| Revision as of 08:09, 4 February 2009 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →Tendentious editing: comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:47, 6 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 17) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|tpm}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=23:47, 1 Apr 2005 |
|
|action1date=23:47, 1 Apr 2005 |
| Line 20: |
Line 23: |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|topic=Engtech |
|
|topic=Engtech |
|
|
|otd1date=2007-09-11|otd1oldid=157102857 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject September 11|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|911=yes|911-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProjectFireService|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=high}} |
|
{{WPNYC|importance=high|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Stairwell A|Stairwell A|15 December 2012}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{September 11 arbcom}} |
|
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|]<br>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
]<br> |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
==Edit request== |
|
|
An editor who is restricted from editing this page came to my talk page and suggested what appears on its face to be a change that may improve the article. Could somebody who is very familiar with the NIST report consider this and respond? |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
Hi Jonathan, reading the progressive collapse section just now I noticed a sentence that is likely to be misunderstood as something that is false. "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail," it says. But the reader is likely to think that the mechanism in question is total progressive collapse, which is the section heading but which NIST did not look into in any detail at all. The sentence used to read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it does not address the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers." |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
If there is any issue about proxy posting, consider that I have adopted this suggestion as my own and am asking if it is reasonable or not. Perhaps the suggested wording works, or maybe better wording needs to be crafted to avoid misunderstanding or ambiguity. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Whilst I'm certainly not "very familiar with the NIST report" it isn't correct to say that NIST did not address the subsequent collapse of the towers at all (see NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 146). --'''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
::I have to say IT IS correct that NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers. I quote directly from NIST:<br />"''NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution''."<br />And another even more relevant '''direct''' quote from NIST:<br />"''NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation''."<br /> To imply NIST's mention of the collapse equates to NIST analising the collapse is POV pushing. I suggest the sentence should read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it did not analyze the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers." ] (]) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
:::It's not very clear what distinction is being made here. If a structure fails, it will collapse under gravity. There's nothing to be gained by studying the specific behaviour once collapse has started. ] (]) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
::::If the structure fails, how exactly will it collapse under gravity? Why did it collapse at near fall? Why was the collapse progressive? If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away. It's a major point argued by the community as reason for a new investigation. ] (]) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
:::Structural failure '''by definition''' is the state of a structure that ceases to support its own weight. Hence, it falls down. The conspiracy theories are described in a separate article, and they would not simply "go away" since they are based on emotion, not evidence. Case in point: conspiracy theorists pretending there is something astonishing about a compromised structure falling down (as opposed to what? falling sideways?). ] (]) 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::What exactly of your objection is relevant to the request? The issue is SIMPLE, clarity for neutrality. The current version implies NIST analyzed the collapse when NIST themselves claim: "''NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers.''" We are not talking about conspiracy theories. And especially we are not talking about your own personal opinion of the mental state of theorists. ] (]) 09:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Collapse of the World Trade Center}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
