Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Which theory do facts best support?

Rhobite,

Thank you for starting a [User talk:166.165.251.71 dialog.] 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

  1. 3 1993 terrorist attack
  2. 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.

The overwhelming scientific and official consensus supports the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. Let's keep the conspiracy theory, which is supported by a very small amount of people, in the proper article, 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rhobite 04:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Funny how patriots such as yourself are quick to boast that the 9/11 Commission report is supported by "overwhelming scientific evidence", yet I've yet to see this scientific evidence, nor has anyone ever explained to me how a building can crush itself as though falling through air, or how a plane can disappear into a building without even leaving a hole where the plane should've gone through. If there's evidence then show me. Don't give an Ameriflag 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Studies show that The world trade center's steel girders weren't treated with a standered fire and age resistant coat, which was deemed enviromentally unsafe during the towers construction, 1970's, and was cheeply replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

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.

In his 2000 book "Building Big," architect David MaCaulay described the towers' engineering as "a series of load bearing exterior columns spaced 3 feet apart and tied together at every floor by a deep horizontal beam, creating a strong lattice of square tubing around each tower."

And ABC news says this:

Built by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1973, the World Trade Center towers were the best examples of tube buildings of their time. Tube buildings are reinforced by closely spaced columns and beams in their outer walls, forming a steel tube. A series of glass windows fill in the space between the beams. And an internal core beam adds to the stability of tube structures. ... The steel beam-lined buildings rely on their tube network of beams to sustain hurricanes and seismic events.

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.

Steel doesn't have to melt for the structure to lose structural integrity. At temperatures considerably below its melting point it loses its strength.
Grok this phase change diagram. See the line at 727 degrees Celsius? There is a name for that temperature -- I can't remember what it is. The greek letters represent different kinds of crystals. Different kinds of crystals have different physical properties. When the temperature of the steel crosses that line the crystals reform, and, the steel will sag like a wet noodle. Actual melting is not required.

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.

The role of asbestos in the contruction of the towers and collapse has been discussed by [1]. Basically, asbestos was used as a fire-retardant agent and insulation in the first 60 floors, but not for the entire building. This is thought to have contributed to the collapse because the structural material was not as impervious to heat without the asbestos coating. Cleanup of the wreckage has been hindered by asbestos content as well.

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

As for the spelling, the WTCA uses the American spelling variant, so I guess we should put the general article under that name and create a redirect for the British spelling. The individual centres (no, centers!) should indeed have their own spelling, such as the one in my home town Eindhoven, which uses the American spelling. BTW, the comma is not necessary in the article, as World Trade Center New York is/was the full name of the building/organisation. Jeronimo

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

Agreed. The Melbourne "World Trade Centre" is a fairly nondescript building on the fringes of the CBD that is probably best known to Melburnians as the temporary home of the casino before it shifted to its own premesis. Except for its famous namesake, it's hardly worth mentioning at all.--Robert Merkel
Yes. At any rate, supposing we wait until someone bothers to write an article on any other World Trade Cent(r/e) before worrying about it excessively. - Montréalais

Films showing the World Trade Center

I'm trying to put together a list of films in which the World Trace Center is shown. So far I can think of:

  • World Trade Center

--Jerryseinfeld 22:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC))

If anyone can think of any others, add them to the list (alphabetically), and it might be something that could be included in the article, or linked to it. --Rebroad 19:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much any movie made while the towers stood that shows the skyline. Good luck with that list there. --Zakharov 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I added Analyze This, Antz, the pilot of the The Lone Gunmen and Meet Joe Black. Edward 22:07, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Actually http://dgrune.tripod.com/WTC/ has more. Edward 22:12, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Added Godspell. Joseph.nobles 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They are both seen in Die Hard 3 195.93.21.104 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

i dont know how old this talk article is but there is a world trade center in film and media article. maybe you are the author. 121.127.200.79 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Corbusier?

"...American implementations of the architectural ethic of Le Corbusier..." Modernist, yes. Corbusier, no. Shouldn't a more apropos name be inserted than Corbusier's? --Wetman 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

agreed."

