This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture A‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles A This article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Collapse of the World Trade Center has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Is that there is not really any evidence presented strongly against it. I feel the culteral phenomenon of the perception that there was a CD is relavant enough to be addressed here on this page. What needs done however is that the arguments against it need not to be dismissed as trivial, but presented and countered correctly. I think that turning the user to the "Conspiracy theories of 9-11" page when they wish to examine the CD plausability does not aid them whatsoever, it just turns their attention to a list (and for each item, a rationality for believing each item) of possible conspiracies which occured around 9-11. Since this page discusses the realities of the collapse, I feel it would be a good idea to attempt to bring together the arguments for the CD, and then present the rational dismisal of them, instead of arrogantly claiming WE know its not true, thus the reader should conclude the same. DerwinUMD 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be just as easy to cite the 1945 incident where a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building sending it toppling to the ground? Zghost 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to refer more to some of the more controversial points, such as the motlen metal dripping out of the building minutes before the collapse, the near free fall speed, the janitor supposedly hearing a bomb explode in the basement, etc. I think these all can be explained with out a controlled demo, but I think ignoring them is a very dumb idea. DerwinUMD 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section does link to controlled demolition hypothesis for the Collapse of the World Trade Center.--Thomas Basboll 14:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be safe to assume that the CD page does not deal with nearly as much scientific nor researched opinion, and much more hearsay. Neither does it account for or present discenting opinions. I think this page had ought to address a few of these issues as they should be addressed. For example. The CD page suggests the presence of molten metal, but never gives any explaination for it - merely inciting that since metal has melted, something very hot has occured. However, if you examine what is actualy being dealt with, it is molten aluminum dripping from the towers, which melts right in the range of the temperatures of the fires in WTC 1 & 2. I think that since this really has nothing to do with a CD, it should still be addressed here. DerwinUMD 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? It's hardly surprising that a fire hot enough to melt aluminum would melt aluminum in its presence. We know aluminum was present because a plane crashed into each tower. Should we also include evidence of burned paper? Burned carpet? Burned desks? With respect to the collapse, the presence of molten aluminum is meaningless. With respect to conspiracy theories, it's pivotally important because the conspiracy theories depend on the metal not being aluminum. --Durin 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so why isn't that on the page? It is still a fact of what happened, yet the only point about molten metal that I can find is rather lacking in information regarding the fire's temperature. DerwinUMD 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Zghost; the B-25 into the Empire State Building is a completely different circumstance. You're attempting to compare throwing apples at a barn with throwing garbage cans at a doll house. There was a MASSIVE difference in kinetic energy between the two incidents, as the 767's weight traveling at the speeds it was, compared to the B-25's weight and the speed it was flying at, resulted in the 767 having ***45*** times the kinetic energy the B-25 had when it hit the ESB. Further, the design methodology of the WTC and the ESB were dramatically different. In light of these facts, anyone who seriously thinks the B-25 incident sheds any light on the WTC incident is badly deluding themselves. --Durin 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories are little better than grossly unqualified opinions and shouldn't be part of a factual article. I urge that any mention of the 9/11 conspiracies be dropped entirely from the entry. The value of the wiki is in its ability to concisely summarize known and/or agreed upon facts for the layperson, and this value is undermined when the wiki becomes cluttered with pet theories or ideologies put forth by unqualified individuals. --FCYoon.

I agree in your assessment of conspiracy theories. Which is why the government's version of events should not be presented here without criticism. Oneismany 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed personal attack. Please discuss how to improve the article. It is Wikipedia policy not to make personal attacks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE: Scripps Howard News Service
DATE: August 2, 2006
BODY: More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
http://newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=55 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.248.76 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just found this article in the New Scientist [1]. In includes what looks like an early formulation of the fire-proofing theory (which is now the received view) and some criticisms of the site cleanup. I.e., something for the history section and the aftermath section. [Quintiere's criticisms of the cleanup are not part of this article. Sorry.]--Thomas Basboll 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, try looking at the information here. An aluminum airplane is not going to glide through a steel/concrete building like it glides through the air. It violates laws of physics, no ifs ands or buts. No planes hit the towers. See here: [2] [3] Complete Truth 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

