Which theory do facts best support?
Rhobite,
Thank you for starting a Let us do this here in a more visible location.
Thank you for improving the building seven timeline reference. Now please reference building seven in the section: 2001 terrorist attack. It is conspicuous in its absence.
I once believed, as you appear to believe, that commercial aircraft and burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. However, as I began to examine specific facts such as pictures of the planes colliding with the towers that did not have windows nor were painted like commercial flights and the fact that steel buildings are specifically designed to withstand jet fuel fires as well as jet collisions, my knowledge increased and I began to see that truly the emperor is wearing no clothes (or the mass media stories look more and more like regurgitation of misinformation).
Examining your claim, "The WTC article is a discussion of the towers themselves. The article is not about the attacks" flies in the face of the following two sections
- 3 1993 terrorist attack
- 4 2001 terrorist attack
Also note:
The word attack appears 22 times in the article.
From this it appears clear that this article truly does feature "attack". The article also presents the widely accepted theory that the attacks were executed by islamic terrorists. This itself is a conspiracy theory to wit; Anti-american islamic terrorists planned and executed mass murder in Manhattan.
The article also presents the illogical theory that for the first time in history a modern steel building collapsed because of fire. In fact the history of steel buildings since 9/11/2001 includes several fires greater in magnitude and of longer duration that did not result in collapse. Futher, not only are the first steel building collapse from fire reported within the scope of this article, the second and third collapse from fire are reported to also within 8 hours. Stated in a different way, there have been no collapse of steel buildings because of fire before or since these three buildings collapsed on 9/11.
I have read the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. My request that people examine another point of view IS consistant with that policy and perhaps more consistant with verifable photographic evidence, engineering design facts and physics than the fuel fire collapse theory verified with tv and newpaper reports. To exclude the ever growing understanding of the the physics and publicly recoverable evidence as they pretain to the collapse of three WTC buildings on 9/11 is inconsistant with wikipedia neutral point of view policy.
Have you watched the video Loose Change ? It is not perfect, however it does point out some of the inconsistancies that first got my attention.
more details
Construction details including the massive core are on the following site WTC design details. This archive engineering information from decades ago is much more reliable than recent reports by media outlets who often repeat what they find convenient and believable.
There are substantial differences of fact emerging almost daily as more and more technical people examine the evidence. Their conclusions are parallal to the immediate conclusions on 9/11 and the day after. The third day and beyond were filled with retractions and no comments as engineering firms and university engineering departments began to recognize the cost in grants and other government funded programs that would be lost by continuing to publicize the truth. They clammed up. This has happen publically during the last three weeks as Prof Steven Jones of Brigham Young University brought public the studies of his physics classes during the last 4 years. After 4 years of careful research and consideration he and almost the entire physics department went public with their presentations. Within a week Prof Jones was refusing to comment publically. Yet the facts of his research remain undeniable. They are readily available including his 25 page paper and various web based reviews.
This article as a feataure article should give equal time to the presentations of facts that are counter to the "official" and public reports, particularly the facts that can be clearly shown as in the videos spare change and spare change second edition.
Follow the money. Pres Bush's brother manages the firm contracted to perform security in the WTC. During the months immediately prior to 9/11 there were many days when substantial portions of all three buildings were secured from normal occupancy while various, now supicious, "upgrades" were performed.
The Silverstein, the owner of the buildings, in the months before 9/11 increased the insurance coverage for terrorist damage to three times the value, and he has collected on these contracts. Many investigations of large corporate mismanagement were halted as the records stored in building seven were lost in the debris.
Molten steel at the base of steel structures is a signature of controlled demolition and no other form of building collapse. This is the result of steel melting where thermite cuts the structure by explosively melting the steel. This molten steel then flows thru the debris to the lowest point of the girders.
The structural information regarding the WTC towers below is very interesting and the aticle iteslf only has a minimal amount of this information. Does anyone think it worthwhile to create a new sub-heading that deals solely with the structural engineering aspects?--Commander Keane 14:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unconfirmed information from a recent email:
The WTC towers had a distinctive structural system which utilized the exterior wall framing for lateral bracing -a so-called lattice framework. This allowed minimization of internal lateral bracing and opened up the floor plans. You can see the effect of that when the buildings collapsed, with the lattice framework crumbling and the interior imploding. The lattice works so long as it remains intact as a system: if a part of it goes, then the whole system goes.
The planes punched holes in the lattice, one tower punched on two sides, maybe the other too. Portions of the lattice of the second tower briefly remained standing after the collapse, then fell.