Conspiracy theory

User:24.126.77.110 added this sentence to the article:

While many believe Osama Bin Laden orchestrated this attack in spite of his public denial, the actual perpetrators were hired by deep cover members of the Bush Administration via the PNAC ( http://www.newamericancentury ) in order to justify the unlawful invasion of Iraq.

I think this isn't true, so I removed it. If people disagree it should be discussed here on the talk page. Edward 22:39, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

--Raigedas 18:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC) We say that all articles in wikipedia should be from NPOV (neutral point of view). Then why it is said that "Al Qaeda suicide hijackers crashed <...> into the North Tower". This is only one version of the fact and it is not NPOV. People should be informed that there exist other versions, and make their own opinion after some research.

while its true that articles should be from the NPOV (thanks for the acronym, Raigedas), THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT Of REALITY YOU HAVE TO FACE! there has been a proven link between Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the management of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. people have to accept that, no matter what anyone wants to believe, this was an unprovoked attack of agression against America itself, and there is no furthur conspiracy in the matter. to blame the government for all acts and transgressions on this day in our history is something akin to an episode of south Pakr i've seen recently. deal with reality, people.--Deathbacon 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


DeathBacon...who are you to say "there is no furthur conspiracy in the matter".

You should bone up a bit on COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Here is a short list of the "Conspiracy Theories" that have been proven

GULF OF TONKIN (declassified) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
PEARL HARBOR (military records; show removal of communication equipment from bases, and the communication from the Japanese Tanker, which fueled the entire fleet, reporting that it would arrive in Hawaiian waters in ten days)

Quote "In 1991, the Japanese Foreign Ministry released a statement saying Japan had intended to make a formal declaration of war to the United States at 1 p.m. Washington time, 25 minutes before the attack at Pearl Harbor was scheduled to begin. This officially acknowledged something which had been publicly known for years, that diplomatic communications had been coordinated well in advance with the attack, but had failed delivery at the intended time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor


If you want more information just ask.

Of the 15 "hijackers" on the FBI list 9 are still alive and well; merely victims of identity theft. "The terrorist attack itself was planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and approved by Osama bin Laden; according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Mohammed personally chose the hijackers, and bin Laden approved of the decision. " a quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_hijackers WHY WOULD THEY HAND PICK THESE PEOPLE IF THEY INTENDED TO USE OTHER PEOPLE IN THEIR PLACE.... If the official story is true and there was no passenger manifest for any of those 4 flights, it would be the first time in modern aviation history.

How then was the government able to come up with the 15 names in the first place........doesn't add up.

It's called a passenger manifest...all flights have them, even domestic ones.--MONGO 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

read what I wrote before you respond. If all flights have them how did this one not?

Map coordinates

For subjects that are about locations, such as this one, it would be useful to have the map coordinates of the place, as precise as possible. There are many different coordinate systems in use, but the one which is most often used with GPS receiver (whichever it is) is probably a good choice. The coordinates could be given in a standard form, similar to other special links, so that clicking on the link would take the user to a map. --HelgeStenstrom 19:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the url I developed from Google Maps [2], 40.711646 north by 74.01264 west would get you pretty near the center of the irregular block bounded by Vesey Street, Church Street, Liberty Street, and the West Side Highway which the WTC occupied. knoodelhed 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have one question

Don't ask me why I'm asking this, but is the World Trade Center a federal facility? Or is it just a financial center for corporations and such? Thanks in advance. 66.177.138.113 18:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

-The term "World Trade Center" is a bit of a misnomer, and the federal goverment never had anything to do with it. The land & airspace is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its development rights (previously the rights to operate the exsisting buildings) are currently leased out to Silverstein Properties, Inc. Almost all of the corporations that were tenants of the WTC were financial companies (along with a few law firms, and some Port Authority offices). --Jleon 19:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Bayonne TV Tower

Are the plans for building a 609.6 metre high TV tower as replacement for the transmitters on the former WTC cancelled?