911researchers.com is not a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, so what that site says is completely irrelevant to our purposes here.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also... an airplane isn't going to make a cartoon-cutout of itself in a steel/concrete building. But that's exactly what seems to have happened on 9/11: the aluminum wings seem to have sawed through structural steel and steel-reinforced concrete. This is physically impossible. There's no proof that planes hit the towers. Some eyewitnesses reported missiles, not planes [4]. The government's story is a lie from beginning to end. There were no planes and no hijackers. It was a lie to start war in the Middle East and invoke the Patriot Act. The thugs who did 9/11 are masters at creating propaganda. They plant false/misleading stories to fool people. This includes Norad standing down, Steven Jones and his thermite, and a stand down order by Cheney. There was no stand down order because there was no plane! It's been 5.5 years. People need to face up to what happened and work together to remove the criminals from power. Complete Truth 06:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people who don't know the laws of physics keep saying that they are violated? It's cool, though, that the new conpsiracy theory is that the old conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy to fool the conspiracy theorists. controlled demolition is now a ruse to throw smart people off the track of energy weapons? You do realize that the formulators of these theories make their living off of new conspiracy theories and you can expect a new one every six months or so, right? --Tbeatty 06:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a few moments to actually look at the information. I'm sure you know that it's already been proven that the towers were pulverized to powder [5]. Complete Truth 06:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it all. But the towers collapsed under their own weight after the steel fireproofing was damaged and a post crash fire weakened the steel. (see the NIST report for the actual science and engineering). Cartoon airplanes don't spew jet fuel all over the occupants. It seems to me to be intuitive that the size of the remaining pieces would depend only on the building height and mass. A massive, tall building would have very, very small pieces. As an example, take two pieces of concrete and drop one from 10 ft onto the other. Both will break into fairly large chunks. Now drop it from 10,000 ft and they will be pulverized. Common sense. --Tbeatty 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna talk common sense? Okay. Let's say you're in a car, driving towards a big metal mesh made of structural steel, such as the ones seen in this videoclip. Now.... how fast would you need to be driving so the car would glide into the steel, just like it glides through the air? How fast would you have to drive to create a cartoon cutout of the car in the steel, the way the wings of the 9/11 "plane" did?

There's no evidence that the towers collapsed. They didn't collapse, they were pulverized. Look at the BEFORE and AFTER. Where's the hundreds of tons of steel beams? Each tower was a 1/4 mile tall! On top of that, where's the thousands of desks, chairs, bookcases, computers, xerox machines, water coolers, filing cabinets, doors, sinks, toilets, etc? Whatever sources used on the topic page are obviously not reliable, and that page should be rewritten immediately. Wikipedia is contributing to the propaganda campaign that the government is running.

