Talk:Construction of the World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Construction of the World Trade Center is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 10, 2007.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Construction of the World Trade Center article.
Article policies
WikiProject Engineering This article is part of WikiProject Engineering, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, join the project, visit the project portal, and contribute to the project discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Skyscrapers
Architecture Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the project page for more information.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] FA milestone

1400th FA Buc 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geotechnical work

I can't believe I'm the first to talk on a FA page; how did it make FA without discussion? Anyway, I am wondering if the author(s) have any sources which describe the geotechnical work of the project, notably, the foundation. The fact that there is a foundation and that slurry walls were used in construction are mentioned, but as a geotechnical specialist, I think a few more details would make this article more comprehensive, like the type of foundation. I was not able to find anything useful in the references I looked in, but if you have something I missed, I would be happy to try to write a few sentences on it. Basar 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

About all I found was:
Most of the rest I saw were related to the reconstruction of the existing walls.--MONGO 09:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Some detailed sources on geotechnical aspects may be available. Though, I'm pretty sure they require someone going to a large university library and looking through old journals and possibly material on microfilm. That's how I found material on 1993 bomb damage and repairs, but the place I went didn't have that much available for engineering topics. Someday, I may go look somewhere else, once I get through the other WTC articles and other stuff I'm working on. Of course, since you have expertise, maybe you can have better luck finding sources. --Aude (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. there was some discussion on the peer review page.--Aude (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Cheers. Basar 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources that I would look for.

The first ones listed I think are from Engineering News Record.

  • Court action halts major projects February 28, 1963
  • Empire state building's 33-year-old record to be topped: twin towers to go 110 stories January 23, 1964
  • How columns will be designed for 110-story buildings April 2, 1964
  • Tall towers will sit on deep foundations July 9, 1964
  • Trade center comes into focus March 24, 1966
  • Problems plague construction of new york World Trade Center April 13, 1967
  • Steel Ahoy! November 11, 1967
  • Tieback system gives elbow room May 9, 1968
  • Foundation for tallest towers: water out, trains in October 31, 1968
  • Trade center builds upward fast March 13, 1969
  • World's tallest towers begin to show themselves on new york city skyline January 1, 1970.
  • Aluminum skin sheaths world's tallest towers November 5, 1970
  • Construction's man of the year: World Trade Center's Ray Monti February 11, 1971
  • World Trade Center hvac system is project's hidden feat December 23, 1971
  • The World Trade Center, its planning, finance, design and construction as reported through the weeks for more than a decade, 1972.
Other sources:
  • Feld, L. S. 1971. Superstructure for the 1,350-ft World Trade Center. Civil Engineering-ASCE. 41:66–70.
  • Welding Design and Fabrication. 1970a. Welding and abricating 55,000 tons of steel for the World Trade Center, July:50–52.
  • Welding Design and Fabrication. 1970b. Welding and inspecting the World Trade Center-giant among giants, February:53–56.
  • Applications of Wind Tunnels to Investigation of Wind-Engineering Problems J. E. Cermak AIAA Journal 1979 0001-1452 vol.17 no.7 (679-690)
  • The Vierendeel David J. Wickersheimer The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1976), pp. 54-60

It would definitely be worth the effort to get hold of these, but not sure when I'll get a chance to do so. If anyone else can find these or other sources, and add to the article, please do so. --Aude (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have found some of those sources on the website: [1] Apparently you were correct to concentrate on the excavation methods as the foundation seems to be very un-interesting; I was expecting an elaborate deep foundation system. Apparently it is just a spread footing cast on rock. I looked for a natural place in the article to integrate that, but I am not sure where it should go. I did, however, add a sentence from one of those sources on why slurry walls were used instead of conventional methods. Basar 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest not linking to that site. Those articles might be okay, but the site is not exactly a reliable source. Personally, I'd rather trek to the library and get these articles myself. If you want to include those articles as refs, but without the link, that's okay and sometime in the next week or so, maybe I can go verify them. I don't know if the publisher would let me post copies of them somewhere, but maybe if I asked. --Aude (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Room for improvement?

