Talk:7 World Trade Center (1987–2001)

Potential Bias

Is there some very good reason that this article completely ignores the 4 year university study done at UAF by Hulsey et al, and acts like NIST is the only authority to refer to? Please justify such apparent bias. The NY Post certainly thinks that this study is noteworthy enough to mention, dedicating several paragraphs to it in a general article about WTC7. This wiki article as it currently stands fails to meet the criteria of WP:NPOV without at least mentioning that the UAF study exists, and came to a radically different conclusion than NIST: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse." Alamosta (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The study in question is a WP:FRINGE theory, promoted by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist organization. Per WP:ONEWAY, "Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." – Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your response. It appears to be unrelated to my comment. The University of Alaska Fairbanks is not a "fringe conspiracy organization" and the NY Post article that I linked to certainly "connects the topics in a serious and prominent way." Please address the UAF study and the NY Post article directly, because by ignoring them you are just furthering the implication of bias. And it's not like they are the only ones. If you are going to claim that the NY Post is not noteworthy or reliable enough for some unknown reason, that's fine. The International Fire and Safety Journal just published an article, written by a highly qualified veteran fire fighter with over 350 published articles in all the major trade magazines, which concludes:

"We cannot simply rely upon the official narrative issued through NIST. The dismissive attitude toward the highly questionable inconsistencies in the NIST Report also suggests the influence of the executive branch that oversees NIST. This article is all about establishing transparency, integrity, trust, and truthfulness. I now view the official narrative with skepticism because it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t match with the video observable evidence. It also does not stand up to the scrutiny conducted by the forensic structural engineers at the UAF."

At what point are we going to stop pretending like completely shutting this out is unbiased? You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to acknowledge that it exists. That is clearly how wikipedia is designed to function. It can be given due weight and treated as a minority view that does not have equal weight with NIST. However, to ignore it completely is a direct violation of policy. Flat earth is not talked about as a serious matter in the NY Post and a fire safety journal. So in contrast, this is very clearly a significant minority view.

Alamosta (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World Trade Center (1973–2001) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Where is the discussion page for this article?

Is this article a recent move/merger? Can you direct me to the archive for the prior article if so, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinekonata (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sinekonata, please see Talk:7 World Trade Center#About splitting the articles into two. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Collapse

I've reverted the bold article split of the article Collapse of 7 World Trade Center, as I'm not convinced that the collapse of 7 WTC merits a separate article from either this page or Collapse of the World Trade Center. Part of the original building's significance comes from the collapse, including the controversy surrounding the collapse. I think a discussion about whether the pages should be split would be better than a unilateral WP:BOLD article split. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak split, Half of the article is about the collapse, and the collapse itself has fueled several picked-up conspiracy theories that are widely-known. Should definitely start as a draft though, as a direct split probably wasn't the best move on my part.Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the first part of your comment actually points to a larger issue with the article—there currently is a serious lack of information about the building's architecture and its history prior to 2001. There's a bunch that I've been planning to add about the building's architecture, development, and early history. (The article on the Deutsche Bank Building is even worse in this regard; all of the article is about its post-9/11 history.)

In any case, however, I do think we could probably summarize the collapse of 7 WTC in this article. A more detailed summary can be included in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I brought up this discussion because I don't think the collapse of 7 WTC needs to be its own article per WP:NOPAGE—in my opinion, it can be covered either here or the WTC collapse article—though others may disagree. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, that's every article for the buildings in the complex. I may actually start ~6 drafts to construct them, then will merge the content in the drafts into the existing articles. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I could probably help with finding sources for the older buildings as well. Most of the old buildings' articles were only recently split out from the articles about the current buildings, which is why these articles currently lack so much information. Prior to last year, the articles about each of the WTC buildings covered both the old and new buildings at that address, but the new buildings had proportionally more coverage (e.g. the 1 WTC article covered both the old North Tower and current Freedom Tower, but 90% of the article was about the Freedom Tower). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have several books that could be of use, but this is somewhat turning into a WP:FORUM, if we want to continue this talk I think we should move it to a seperate talk page. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting off-track (we could continue this on my talk page if you want; I have several sources as well).

Back to the original topic, though: I think it may be better to move the details of 7 WTC's collapse to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. Then, this article could have a summary of the building's collapse. I'm still not sure on a "Collapse of 7 WTC" article, but we should let other editors weigh in before doing anything. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)