:::::You brought it up, giving your own personal opinion about the conspiracy theories. "If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away." No, they wouldn't go away. The conspiracy theories come first; then the conspiracy theorists look for justification - isolated factoids they can present out of context; "suspicious" absence of evidence pointing to a deliberate coverup; lather, rinse, repeat. If they were falsifiable, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. All of that is well supported in the academic literature about conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I reverted one of your recent series of edits with the summary . You reverted back with this edit summary: I'm content to let those comments stand on their own as evidence of who used an offensive edit summary. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Reply to unsigned: I point out that this topic is still under ARBCOM and the ruling applies to extremists from both sides of the fence so please refrain from making allusions to the mental incompetence of anyone who thinks differently to you. I did not give my personal opinion of conspiracy theories. I used debunking conspiracy theories as an example of why the edit needs to be made because you do not understand the engineering concepts involved, my questions were legitimate and had nothing remotely to do with any conspiracy theories. Even people who accept 100% the official theory know that the collapse itself needs to have those points explained. And I correct myself: ''If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away if the results show progresive collapse was inevitable''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::What do you find offensive about my being truthful in my comment? My edit was not tendentious. It was directly from the NIST report, contained no editorial content, contained no opinion, contained no OR, made no claims, made no implications, was completely relevant to the article and did not violate any WP rule or arbitration. Also the same edit was previously in the article for around 12 months before it disappeared, according to the comments, to make the article "more balanced". Again I ask: What exactly is tendentious about my edit? ] (]) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Again, no, the conspiracy theories wouldn't go away. The conspiracy theories come first; then the conspiracy theorists look for justification - isolated factoids they can present out of context; "suspicious" absence of evidence pointing to a deliberate coverup; lather, rinse, repeat. If they were falsifiable, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. All of that is well supported in the academic literature about conspiracy theory. Please don't insert your own comments within mine - instead, write your reply after my signature. "lease refrain from making allusions to the mental incompetence of anyone who thinks differently to you." Sure, you betcha. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::My apologies for the insertion. Because of the gap I assumed I was replying to someone else who had not signed their post. As for your other point, I can say ] is well supported in the literature for uncritical supporters of the official theory but I don't think either side supports their own view due to a mental imbalance. I see such claims as a personal attack. I am assuming that your justification of the deletion of relevant and factual material is that "factoids can be presented out of context" by some readers? I would agree if you said the facts were irrelevant or out of context to the article but they are relevant and in context. A factoid is an unverified or fabricated fact which my edit was not. ] (]) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think there may be a valid point that ''The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail.'' may be poorly worded. When considering the progress of a collapse, the amount of detail that is worthwhile (or even possible) to analyse is much less than the intial failure, and is perhaps less than what a layman might consider ''in detail'' to mean. (Though ironically even a simple quantitative estimate is far more detail than is ever considered by conspiracy theorists.) ] (]) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The point I'm making is that unless a reader goes on to read the references he will assume the whole box of dice was analyzed when it was not. The whole idea of the article is to inform not misinform. Better wording could be: "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it did not analyze the collapse of the towers past the point of initiation." If the reader wants to know why he can get that from reading the next two sentences. ] (]) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article restructuring == |
|
|
|
|
|
We now have a ] to help organize efforts to improve articles relating to the 9/11 attacks. A current priority is preparing articles that have been selected for ] (see ] for list of articles). This article is one of the selections. Of all the articles selected, this article needs more attention and cleanup work to bring it up to standards, which are always rising. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on restructuring the article in a way that is more chronological and easy to follow, in effort to improve article quality. Here is what I suggest, including some changes already made, and others to be considered: |
|
|
# The structural design section, which covers design and construction of the buildings. |
|
|
# The events of September 11, 2001 (the collapse mechanism probably should be worked into here). |
|
|
# Initial opinions from engineering experts, quoted in the media, along with preliminary analyzes by Bazant and others. |
|
|
# Then, the formal investigations by FEMA/ASCE and then NIST. |
|
|
# Aftermath section - this is towards the end, which probably makes sense, though it's out of chronological order. |
|
|
# Controlled demolition theories - okay as the last section, since these gained some interest later on |
|
|