yes 121.127.200.79 09:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

length and breadth of WTC

Talk copied from wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous Jay 08:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What was the length and breadth of the twin towers of the World_Trade_Center ? Jay 15:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This image from our article World Trade Center has the dimensions. Each building was square in plan (looking down), with the shorter one's dimesions: 208 ft x 208 ft x 1362 feet. In metric 63.4 m x 63.4 m x 416.1 metres. Is that what you wanted? --Commander Keane 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, thats what I wanted. I've added this detail in the article assuming that the dimensions are the same for both the towers. I had been wondering if the Boeing 767 (length: 48.5m, wingspan: 47.6m) would have been fully contained in the towers. Jay 07:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the towers weren't the same height, as Commander Keane mentioned. The dimensions given are for WTC 2. WTC 1 was a tad higher at 417 m / 1,368 ft. [3] [4]
It appears you only were talking about the depth and width, not the height -- I'm with ya now. :-) --Quasipalm 14:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Observation Deck

I just added a new sub-topic "Observation Deck". Having now looked at the rendered article, might have been more suitable nested within the "Twin Towers" sub-topic. How do others feel?

You're right -- the addition would be better as a subheading, so I just changed it. Thanks for the addition! I added an image of the observation deck from commons. --Quasipalm 13:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading your paragraph I decided to add a bit about the other public space in 1wtc: windows on the world. Since they are both mentioned breifly together earlier in the article, I thought it would be nice to add a bit more in the observation deck area. This ok with you? --Quasipalm 13:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good... Thinking about Observation Deck also gave me the idea that a great addition somewhere in a future part of the WTC article would be to mention the various stunts (legal and illegal) that took place up top like Philippe Petit (inter-tower tight rope walk), the Human Fly, and the half dozen or so BASE jumpers.--Jamott 17:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "was"

Max rspct, the word "was" in the opening paragraph doesn't need any emphasis. I haven't seen any sign that anyone is confused over whether the World Trade Center still exists. —Cleared as filed. 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it does need emphasis as not everyone in the world is a tv-watching american -max rspct 13:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do you need to be a TV-watching American to understand the meaning of the word "was"? It is past tense all on its own without any emphasis, and in any case, if they read beyond the first couple of words, it becomes obvious that it can no longer exist. —Cleared as filed. 13:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I second Cleared as filed's comments. Was is unnecessary. Considering this event was the most covered news event in history, even people in isolated parts of the world learned of the attack.--Jamott 23:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy Links

Noticed two conspiracy links added to site, since they originally added to the top of the links (which I moved) they suggest a political slant to the editor's addition. Should we have these, I'm voting no. --Jamott 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed them. This article is about the WTC buildings.. sites with theories about what happened on 9/11 are not relevant to this article. We already have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which already has a ton of links to "9/11 truth" sites. Rhobite 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as the editor came in anonymously, I figured it was more or less political vandalism... but wanted another opinion on that. Thanks.--Jamott 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11 watchlist

In response to the increasing number of people using the 9/11 articles as a platform for wild theories, I created a watchlist so we can keep track of these attempts. Please visit User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist. You can use the "recent changes" link to view recent edits to the articles listed. Feel free to add any other relevant articles. Rhobite 23:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Gold

I have removed the following statement, due to lack of sources:

One source estimates the 1993 value of the gold at one billion dollars, believed to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. That same source claims that when the World Trade Center was destroyed, the amount of gold "far exceed[ed] the 1993 levels." The gold was finally recovered in its entirety in late 2001.

Until "One source ..." is more specifically identified and properly cited, we cannot include these details. Please see Wikipedia Cite sources for guidelines. --Aude 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Try this: [5] [6]

As of this revision it appears the passage is added back in with the cites included, but the sources really need to be better explained in the passage rather than just adding a blind link to a cite. I'd encourage further revision of the passage.--Rosicrucian 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Media

I have split off the "Media" section into a separate article, World_Trade_Center_in_film_and_media that is linked here. The Media section was getting way too long. Any objections to this move can be discussed here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The article was blooming too much in that section.--Jamott 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, the link doesn't work209.195.115.151 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows on the World