Not bad, but this needs a copy-edit and a peer review, I think. I found several sentences that read awkwardly and needed re-wording. So there's definitely an issue with the grammar and flow. Thoughts?— Wackymacs 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It has had a peer review and is a Featured Article...see links to such actions in the tags at the top.--MONGO 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a Featured Article. It doesn't mean it's "perfect" though - it also doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved. I can see plenty of places where a re-word and grammar work is needed. — Wackymacs 09:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - get to it Wackymacs!!!! 81.156.127.109 09:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wackymacs...the first edit you did was fine. I had a little problem wiht the second, but the last three added some inaccuracies to the article. There was also one passage that read less easily after your change than before.--MONGO 10:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of personal opinion - and maybe an interest conflict. You obviously seem very protective of this article as you're very proud of it. Reverting back again. Discuss more. — Wackymacs 11:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I fixed one mistake but the rest is valid and I see no problems. Please copy & paste into here what you're having problems with if anything. Thanks — Wackymacs 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)I've reverted back to MONGO. Wackymacs has introduced grammatical error "Governor Robert B. Meyner objected the plan, resenting that" for "Objections to the plan came from New Jersey Governor Robert B. Meyner, who resented that" and purposeful ambiguity "with some of its upper floors used as a hotel" for possibly misleading clarity "with the upper floors used as a hotel." The other changes appear to be a matter of preferred word choice, rather than any dispute of fact, which is poor justification for the introduced problems. - BanyanTree 11:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you reverted to the wrong version, since my first edit to this article was valid: "founded" sounds much better than "set up" (I changed a few other words and removed redundant commas). To be fair, this is a featured article and so it should represent the best writing quality on Wikipedia. Sorry about the other edits, I did rush them. — Wackymacs 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wire-walking guy

The French guy who walkedon the wire between the two towers did it while the WTC was still being built, I seem to remember. is this worth mentioning in the text? 81.156.127.109 09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reference for it, sure. — Wackymacs 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure it has anything to do with the construction, unless it was in regards to the builders having the guy walk the tightrope for publicity purposes.--MONGO 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
yeah i remember seeing a pic and the tiles at the top of the tower aren't on yet hence not being built completely. i think there is an article on wikipedia about it. 121.127.192.166 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Philippe Petit is the article, and he did it in 1974 so it's not relevant to the article. - BanyanTree 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A mention of this guy (whose name escaped me) was the first thing I looked for in the article. He is definitely worth a "see also"; I'll add him as such. BrainyBabe 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Example.png as you can see the tower isn't done yet 203.129.63.34 04:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move page to "construction of the world trade center"

because right now the title is kind of ambiguous because it could be calling the towers buildings. 121.127.192.166 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post this. Do it now, it's ambiguous! --84.92.214.184 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's unclear whether this means the construction of the towers or the "building" itself, as in the noun. Make Wikipedia a better place. Macphisto12 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes change the name to "Construction of the World Trade Center", it makes it much clearer. --Differentgravy 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a new survey 203.129.52.63 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Building of the World Trade Center → World Trade Center (Construction) — logical to start article with name of center. Makes searching for all World Trade Center articles easier, eg the post 9/11 details are in "Word Trade Center Site" —bärlinerTalk 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a subarticle of the main article - World Trade Center. It is linked there. Not all subarticles start with "World Trade Center", such as Collapse of the World Trade Center, 7 World Trade Center, and the other buildings - 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, Marriott World Trade Center, and the new buildings Freedom Tower, 150 Greenwich Street, etc. We also have a navigation box that we can use to link articles together - {{WTC navigation}}. Also, a poll isn't necessary. A discussion will suffice. --Aude (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Building" is slightly ambiguous, "Construction" would be much clearer. --Differentgravy 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But this article is about more than just the construction of...so the current title is more accurate...World Trade Center (Construction) is not acceptable.--MONGO 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support Should definitely be re-named, "building" is rather ambiguous really. — Wackymacs 15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: although would support "construction of the World Trade Center". Reginmund 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support "Construction of the World Trade Center" - seems the obvious location - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not think the alternate wording accurately describes the breadth of material presented in the article. Basar 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title makes it sound like World Trade Center is a Construction (since Californication is an album and Madonna is an entertainer). I would somewhat support moving to Construction of the World Trade Center. The article is indeed about much more than just the construction, but I don't think the word building covers planning and designing it, and it introduces some ambiguity as to the subject of the article. 17Drew 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - there seems to be more support for a move to 'Construction of the World Trade Center' - I'd support that. --Merbabu 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd support a move to 'Construction of the World Trade Center', which is a much better title than 'World Trade Center (Construction)', which seems to indicate an existing building rather than construction of a building. – Marco79 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