FYI, 99% of the "alternate 9/11 theory" stuff in the mainstream media is propaganda. NORAD didn't stand down, because there were no planes for them to stand down for. There was no molten metal, Steven Jones is a fraud. How many times has Dr Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) theory been mentioned in the media? The answer is none. I wonder why? Her Request for Correction to NIST is archived on a US Government website, she's represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart, and not one media outlet picked it up. Why is that? I wonder why Steven Jones has ties to Los Alamos, where DEW are researched? I wonder why Greg Jenkins, the physicist who did the "ambush interview" of Dr Wood, has ties to Los Alamos? I wonder why Jenkins' previous work was funded by the NSA? On 9/11 Dr Van Romero, a demolitions expert said it was a controlled demolition and that the towers could have been taken down with a "relatively small amount of explosives". Take a look at the BEFORE and AFTER links above. Could a "relatively small amount of explosives" have done that? Is it coincidence that Romero made a presentation to DEPS, the Directed Energy Professional Society? Is it coincidence that Applied Research Associates, a founding sponsor of DEPS and a manufacturer of directed energy weapons, was contracted by NIST for the 9/11 report? The 9/11 perps are masters at creating propaganda. Don't you see what's going on? Complete Truth 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your'kidding right? An aluminum can at 300 MPH would simply deform into the mesh holes. Bullets made of lead are deformed by the human body. Lead is much denser than aluminum and the human body is much softer than steel. What happened on 9/11 is more akin to an egg being thrown at a chain link fence. It cracks and goes through and disintegrates. Steven Jones has his own problems as CD didn't happen either but all of these people are in a different universe. So for your edification, I have familiy that was in Manhattan that day and two real airplanes crashed into the two towers. There were no controlled demoltions. There were no cartoon airplanes. You dishonor the victims by claiming this was all made up. I also see that my purely made up consipracy theory below would be believed. I could be rich. Do you attend these 9/11 CT conferences? They had one in my city not too long ago and they only charged the participants $300 per person to hear The Truth.^TM --Tbeatty 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling away like that does not make your beleifs so. You need to use scientific analysis. The two photos here and here prove that the towers "went away", and did not collapse. Aluminum cans and bullets cannot be compared with an airplane. But a car can, which is why I used it in my analogy. This photo is further proof of cartoon airplanes. Half in, half out. No break in the building between the engines and fuselage. Pure cartoon. See this article for the newest analysis. You need even more proof? See here. To the left of the towers is the Whitehall Building. To the left of that, according to the CNN shot, is the 19 Rector Street building. However, that building is NOT visible from that location, as proven by the other photo. I challenge you or anyone else to go to Battery Park and prove otherwise. The corporate media broadcasted a cartoon! Here's an article in Technology Review magazine, written one year before 9/11. It details how the military and TV Networks can insert images in live video feed to alter world politics. Complete Truth 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a theory that a new government weapon that creates seismographic events brought down the towers. This explains why the the siesmographs matched the collapse exactly. It was tuned to resonate with buildings the height of the World Trade Center. The airplanes were a ruse to throw people off the track. The Government put out the Controlled Demolition theory to make the Conspiracy Theorists look like loons. But I have discovered the True Events of 9/11. Shortly after this test on 9/11 the U.S. attacked a village in Iran and more recently a Tsunami in the south pacific. How else do you explain the timeline of events: 9/11, Iran, Indonesia? How can I sell my story to True Believers to get rich? I could write a book and hold conferences around the country (charging about $300 for admission). P.T. Barnum would be proud. --Tbeatty 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Tbeatty you are completely wrong, I have a source that shows that one airplane was responsible for all four attacks. [6] Good luck on the lecture circuit though. — MichaelLinnear 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The President Bush airplane called Air Force One? Was he reading about the pet goats for while on the airflight? Ha ha. Babalooo 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have your facts fauxed (as Jim Fetzer said live on FOX news). The seismic readings match that of much smaller buildings. Dr Wood shows proof of this in her paper on her site. "Collapse" is not a descriptive word for what happened. The towers did not collapse, they were pulverized, as shown in the BEFORE and AFTER images I linked to above. Yes, the airplanes were a ruse to throw people off track. Yes, the government put out the CD theory to make those "who have open minds" look like loons. Our culture has been brainwashed into thinking that certain things are crazy. The brainwashers use the term "conspiracy theory" to do the job. Americans have been duped into thinking that anything associated with the CT term is crazy. Anyone who continually uses that term is still brainwashed. The fact is, there is no proof to back up the government's version of 9/11. Yet the public buys whatever the corporate media spews out hook, line and sinker, just like a conspiracy theorist. Complete Truth 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged government seis-mo-matic™ technology is a hoax - the effects have been revealed to actually be gold-seeking river dwarves. Peter Grey 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: The government used a directed energy weapon (from space I presume?) to destroy the Twin Towers and kill thousands, using both an elaborate mainstream story and a false flag conspiracy theory to throw people off track, yet you have figured it out. And are able to promote The Truth with no repercussion? Why isn't your (and Judy Whatshernames) house a smoldering mass destroyed from space and disguised to look like a crack pipe accident? --Tbeatty 04:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't the government, it was criminal elements within the government. A big difference! It might have come from space. The organization that I mentioned above, Directed Energy Professional Society, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11. The newsletter opened with the following: "Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers on and over the battlefield - we're at the beginning of an evolutionary new wave of weaponry." Interesting opening, isn't it!! But the beam weapon might have come from an airplane or helicopter. There aren't a lot of these people, so they just can't kill every threat. Judy Wood's student Michael Zebuhr was killed last year. Not only was he a 9/11 researcher, but he did experiments with Dr Wood to prove that Steven Jones' work was faulty! (Check out her website for the information.) A few weeks ago, someone at Virginia Tech managed to kill over two dozen people using a small gun that could only hold 17 bullets at a time. Some of those killed were engineering professors. Guess who got their PhD in Materials Engineering Science from V-Tech? Complete Truth 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens with the 4 airplanes if the ones who hit the towers and Pentagon and other crash are not real? They took off and just go away? All the people inside who leave and never come back. Where did they go to? Babalooo 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent questions. Flights 11 and 77 were not listed in the BTS database. They were phantom flights and never existed on the morning of 9/11. The other two did, but no one knows what happened to them. All four flights were "reported" as being extremely underbooked. Many names are suspected to be fictitious, but some were definitely real (i.e. news media person Barbara Olsen). Complete Truth 05:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with portal and wormhole technology? As to what dimension they are in now... — MichaelLinnear 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with portal and wormhole technology? Not myself personally, but you can find wormhole engineers in the Yellow Pages™. Peter Grey 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the lists of passengers, posted many places, it appears that the total count of all passengers on all 4 flights just happens to be very close to the seat count of one full boeing 767. I have not been able to find another flight as underbooked as any of those 4. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.59.41 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The WIKI states that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage from WTC 1 and 2 combined with "widespread fires". I have examined many photographs, videos of WTC 7 and can not find any evidence of widespread fires. It appears that almost none of the windows were broken, and only a few (2 or 3) offices were on fire at any time until the collapse.

