...

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.

• By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.

• This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

• Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.

In other words... The collapse took 40% longer than it would have under "free fall".

How do you propose we incorporate these facts into our article? Maybe a nice graph? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What a total waste of time this whole discussion is. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Indeed they do. I couldn't agree more. The most extraordinary claim in the article is that WTC 7 collapsed solely due to fire-induced thermal expansion of a single beam (according to the 'reliable source', NIST): a unique event in architectural history. Where is the extraordinary proof of this extraordinary claim? Nowhere. All that is offered is a dubious computer simulation, with unclear initial parameters, backed by no hard forensic evidence at all. Against this, we have the rather pedestrian 'controlled demolition hypothesis', which explains the collapse of many buildings in a perfectly simple, parsimonious manner. Furthermore, this theory is backed by numerous pieces of hard, forensic evidence, all appearing in reliable sources (Harrit's thermitic materials paper, the RJ Lee report, the FEMA report, even the NIST report!).

You claim that the 'worldwide community of structural engineers' backs the official story. Sorry to disappoint you, but they don't. Official bodies sometimes issue statements distancing themselves from anything controversial, of course, that might affect their funding, but actual engineers are divided. Those who are presented with the evidence nearly always reject the official explanation for WTC 7's collapse. I was recently at a talk by Richard Gage in London at the Royal Institute of British Architects, attended by many structural engineers, some of whom were open-minded or hostile to alternative theories to begin with. By the end of the talk, not a single one of them supported the official story. A feature of scientific discourse is that evidence is paramount and that one must be prepared to adjust one's views in the light of that evidence. For some supporters of the official viewpoint, no amount of evidence will ever be enough.

You want a conspiracy theory? How about this one: It was all accomplished by a shadowy global terror organisation called al-Qaeda, led by a super-villain called Osama bin Laden, from his luxuriously equipped cave in the mountains of Afghanistan. What evidence is there for this conspiracy theory? Absolutely not one credible jot of information whatsoever. Reliable sources? Zero. Yet you guys dutifully believe it all. Evidence is not required in this case, apparently. Nor will it be required to convict Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, in a secret military court.

So go ahead. Write whatever you like in your puerile 'encyclopdedia'. Sonmi 451 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk you had from Gage...was it as enlightening as the one in this video here?...if so, no doubt almost anyone would be sway from the facts with such new and awe inspiring details. I am overwhelmed by this demonstration! Duh...and also according to him "nano-thermite" residue was found at the WTC site...NO it wasn't! It's residue from steel beam paint primer that melted! You haven't provided a single reliable source for any of your claims...are you expecting us to believe that not a single engineering or scientific journal wants to stand-up and publish these conspiracy theories because all (I dunno...million) experts are all paid off?--MONGO 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The desire to believe is a strong agent for people accepting whatever evidence advances that belief. So on one side we have multiple video shots of jet-fuel-filled airliners plowing into skyscrapers, the collapse of which sent giant flaming missiles of debris shooting into a neighboring building, which burned for hours before collapsing as firefighters had predicted . On the other side we have unseen secret ninjas secretly planting unseen explosives/incendiaries that somehow managed to survive seven hours of uncontrolled office fires, only to be set off by unseen conspirators in perfect synchrony, which apparently is the only condition under which the building could possibly collapse in the manner that it did. So what was that about "dutifully believing it all"?

Also, if it's true that "Those who are presented with the evidence nearly always reject the official explanation," why hasn't a single rigorous paper been published in a major engineering journal? Why has the "Truth" movement been so incredibly ineffectual (beyond a small circle of believers in the "Truther" echo chamber), for ten-plus years and counting? -Jordgette 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, scientific papers are supposed to present new science, not old science. You want a paper demonstrating that buildings can be destroyed by controlled demolition using explosives? Perhaps you'd also like a scientific study on the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow before you make any future plans? Harrit et al's thermite paper is there, of course, although MONGO has demonstrated that he hasn't read it, because he thinks that primer paint doesn't dissolve in industrial solvent and undergoes an explosive, highly exothermic reaction - which produces microscopic iron spheres exactly as found throughout the dust - when heated to 430 deg C. Try reading a paper before you try to critique it.

If you really want to know what Gage's presentation was like, you should watch this video. But you won't, because evidence doesn't interest you. If you still think Richard Gage is an idiot (despite being a highly experienced, well qualified and still practising architect) and you know better than him, then maybe you'll listen to one of the dozens of other certified experts speaking out in this video? But no, I guess they're all crazy conspiranoid idiots too, aren't they? How can any of them still be practising engineers?

As you point out, the FDNY and NYPD did expect WTC 7 to come down, because someone had obviously told them that it would. Silverstein and Giuliani clearly knew. Several news networks reported that it had collapsed half an hour before it did. So yes, collapse was expected. So what? Here is one of the first responders on that day, Kevin McPadden, talking about the countdown and the explosions preceding WTC 7's collapse. Did they think it would come down straight into its own footprint with a period of free fall? Only those who knew it was going to be demolished.