Was it on the 107th or 106th story?Geni 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've ever seen or read indicates it was on the 107th Floor.--Jamott 02:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It occupied both the 106th and 107th floors. The restaurant was on the 107th, with it's offices, along with conference/banquet facilities on the 106th. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I guess the article could be altered to that fact, or just left at 107 to address the space that was more or less "publically acessable".--Jamott 18:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebuilding section overlaps "World Trade Center site"

I added some information about specific buildings to another article World Trade Center site#Reconstruction plans. This article's own "Rebuilding" section has its own incomplete information about the site plans, most of which I feel should be moved to World Trade Center site to avoid duplication. There's a reference to the latter article elsewhere in this article but not in its "Rebuilding" section.

Skierpage 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Who wants the World Trade Center built once again with the Twin Towers?

I do... who else does?

I'd prefer that over some memorial with 'freedom' in the name, but I'd also like to see it named something that doesn't seem to arrogantly suggest the place is the center of world trade.

This is not a disscussion form. But I'd rather they'd rebuild the Twin Towers. The Freedom Tower looks like something cobbled together haphazardly. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--69.212.60.232 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)==Image Question: wtc_and_sphere.jpg==

I see one of the bots removed this image due to unknown status. If the original uploader can tell me where they got the image, I'll see if I can find out it's status. It's a great shot that fits in well with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamott (talk • contribs) .

See Special:Contributions/BigMacSC99 for other suspected copyvio-images uploaded. I've restored the images that were here previously. Though, you might want to check out the photos on http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/basic_search.jsp — most which were taken by the EPA (some which mainly illustrate smog, industry, and pollution, but others are nice photos). There might be other public domain photos elsewhere... -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that all "Americans/People" want the trade towers rebulit, or at that, never destroyed. If there were to be a decision of regeneration, maybe this time they should be built for their purpose. To trade (exports/imports), and bet on lively stocks. They shouldn't be built for the same reason they were "taken" down. They shouldn't be rebuilt for the burden that lied, excuse me, lyed beneath them. I would like to leave my paragraph with two terms that have come into my likng. hoax- n. "a trick or deception", and fake- adj. "having a misleading appearance; not genuine". note: if you want a resource, please tell me. thank you for your time, the American people.

--Deathbacon 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)I feel that the World Trade Center should be rebuilt just as proposed, but the name should'nt be changed to "Freedom Towers," since that seems to indicate that this building, above all, stands for freedom. i think that a memorial should be erected on the grounds of groung zero with the emphasis on the knowledge that freedom is in the american spirit, andnot in our buildings. that just makes it an even greater attack threat.

Effects of the towers' size, height, and mass

Any way of telling how much further apart the tops of the towers were than were the bottoms? And would they have bent towards each other by any noticeable fraction due to gravitational displacement? knoodelhed 11:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the everyday sway the buildings encounted due to wind?--Jamott 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure they would have wobbled noticeably in a good storm. But any such figures related to earth curvature, weather, gravity, etc would help too, in order to get an understanding of the effects of such a massive structure. knoodelhed 09:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
According to what I've read, in an 80mph wind, the towers had a calculated sway of 9.6 inches and would take 11 seconds to oscillate. I've also read that in strong wind (assuming 80+ mph)... it would sway 36 inches. Where this maximum sway occurred, I am not sure... but I assume it's the top. Due to the dampeners connected to the outer structure at every floor, this help keep the sway down from the initial design results of 250 to 500 inches.
On 9/11, it was discovered that the south tower swayed and moved for about four minutes after being hit. The north tower presumably swayed for a shorter time, as the impact of AA 11 had 50% less kinetic energy than UAL 175 due to the aircraft travelling slower. It's also suspected that the dampeners help prevent the buildings from swaying more violently when struck.
Alot of this info is in the book City In The Sky - The Rise and Fall of The World Trade Center by Glanz and Lipton... highly recommended reading.
As for the gravity and curvature question, I'm no physics/geometry guy so I'll step away from that one. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it was probably minute at best.--Jamott 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

boiling point of jet fuel

if you have any questions about the jet fuel, check out this site from the federal government itself. it should clear up any questions. www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp76-c3.pdf note especially the boiling point of the various jet fuels listed keep the faith, james


I fail to see what point you are trying to make. The boiling point of jet fuel does not make a difference in the final burn temperature. Even in a 100% oxygen-enriched blast furnace hydrocarbon fuels, such as jetfuel, will burn at a maximum of 980 degrees c. The fire in the trade center towers would not have been the oxygen rich environment I just described.