I think the Osama bin Laden remarks section fits oddly and too much out of context. I suggest perhaps omitting in from the article, or possibly trying to rework that section. It could be kept for now, while deciding what to do with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the "Other buildings" section is needed here. Right now, it fits oddly in the structure of the article. Also, pretty much all of what's said in that section is said in the main ] article, as well as the main ] articles. For now, the section can be kept here, while thought is given on what to do with it. --] <small>(])</small> 05:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Good to see...I say we limit the CD stuff to an absolute minimum. I'll do whatever I can to help get this to FA standards...little else is likely to come forward to revise and or certainly refute the known evidence....so the issue of the collapse itself is pretty much stable and should be much easier to get to FA level than more dynamic articles and issues.--] 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think it's possible to get to GA and then FA level. I have some free time available in the short term to put effort into the task. --] <small>(])</small> 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Initial opinions== |
|
|
The initial opinions section is the first task. It's not representative of what structural engineering experts were saying in the aftermath of 9/11. I am in the process of going through Lexis-Nexis and other databases to come up with what the common points and themes were in expert opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
What was in the article included quotes that I think are taken out of context, and were more minor points that per undue weight, probably should not be included. I removed some quotes from British architect Bob Halvorson, about "a debate", and "the collapses were well beyond realistic experience." (huh?) I also looked at the New Civil Engineer source, which in turn cites an article published on September 13, 2001. I looked at both the source linked and the September 13 source, and believe the quote included in the Misplaced Pages article is out of context and not representative. The Misplaced Pages article talks about the collapse as a "surprise to engineers." No, it was not a surprise. What was a surprise to engineers was that terrorists would fly passenger jets into the buildings. But given the circumstances, the collapse of the buildings was generally not a surprise for most of the experts who are quoted in numerous articles on Lexis-Nexis and other sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Time to collapse explanation == |
|
Based on sources consulted so far, experts were overwhelmingly said that the tremendous heat from the fire caused structural steel elements to loose much strength. Upon heating, the steel experienced deformation which continued until a certain point was reached and the steel fractured. Once that happened, structural failure and collapse was inevitable. Many also noted that after the aircraft impact severed numerous columns, weight of the above structure was redistributed and added stress was placed on the remaining columns. Many also noted that the fireproofing was likely dislodged, allowing the steel structural elements to heat up more rapidly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this section needs to be reworked to give due weight to various points that experts were saying. --] <small>(])</small> 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
The fact that the South Tower was hit lower does NOT mean there was double the pressure on the columns. You can verify this by comparing the strains in NCSTAR 1-6D fug 4-72 with 121 ] (]) 02:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Comparing the numbers ourselves is ], which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. You'd need a ] making the claim. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Per above, I removed the New Civil Engineers quote, and bit of text saying the "collapse was a surprise to engineers." What was a surprise was what the terrorists did, but given the circumstances, engineers were not so surprised that the buildings couldn't hold up and ended up collapsing. --] <small>(])</small> 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::The at least let's leave the dubious tag up. ] (]) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't see any reason to. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree that we should remove the dubious tag. But also change "double" to simply "more". The source (NYT) reads "Ultimately, it was the combination of structural damage and the fires, fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that brought the buildings down. The south tower was also hit at a lower point, meaning there was '''more weight''' bearing down on the damaged floors." ] (]) 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'd be fine with that change. |
|
|
:::::Abdullah Ali 4z5, I reverted your most recent change for several reasons: |
|
|
:::::1. Changing "46 minutes later" to "70% longer" is not helpful for the average reader. |
|
|
:::::2. The changes read more like a school essay than an encyclopedic entry |
|
|
:::::3. Removing the NYT article in favor of the NIST report, when we generally prefer secondary sources. |
|
|
:::::I think Thomas B's suggestion is the better solution. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's not good having such a blatant falsehood there. ] (]) 15:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I have implemented the change ("double" -> "more") and removed the dubious tag (since that doesn't seem doubtful, based on the source). What blatant falsehood remains? ] (]) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It's a blatant falsehood that the greater weight above impact contributed to the collaose. That is because the size of the columns also scales with their load. Indeed, because of this, the lower impact actually reduced the impact damage. ] (]) 03:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No, it's not a blatant falsehood. Perhaps it's an oversimplification. In an intact building, the load per unit area of supporting structure would be more or less consistent (factoring in differing steel grades and allowable loads) as you assert. That would not necessarily be the case for an impaired structure. You're making a lot of assumptions concerning redistribution of forces in a compromised structure. However, I would prefer the detailed NIST analysis over the ''Times'' as a basis for any assertions concerning structural engineering and failure modes. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I would also prefer NIST's statement (or at least something better than NYT). Do you know where they addressed this? ] (]) 06:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove Infobox and change back to previous photo. == |