The date of the beginning of construction (1969) must be wrong. Perhaps it refers to the construction of the towers after the site had been prepared. In 1961 I worked in Lower Manhattan (2 Lafayette St) not far from the site and my lunch hours were made hell by the construction workers sitting on sidewalks all around and commenting on any woman who passed by. Either in the two years there or at UC Berkeley 1963-65 I was taught about PERT charts and the example used was the World Trade Center construction - every beam was tracked from its fabrication to its delivery at the site. No truck to that site could enter Manhattan until another had left. I cannot cite a source for this beyond my own memories but doubtless it exists.216.151.21.130 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In March 1965, the Port Authority began acquiring property and demolishing existing structures. Groundbreaking was on August 5, 1966, with site preparations taking place over many years. Actual construction of the North Tower began in August 1968 and the South Tower in 1969. Though, when the Port Authority acquired PATH, they acquired the Hudson Terminal building, which was demolished at some point. Maybe that's what you remember. The Singer Building, once located where One Liberty Plaza is today, was also demolished. The Washington Market was also demolished at some point in the years before the WTC was constructed. Around 1960, One Chase Manhattan Plaza was constructed. These were all very major projects that could make lunch hour hell. Could it be one of these projects that you remember? --Aude (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic symbolism

Some claim the two towers represent Jachin and Boaz, used in Masonic symbolism with the Washington Square Arch. [2] [3]


"All Masonic lodges have these two pillars at some location in their architecture. In the earliest Lodges, they were said to represent far more ancient pillars, supposedly erected by “the children of Lamech.” On those ancient pillars -- one of brick, one of stone -- were said to be engraved all the then known sciences to preserve them from destruction “by fire or inundation.” As such, they symbolized the esoteric importance of the knowledge of the builder's (mason’s) art, to be guarded and preserved by future faithful craftsmen. Simply put, according to Masonic legend, “the children of Lamech” were the inhabitants of Atlantis. This information, passed down from that prior highly advanced civilization, is supposed to form the basis of the Masonic secrets “from the ancient times."

"Shortly before the American Revolution, these original representations of “ancient, preserved knowledge” were replaced in Masonic lodges with two brass pillars, representing two similar pillars originally erected at the entrance to King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem -- the Pillars of Jachin and Boaz. The new Masonic pillars took on the symbolic attributes of “establishment” and “strength,” cleverly concealing their continuing representation of the great catastrophe which had destroyed a previous epoch of “high civilization,” beneath additional layers of almost impenetrable (for most non-members) new symbolic interpretation."

[edit] Requested move-2

Building of the World Trade Center → Construction of the World Trade Center — From a previous requested move, it seems as if this would be supported more. It sounds the least ambiguous. —Reginmund 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: The current name sounds vague. The new name is much better. Chris! my talk 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The request above noted that this is about "more than just the construction", which is why the article used to be at Design and construction of the World Trade Center. That makes more sense to me, and I would support it, but I don't think I can support the proposed title. Dekimasuよ! 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:East-side-wtc.png

Image:East-side-wtc.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steel description flawed

The reference 49 description of A36 steel erroneously ascribes it characteristics of varying yield strength from 36 to 100,000 PSI. This is incorrect - it has yield strength of at minimum 36 KSI (36,000 PSI) for plates and sections less than 1 inch thick and 32 KSI over 1 inch thick. Can someone who has better access to primary sources determine what steels were used in the outer column structures, so we can correct this? I could just fix this A36 comment, but there'd be an information gap left anyways. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section on anticipation of aircraft impact

I've added a section that we worked out over at the article on the collapse of the World Trade Center. It can probably be expanded but here's what we've got so far.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity load

In the lead and again in the body mention is made of the gravity load of the columns. Wording currently implies that the core shared a part of the load. The core actually supported 50% of the load while the perimeter columns supported 20%. It either needs rewording to make clear that the core carried most of the load or have the percentages included. Suggestions? Wayne (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)