Collapse of the World Trade Center was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed February 1, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2007. Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: September 11 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance). Architecture 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Firefighting High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Comparing the numbers ourselves is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You'd need a reliable, secondary source making the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The at least let's leave the dubious tag up. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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." Thomas B (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good having such a blatant falsehood there. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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? Thomas B (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefer NIST's statement (or at least something better than NYT). Do you know where they addressed this? Thomas B (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous photo

current photo

Like the September 11 attacks 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 HandThatFeeds and Butterscotch5 involved and hear there opinions since they made great points on the September 11 talk page. Cena332 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually leaning towards the new photo for this article, since it's specifically about the collapse itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current one better because it shows one of the towers has already collapsed. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The plane crashed to the North Tower at 8:46:30 a.m., not at 8:46:40 a.m.. 2600:1002:B156:7EEE:10D9:1AC0:BF4:B2E7 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note attached in the lede, reproduced as follows:

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.

We're aware of the discrepancy, but there's no point changing it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this link for "New York City" per MOS:OVERLINK. 103.156.248.45 (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]