|
::] - I'll continue to compile sources and information, but this lists so far the expert opinions that were quoted soon after 9/11. It gives an idea of what the common points and initial ideas were. This can help in deciding on due weight and what to include in the article. --] <small>(])</small> 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Multiple image |
|
== Structural design and aircraft impact == |
|
|
|
| direction = horizontal |
|
|
| align = right |
|
|
| image1 = WTC collapse before and after.jpg |
|
|
| image2 = JohnsonKV DSC 0104.jpg |
|
|
| caption1 = Previous photo |
|
|
| caption2 = current photo |
|
|
| width1 = |
|
|
| width2 = 214 |
|
|
| total_width = |
|
|
}} Like the ] article, the previous photo which had been used from 2008–2023 was suddenly changed and a Infobox added without any discussion. I don't believe we need a picture of the ''actual collapse'' taking place as the previous photo illustrates that one tower had collapsed. I would like to get editors ] and ] involved and hear there opinions since they made great points on the September 11 talk page. ] (]) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm actually leaning towards the new photo for ''this'' article, since it's specifically about the collapse itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have adjusted the "anticipation of aircraft impact" section to make it follow ] better, and give more balanced discussion of the various aspects of the WTC design, with the structural design also very important. --] <small>(])</small> 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I like the current one better because it shows one of the towers has already collapsed. ] (]) 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Much improved...--] 03:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024 == |
|
== Tendentious editing == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Collapse of the World Trade Center|answered=yes}} |
|
An editor recently reverted a number of with the comment “'' revert to last reliable version, namely the last edit I made''”. I restored it then two minutes later another editor reverted it with the comment “'' rv - more accurate, less slanted''”.<br />More accurate than what? Less slanted than what? The edits reverted consisted of three grammatical corrections, one correction of a false claim, deletion of one redundant word, deletion of a note from NIST and reversion of a compromise edit as per the talk page. I point out that there is no ownership of this page. If these two editors have a problem with legitimate and uncontroversial edits they need to make the case here rather than tag team reverting. ] (]) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The plane crashed to the North Tower at 8:46:30 a.m., not at 8:46:40 a.m.. ] (]) 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"More accurate and less slanted" than the previous version, the inaccuracy and slant being the promotion and overemphasis of fringe material. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm making some adjustments. Including the footnote might work, but the section on aircraft impact and studies needs to be succinct and not go into excess detail. The "progressive collapse" section needs reworking, to make that part of the article well-written and much more clear to the reader. --] <small>(])</small> 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Please see the note attached in the lede, reproduced as follows: |
|
Not sure that I like the footnote, the way it's written now. It too could be more succinct. --] <small>(])</small> 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:<blockquote>The exact time is disputed. The 9/11 Commission Report states that Flight 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46:40 a.m., while NIST reports 8:46:30 a.m.</blockquote> |
|
|
:We're aware of the discrepancy, but there's no point changing it. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2024 == |
|
:How can grammatical corrections and a correction of a false claim be promotion and overemphasis of fringe material? Is it a case of "I don't like it"? I point out that Robertson DID NOT design the WTC and he was not '''The''' chief engineer, he designed the sway reduction mechanism only and was one of several chief engineers under Skilling. What is the problem with the note? It is cut and paste from NIST. ] (]) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Collapse of the World Trade Center|answered=yes}} |
|
::By the way ], good job so far. Bedtime for me so I'll look at it later. ] (]) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Please remove this link for "New York City" per ]. ] (]) 06:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Your lack of knowledge in this subject matter is apparent, so until you do some more studying on the issue, perhaps it would be best if you let experts in matter work on this article so we can make sure it is accurate and doesn't end up becoming some fantasyland hypothesis. Thanks.--] 08:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 08:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
The fact that the South Tower was hit lower does NOT mean there was double the pressure on the columns. You can verify this by comparing the strains in NCSTAR 1-6D fug 4-72 with 121 Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Previous photo
current photo
Done