The BBC reported that the fire reached a maximum temperature of 800 degrees C. Half the temperature required to melt the steel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

The melting point of Iron is 1538 degrees c(steel is 99 percent Iron).

You do the math. It won't add up.

Keep information going

1) the "USA Today" link about the 9/11 is broken.

What can WP do to keep information sources accurate and long lasting ?

2) Buzz is spreading about "facts" such as ... the Mossad told the Jews there would be damage, so no Jew died in the WTC 9/11 attack. Disinformation, but :

Again, what can we do here ? This comes about recent events. What kind of sources, what NPOV shall remain in 2011 ? Thanks. --DLL 19:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That second comment is utterly ridiculous. If you do you research, you'll find it to be not true. I'm all for deleting this comment, anybody else in favour?--Jamott 20:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Found here : Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Israel: 3" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-American_casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_Attacks

I'm sorry to appear ridiculous and I do not want to hurt. Some do, my question is only, what can we do here against that. --DLL 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Three Israelis. There is also a low number of French fatalities... did they know too? It all has to do with the fact there was not many Israelis who worked in the building. However mainstream press indicates approximately 400 of the Jewish faith died... that's almost 20% of the fatalities. So any contention that it was a conspiracy or the Mossad warned people is conjecture at best.--Jamott 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

There are quite massive discrepancies (of several million square feet) in this article, relating to the areas of floor space in the towers and the centre as a whole.

The figures I found seem to indicate ~ 10 million sq. ft. of rentable office space in the Towers. When you combine the other WTC buildings in the complex, the number on the article seems probable. --Jamott 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bayonne TV Tower

I have cut the following text from the article, seeing that the "plans seem to have been cancelled" and this is mentioned anyway in the Bayonne, New Jersey article. It's fine to note that the top of the WTC contained the broadcasting facilities, though. Since nothing will come of these plans, it just doesn't seem notable enough to mention in this article.

When the World Trade Center collapsed, many of New York's radio and television broadcasting facilities were destroyed. As a permanent replacement for them, a 2,000 foot (609.6 m) high TV tower at Bayonne, New Jersey was considered. A transmission site away from the coast would have allowed a much larger reception zone than the original WTC facilities. In spite of this advantage, the plans seem to have been cancelled.

-Aude (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

Also, I trimmed a few links, but there are still way to many links. Since Wikipedia is not a link directory, we should try to cut the list in half (at least). If anyone wants to go through the long list of links and help shorten this list more, that would be great. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I just trimmed many more links and added a link to DMOZ open directory. If anyone objects to deletion of any particular link, please bring it up for discussion and consensus here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

NYC's broadcast facilities

Kmf, the way you left that sentence is confusing and not needed, imho. Transmission issues YES were temporarily effected, but the bulk of NYCs radio and TV broadcast facilities WERE NOT located in the Towers. Can we please remove that sentence? Thanks!Tom 22:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC) ps, not that it effects this discussion, I worked in 4 WTC until March 2000.