The system was considered daring at the time of construction, for it distributed loads more efficiently than legacy column-and-beam supported systems. Probably the legacy systems would not have totally collapsed due to damage at upper floors, although floors above the damage would have come down if columns were weakened.
- Actually, that appears to be verifiable: The L.A. Times says this
And ABC news says this:
CAUTION: Newspaper reports are terrible resources to rely on for engineering design and performance information. Also, the "tube" is for wind loading only making the wtc towers perhaps the most rigid skyscrapers. The tube relied on the most massive building core ever built to support the entire weight of the structure AND to carry most of the wind loads. Again the tube frame added rigidity and except during extreme winds (like hurricanes) was not necessary.
There is also speculation at those sites that the fire from the planes' fuel caused the steel to melt, leaving the cement floors unsupported.Geo Swan 20:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CAUTION: this is contrary claim to structural engineering testing where the temperature from burning jet fuel in a pure oxygen (hotter flame) environment produces far less temperature than the design points for the building. Each tower would stand even after direct and indirect hits from multiple planes full of fuel crashing into the same or many different floors. Should the core be compromised (beyond the design limits), the extremely rigid tube structure would break and the top would topple rather than collapse. Go figure.
--- There are other World Trade Centers besides the one in New York. See e.g. http://www.wtc.se/eng/index.html (World Trade Center Stockholm), and http://www.wtca.org/ (World Trace Centers Association Online)
Moved this to talk. This contradicts what I heard on a Nova documentary on the subject, and the link (a Fox News article with one quote) isn't one of the most reliable sources on this issue.
As mentioned above, there are lots of other World Trade Centers. The one in New York was (is?) one of the first and arguably the most well-known one (even before 9/11). However, I do think this article should be about the phenonomenon World Trade Center, and the current article should be at World Trade Center New York. Jeronimo
Outside of the US many of these other WTCs would be World Trade Centres
Melbourne, Australia also has a World Trade Centre. I would support a move of this article to Word Trade Center, New York. World Trade Center should then link to all the World Trade Centres. (As for the spelling - a World Trade Center is a World Trade Centre is a World Trade Center. Its the same phrase. When speaking about a particular WTC, we should use the official spelling of its name; but an article about the general phenomena could use either. -- SJK
I think that the Paris Solution would be best here - I don't think anyone would disagree that the New York WTC was, and certainly now is, the most famous one. We could have World Trade Center (disambiguation) (to which World Trade Centre could redirect), and link to it in the article. What do you think?
(For further information, Barcelona has a World Trade Center, in English; but Montreal has a Centre du commerce mondial.) - Montréalais
<
EIBTM - WORLD TRADE CENTER BARCELONA
EIBTM 2008 is the global Meetings & Incentive Exhibition (MICE) held in Barcelona – connecting travel trade exhibitors, meeting professionals, corporate incentive & hosted buyers
Category:World Trade Center - Wikimedia Commons
World Trade Center (Barcelona) (8 F) ... Media in category "World Trade Center" The following 18 files are in this category, out of ...
Home [world.wtca.org]
World Trade Center Barcelona: Last updated: 2009-04-28
World Trade Center Barcelona
The first World Trade Centers were created after the Second World War in Houston, New Orleans and Tokyo. Since 1968, the year in which it was founded ...
Jobs@Agilent | Barcelona, Spain - World Trade Center Office
Agilent Technologies, Inc. World Trade Center, Edificio Sur, 5 Planta, Moll de Barcelona, Barcelona 08039 SPAIN. Main office: + 34 93 344 4612 Main fax: + 34 93 343 4184
World Trade Center, Barcelona - Panoramic Earth Travel Information
World Trade Center - Guide and map of Barcelona with a 360° panorama of World Trade Center. Sight, attraction and travel guide to Barcelona with panoramic images and pictures ...
World Trade Center — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress
Blogs about: World Trade Center ... Tags: usual suspects, barcelona, Drassanes, maremagnum, Port Vell, Rambla del Mar
WTCB
Acronym Finder: WTCB stands for World Trade Center Barcelona
Category:World Trade Center (Barcelona) - Wikimedia Commons
Media in category "World Trade Center (Barcelona)" The following 8 files are in this category, out of 8 total.
Barcelona´s World Trade Center by Carlos Folch - Google 3D ...
Barcelona's World Trade Center is an offices and convention building for business built by Pei Cobb Freed & Partners . Located at the end of Barcelona Wharf in the old Port.