NIST has still not released a document on WTC 7's collapse, as of 04/2007.

What happened to WTC7? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.59.41 (talk • contribs)

Perchance were these photographs all taken from the north side of the building? Peter Grey 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the section NPOV. Discussion first, then consensus, then reversion or no reversion. This will not become a revert war. Oneismany 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that the NPOV tag was removed without discussion on the grounds it was "misleading." Oneismany 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was already noted in the edit summary. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. "The hypothesis [of controlled demolition] is pursued mainly as part of larger conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11"? And the hypothesis that the building collapsed due to fire is not part of a conspiracy theory, i.e. the government version of events? You really must wonder how weak a point of view has to be if it will not begrudge any suggestion that other points of view are equally valid. The video testimony of the collapse of WTC7 is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources, and it might legitimately support more than one hypothesis. Therefore I am sticking an NPOV tag on this article. Oneismany 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other points of view, such as that of unqualified amateurs misinterpreting video, are not equally valid. Peter Grey 05:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an NPOV tag on this article.

Against Peter Grey, with specific reference to Wikipedia advice on WP:NPOV:

This article as it stands attempts to evade WP:NPOV policy through misleading use of a POV fork - that is, creating a new article about a certain subject (the controlled demolition hypothesis) ... 'to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.'

• Because the controlled demolition hypothesis is definately a viewpoint considered by a significant minority, including the former professor Steven_Jones, a 'prominent adherant' - it should be included in the one article. Lectures have been given at universities and conferences around the United States on this hypothesis. Moreover, Steven_Jones recently had a recorded debate with Leslie_Robertson, the structural engineer who designed the World_Trade_Center (listen to the Podcast or read the Annotated Transcript).

• Moreover, good scientific research forms the basis of Steven_Jones work. A source for his research is the peer_reviewed Journal of 911 Studies and a specific PDF research report is Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse.

• Let the facts speak for themselves. Persons interested in the facts of the collapse of the world trade center would surely be interested to hear of the research of Steven_Jones, a 20 year professor of physics specializing in the physics of steel. Especially since Steven_Jones has spoken at universities and multiple conferences on the specific alternative hypothesis (videos of him speaking are available from YouTube) and has debated live with Leslie_Robertson (listen to the podcast).