Thanks for coming to the talk page. I was just puzzled that this statement has been in the article for almost a year (unquestioned). When I cut out the "Bayonne TV Tower" section which is IMHO irrelevant, it's important to try to salvage as much of it (as possible) and leave a note on the talk page for discussions. Outright reverting it, without trying to reword it or come to the talk page tends to annoy me. But on further thought, I'm fine with leaving it out, as this is covered in List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
PS. For each of the sections in this article where there's a link to a "main article", we need to make these brief summaries of the subarticles. Summarizing the "Rebuilding" section is the next task here. If you'd like to help, that would be excellent. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I am a newbie so I am sure there is a TON more stuff I'll find :) Anyways, I love Wikipedia except HOT topics are VERY unmanageable because everybody has an agenda and a POV no matter how NPOV this site tries to be. Topics like broccholi and iron ore are fine but George Bush, abortion, suicide bombers?? FORGET IT! Anyways, back to the Towers..There should be some discusssion about transmission knockout but in the SCOPE of things its pretty small and this article seemed bloated, again imho. Your link above seems to tend more with the covergae of events/programming rather than the technical knock out of the transmission towers/facilities ect.Tom 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can think of a good way to incorporate mention of it, go ahead and do so. I agree that the wording pasted from the Bayonne TV Tower section was poor. I also cut out the "conspiracy theories" bit that had been here. Wikipedia attracts many proponents of those theories, so it's a constant effort to argue with them and keep them from overtaking the place. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

What's wrong with the first paragraph as written? patsw 19:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, do you mean? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with the rewording, regarding Larry Silverstein. While true, the particular wording "six weeks prior to ..." seems to perhaps suggest or imply something more than it should. Instead saying "July of 2001" is good. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It seemed out of place the way it was. The way is it now, Larry Silverstein is simply mentioned as the final lessor of the World Trade Center, which is appropriate. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

reason for collapse

This article says: "The Twin Towers collapsed due to fire and other structural damage ...". I have seen a wide range of reasons for the collapse of the twin towers, and many of them cite detonations on lower floors that caused the collapse. There have been many assertations that fire could not have caused the towers to collapse. I'm not looking for a discussion of conspiracy theories, but I'm wondering if "fire and other structural damage" is accurate or verified. Fresheneesz 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Other structural damage=impact from wide body jets flying at 490 and 595 mph respectively.--MONGO 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
MONGO; The exterior supports were designed to hold 200% pf the buildings weight, the interior columns were designed to hold 160% of the weight. http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

wriggle your way out of that...


You could change it to "The Twin Towers collapsed following the impact of two wide body jets. Later studies by NIST and FEMA judged the collapse to be due to a combination of impact structural damage and the jet fuel fire." Seabhcán 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who say this?

It's written

The Twin Towers collapsed due to fire and other structural damage resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks[...]

I can easily believe that the collapse was "due to fire and other structural damage" but we need a source.--Pokipsy76 10:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there is so much controversy about why they collapsed, dont you think it should read "The Twin Towers collapsed following fire and other structural damage resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks"? Raemie 22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous

What does it mean

Later that day, 7 World Trade Center subsequently collapsed as a result of the initial attack.

can't we explain it better?--Pokipsy76 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


No, it can't be explained better. It was never hit, it was of a differnet construction, it's fire wasn't sufficient, it just fell. marvel of engineering I guess.

it fucking fell because two big jets went crashing into them thats why it fell

No, this was a seperate building next to the twin towers. it can be explained alot better. GallifreyanPostman pwns you 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 was not "next to the twin towers". Far away from "twin towers". Other properties which is NOT leased by Siverstein is closer to twin towers. Only Siverstein properties were nicely collapsed.

WTC Pregnancy Studies

This part of the article just seems out of place... certainly is a minor point in the grand scheme of the article. I'm for deletion of it... yeas/nays? --Jamott 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. If someone wants it in, they'll put it back, hopefully with some citation. Tom Harrison Talk 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Symbolic picture

Hello, is it approriate to place the following picture in this article? Miss USA w/WTC in background I find it very symbolic, its of Miss USA Kim Seelbrede at the 1981 Miss Universe pageant held in New York City. Regards ~ Mallaccaos, 21 June 2006

I don't think it's an appropriate picture for a few reasons. First and foremost this article is about the WTC... in the photograph the WTC is not the centre of attention. Secondly the scanning of the pic is low quality. Lastly having a swimsuit clad model's picture in an article that memoralizing a building is inappropriate.--Jamott 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I originally only took a glance at the photo, taking a second look at the background... It is not even the WTC!--Jamott 13:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

death statistics

why is that nonsense in it (the breakdown into percentages, not the main total)? Surely that'll be covered in the various Sept 11 articles. This page should be about the buildings not solely the attack 85.210.62.128 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A cute Story?