So, I'm still waiting for your investment in my Uncontrolled Demolition Inc bsuiness. All I need is a box of matches and a can of gasoline. How about it? Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- Bazant publishes multiple papers in J. Engineering Mechanics, and then no papers come out refuting it. Is that how science works, when someone publishes what you claim is a load of nonsense in a major journal, just have your lawyer send off an e-mail for the discussion column, and it's all good? There are multiple reputable engineering journals out there, and yet we don't have a single paper that critiques Bazant, by an actual engineer, in any of them. It's most curious indeed. Why do you suppose it might be? You see, if such a paper existed, that's exactly what would qualify as a "reliable source" for our purposes here. Given no such thing -- just rubbish about matches and gasoline and the like -- at Misplaced Pages we go with what actually is there: the "official explanation." Which of course is just the explanation. -Jordgette 21:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi, it's great that you know the "truth". However, Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources. Reliable sources document what the world saw: two airplanes striking two large buildings, causing their collapse, and the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 which was damaged by the seismic-level collapse of the much larger skyscrapers nearby. Not that you'd do this, but I'd recommend standing back and looking at the big picture -- the planes and the buildings, and the Al Qaeda conspiracy behind the destruction -- for an accurate narrative in conformance with Occam's Razor. Looking at microscopic details, inventing wild-eyed conspiracies, and inventing armies of gremlins secretly planting explosives, would be funny if only it didn't waste so much of our time. You probably are on the wrong website -- there are plenty of places you can write what you believe to be the "truth" of what happened that day.

I doubt if any substantial proposals for article improvement will come out of this thread, so it's probably best to let it die. Antandrus (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as you are pretty ignorant of how science (and engineering) works in the real world, -Jordgette, let me enlighten you: flawed papers are generally left to gather dust after a while. There are millions of papers like that out there; I've read plenty and never felt moved to write a refutation of any of them - it would be a waste of time. No one can be bothered to publish a whole new paper just to refute another one, unless the first paper is particularly seminal, and I'm afraid Bazant's papers on the twin towers are not. They have no relevance to the core discipline of engineering, so very few engineers would have read them, unless they are especially curious about the twin towers. What matters more are independent replications, and Harrit's paper has been replicated, by Mark Basile. You think one is a 'reliable source' whilst the other is not, but you have failed to give any good reason why. Anyway, this is all beside the point, since we are meant to be discussing WTC 7, about which Bazant obviously has nothing to say, since it underwent a period of free fall. The 9/11 Commission Report also had nothing to say about WTC 7 and you don't find that odd? In fact, that's another curious omission which your article in turn omits. Propaganda is usually betrayed by what it doesn't say, not by what it does.

So stick with your al Qaeda conspiracy theory, for which there is no evidence. By all means enlighten me, if you will, as to the trail of hard evidence (as opposed to hearsay) connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11. As for the idea that someone would have noticed demolition charges being planted in the buildings, that argument is so moronic I don't usually bother to answer it, since it only takes a moment's thought to refute, but since you're being so obtuse, I'll help you: If you wanted to plant explosives with minimal chance of discovery, how would you do it? During broad daylight, on a week day? Wearing overalls that say 'Controlled Demolition, Inc' on your back? Or in the dead of night? With a cover story about elevator maintenance and cable upgrades? Would you leave lots of det cord lying around or would you prefer wireless detonation? Do most people even notice or ask questions about workmen going in and out of office buildings doing 'maintenance work'? In spite of that, some people did notice suspicious activity in the towers: WTC workers, Scott Forbes and Ben Fountain reported suspicious and unprecedented power downs but were ignored. Seeing as testimony like that was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, it was never going to make it into a 'reliable source', by your estimation. So maybe your sources are less reliable than you like to think and maybe you need to do a course in historiography until you learn that not all official histories are true. Sonmi 451 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sonmi 451 formally notified of discretionary sanctions per the ArbCom process: this page isn't a soapbox for CT. Acroterion (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about talkpage disruption than article space...but since Somni has yet to provide anything as far as ways to improve the article, no reason to not archive this.MONGO 16:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I normally don't go into the discretionary sanctions for talkpage disruption, but this has gone on long enough and has nothing to do with article improvement anymore. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's not a forum for discussion, then why did Acroterion, Mongo, and JordGette all participate in the discussion? None of you had anything to say about improving the article, either. I came to this talk page unbiased, merely under curiosity. I am a member of academia as well as some of you claim to be and the only thing I have seen here is the thorough presentation of evidence on Somni's part, while also making the lot of you to look like a gang of fools. Now as Somni provides the knockout punch to your "arguments" you sanction him. Perhaps he is just better at debating that the lot of you, or perhaps what he claims is true, but it is impossible that both of the aforementioned are false. - Anonymous 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk)

For a little while it looked like the discussion was about article improvement. After it became clear that the OP was really interested in conspiracy theory soapboxing the discussion was at an end. This is an article about WTC 7, not about conspiracies, nor is it a vehicle to advance speculation. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Farrer performed a test on the 'red grey' chips (which you proclaim was the red oxide paint) by running them through a DSC these chips produced micro spheres, these spheres matched the spheres found in the WTC dust. The chemical make up of these red grey chips also matched the published data of nano-thermite by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Jeffrey Farrer also tested the red oxide paint in the DSC. It did not react with iron micro spheres.ROHZS (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)