• Fairness of tone must not be violated. Has the fairness of tone been violated? And what has happened when reviewers try and improve the fairness of tone? The frequent revisions on the history page - many simply improving the tone in minor ways - are further evidence that the neutrality of this article is in real dispute.

(Those of us who trust and hope the government hypothesis is reliable, let us nevertheless provide the most reliable links to other hypotheses on this very same page - for example, the two major points of view of 911 scholars. Let us be aware of any persistent and coordinated efforts to quickly remove other hypotehses. A simple litmus test of the neutrality in this article will be use of the word 'hypothesis', the absence of the word 'conspiracy', and links to the 'good scientific research' of Steven_Jones.)

(Given the political significance of this article, people must be aware of misinformation (incorrect information) and disinformation (deliberately incorrect information). A good summary of this information issue, clearly relevant to contributors of this Wikipedia article is available from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Misinformation.)

[removed per policy on biographies of living people] Complete Truth 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no facts supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis. To present facts that supposedly support controlled demolition in the article would be dishonest. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The towers were pulverized. This is not hypothesis nor theory, it is fact, and is supported by ALL the evidence. Complete Truth 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse is a question of structural engineering, not folklore; buildings do not fall down by consensus. The demolition hypothesis is a hoax, based on disinformation. It is not just wrong, it is demonstrably wrong. Peter Grey 03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The towers did not collapse, they were pulverized. Try looking at the simple evidence before making such ridiculous claims. Complete Truth 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 scholars are anything but that.--MONGO 05:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the so-called "scholars" are government plants. Look at Judy Wood's evidence for the obvious truth. Complete Truth 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are, teh ebil gooberment is always out to get poor people like you . laff--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...sure they are. She has a conspiracy theory just like the scholars do.--MONGO 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of collapsed buildings, I always consult dental experts. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. RxS 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how do we discuss improving the article without discussing the article's subject? Oneismany 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss how the article should be written and what it should include...you don't discuss how one or another theory makes sense or doesn't make sense based on your own observations and calculations. That's original research and doesn't belong here....RxS 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's section on the total progressive collapse can be improved by pointing out shortcomings of the theory that contradict the laws of physics. Oneismany 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the total progressive collapse theory does not adequately explain how the momentum of the collapse accelerated because the force of gravity, the rate of change of momentum, is a constant with respect to altitude and mass. Oneismany 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that make that point? Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Steven Jones, "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method," Journal of 9/11 Studies, May 2007, p62.[7] It's called the Law of the Conservation of Momentum. Steven Jones is a prominent adherent. Oneismany 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The acceleration of gravity is constant. Rate of change of momentum is not constant when the mass is not constant. Jones' paper applies the scientific method selectively. Besides, 'total progressive collapse' is an idealization. Peter Grey 06:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (I think most people are 'adherents' to conservation of momentum.)[reply]

The acceleration (rate of change of velocity) due to gravity is constant. The force of gravity is the rate of change of momentum. The force of gravity is ${\displaystyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{d^{2}}}}$ is proportional altitude and that is why velocity increases identically regardless of mass or any increase or decrease in mass. The force of gravity over distance falling increases less for more mass and more for less mass. The rate of momentum increase is greater for lighter objects and lesser for heavier objects, that is why two similar objects of the different mass fall at the same velocity. Point out where Steven Jones uses the conservation of momentum selectively. Oneismany 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research...thanks.--MONGO 06:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is basic physics original research? Besides WP:NOR applies to the article not the talk page! Oneismany 06:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This quote with regard to the collapse of WTC7 from section 5.7 of the the FEMA reportWorld Trade Center Building Performance Study [8] is relevant to the topic and deserves to be included in the article. The article is unduly vague about the conclusions of the FEMA report and we should include more detail. The report goes on to say, "The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially "peeled" outward and fell from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the facade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse." These details should be included in the article. Oneismany 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]