A cute story: In the year 2040, a man took his grandson to the site of the World Trade Center in New York City. The man told his grandson "This is where the World Trade Center stood." His grandson said "Pop Pop, what was the World Trade Center?" The grandfather replied, "They were the two tallest buidings in New York City, and they housed many of the most influential corporations in the modern world." The grandson asked "Pop Pop, what happend to the buildings?". The grandfather replied, "They were destroyed by Arabs." The grandson asked "Pop Pop, what were Arabs?"

I had two questions regarding this part of the article. One, is it appropriate for an encyclopedic article given that there's no statement of fact in it? Two, since it is said that it's a 'cute story' and the story implies the eradication of Arabs doesn't that make it wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry? Just wondering.--Jadden Sinn 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many images

I removed a bunch of images from the article such as multiple views of the twin towers prior to the collision and a bunch of movie posters. Most of the posters are gone but some of the others have been readded including one of a restaurant. There are still far too many pictures which are redundant: the restaurant, marriot with towers, manahattan skyline with twin towers, two pics of towers on fire.

I also prefer the image of Manhattan across the water (currently removed) as the lead image as it is more representative of the twin towers place in the landscape than an arty picture looking up at the twin towers. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the images I consider unnecessary or duplication of images more relevant to other articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Good Idea. But I think we need a better free use image for the main page. Koolgiy 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
why do people go around butchering articles? it doesn't hurt anyone to have some pictures! 121.127.200.79 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The World Trade Center as viewed across the Hudson. Photo by Edgar de Evia, circa 1990.

This caption has got to be wrong. The World Financial Center was built by 1990 yet it is not showing up in the picture. Revise or I will remove the photo.Gary Joseph 14:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Doc ♬ talk 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article space

Rest in Peace - the victims of the 9/11 attacks. In Memoriam, 5th Anniversary. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Who on earth was so insensitive to put the current horrible image up? For shame.

Image:Rthrdj.jpg

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.160.229 (talk • contribs) .

User: 81.152.12.68 added this image to the article at 12:51 today. I have since reverted this user's contribution, and reported him/her for vandalism. All of this informtion can be found in this article's history located [here]. Somnabot 19:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding WTC Mall

Can we add the WTC mall? It was a part of the WTC afterall. This article isn't on 9/11, it's on the actual WTC. -Oops forget it. I made an article.


Unnecessary photos

This article is borderline on the number of relevant images in it. I removed a bunch a while ago but they are creeping back in. Can anyone tell me what value this image adds to the article other than consuming a lot of space, as every time I remove it gets readded. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on no feedback I have removed the image. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If you remove images, please post them to a gallery on this talk page. -- Petri Krohn 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I've got an image possibly worth adding, as it's probably better quality than the current images of the attacks. It's at http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/APolaris/crazypicture.jpg and it was taken by my father, a cop in downtown Brooklyn. I'd like to grant Wikipedia permission to use this image as desired. 68.195.209.53 05:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New World Trade Center Tower 5

A fifth tower of the new World Trade Center has recently been announced and it should probably have an article about it, no? 62.136.208.173 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Black & white WTC photo

Is it just me or does that b&w photo of the WTC across the Hudson look incredibly dull. It is also quite useless are there are already plenty of photos on the page. Should we remove it? --62.136.208.173 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia had been a free encyclopedia with wrong infos...

September 11, 2001

There is no proof at all that the hijackers are from the al-qaedas groups. Why must it says Al-Qaeda is the group who hijack the plane and destroy wtc in an encyclopedia...?? Even police don't know yet. Wow, Wikipedia had been a truly informative with infos that no one ever know yet. Izzudin 11:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The broad consensus is that Al Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is confirmed by numerous reputable and verifiable sources and is discussed in detail in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article, which includes more than seventy references. That article also acknowledges the many minority views that assign responsibility to other parties. - Eron Talk 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)