Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Weight of the Building(s) 1.1 YESSSS 2 Removed pictures 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 3.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 3.2 Discussion 4 Number of employees 5 Sockpuppet may be at work - please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WaffelWTC 6 Edit in progress - what is the tag that lets other users know that one editor is doing this? 7 See Also Section 8 How Many Elevators? 9 GA on hold 10 Editing request 11 GA Failed: Extensive notes on improvements 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 12.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 12.2 Discussion 13 Cell phone calls made aboard hijacked aircraft 14 cross? what the deuce? 15 Peer review request 16 Article under semi-protection 17 New picture of towers 18 Galleries 19 Ownership 20 Still too many images 21 When Freedom Tower is Built 22 9/11! 23 Al-Qaeda's Involvment 24 Ship? 25 Windows 26 New External Link? 27 No Original Research 28 Demolished? 29 Inaccuracy and Contradiction Regarding World Trade Center Article & The fact that 9/11 was an inside JOB!!!!!! 30 On the 1993 memorial 31 some NPOV....

Weight of the Building(s)

Does anyone know what the overall weight (or mass) of the Towers were? I haven't read through the entire article so I don't know if it may already be in there, but I want to know what the weight of the structure was. I need the mass to calculate the Density, I can easily get the Volume from its dimensions, but the mass is currently unknown to me. So if anybody knows (or even has a rough estimate of) the weight, it would be much appreciated. --Hibernian 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

YESSSS

The twin towers each weighed 500,000 tons each. Brittani Janurary 23, 2007

Eh Ok thanks. But can I ask where you got the figure from? I mean, you didn't just make it up did you? --Hibernian 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed pictures

I removed the load of pointless pictures from this page. All the edit buttons are now in the right place. I rearranged the rest of them too, and I think this page can do without most of the pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GallifreyanPostman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Number of employees

Unless I missed something, someone needs to add how many employees worked in the towers, or the approximate maximum capacity. --Criticalthinker 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet may be at work - please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WaffelWTC

All editors please be aware a sockpuppet may be at work - please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WaffelWTC. Similar edits are being made and reverted. Case has been opened. Thanks, Ronbo76 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a secondary issue that I wouldn't be concerned with because these are vandalism edits anyway. So those users are indefinitely blocked and any new vandals can/will be blocked on sight. --Aude (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit in progress - what is the tag that lets other users know that one editor is doing this?

I forget the tag for edit in progress. Surely someone can provide it before an edit war takes place. Ronbo76 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

{{inuse}}, {{inusefor|}}, {{inuseuntil|}}... -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any questions or concerns about the recent edits? Right now, this article is a good article candidate (see top of the talk page). These edits are necessary for the article to meet those criteria, though the article may need further work. It should also be possible to improve further and make this a featured article. No tag is needed, as nothing controversial is being done and anyone can fix errors and help. --Aude (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm working on the design and construction subarticle. I also plan work on the "pop culture" section, having resurrected that subarticle out of deletion - it's in my userspace, pending cleanup and referencing. All the other sections and subarticles need work, as well. --Aude (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See Also Section

This particular section doesn't have any link to an article about the 100's of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. In essence many outside United States got to know about WTC tower after 9/11, and in the future WTC will be known for the terrorist attacks on America other than anything else, and specifically the attacks on WTC is most significant, so I the reader should be aware of the existence of the article related to 9/11 conspiracy theories and any other related article. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The conspiracy theories are related to the 9/11 attacks (and are linked from there), not directly to this building complex. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, on what do you base your disagreement? sure the conspiracy theories are linked to 9/11, If one asks a simple question what is the epic center of 9/11, the definite answer is WTC isn't it? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How Many Elevators?

How many elevators went from ground floor all the way up to the skylobby on, I think the 78th floor? is there anywhere possible to get the exact data?
How many elevators went all the way up to the top? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.149.2.241 (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

GA on hold

I saw this category on the bottom of the page: Category:Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007. This should be taken care of before I, or someone else, review the article. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the statement. May put it back in the future, should I find a source for it. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing request

I’m not a registered user but wrote some of the following before the article was blocked, and request the two following changes:

(1) Several of the originators of “Twin Towers II” request the link to “Twin Towers II” be removed from the article by changing the following sentence from:

“On May 18, 2005, Donald Trump, long-time opponent of the Freedom Tower, proposed the Twin Towers II plan to rebuild the Twin Towers with various safety, structural, and technological improvements.”

to:

“On May 18, 2005, Donald Trump, long-time opponent of the Freedom Tower, proposed rebuilding the Twin Towers with various safety, structural, and technological improvements.”

(2nd change) Change:

“The North Tower (1 WTC) had a restaurant on the 107th floor called Windows on the World, which was an elegant restaurant known as a place for big celebrations, such as weddings.”

to:

“Windows on the World was located on the 107th floor of the North Tower (1 WTC). It was an elegant restaurant known as a place for big celebrations, such as weddings.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.67.217 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

The article is unprotected again. Will be closely watching for vandalism. --Aude (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed: Extensive notes on improvements

The previous reviewer appears to have abandoned the article after the prior hold, but since it was never delisted, I reviewed it. Unfortunately, there are to many issues to consider extending the hold or passing it. These fixes need to be done to achieve GA status. My review is based on the Good Article Criteria at WP:WIAGA.

• Copyediting issues:
  • The lead has some awkward phrasing. The big problem is the description of the damage to each individual building; it doesn't flow well. There is some sort of punctuation/run-on-sentance problem that needs fixing.
  • The Film and media section is poorly written, unreferenced, and in violation of the good article criteria prohibition on trivia sections.
• Referencing issues:
  • Use of word "iconic" in lead needs reference. I know it is iconic. You know it is iconic. Our opinion doesn't matter. Find a reference that calls it iconic.
  • First paragraph of design inovations is unreferenced
  • Entire Engineers and contractors section is unreferenced
  • First paragraph of Architectural criticism is unreferenced
  • Observation deck and Windows on the World section is unreferenced.
  • First paragraph of The other buildings section is unreferenced.
  • Several paragraphs of the Rebuilding the World Trade Center section is unreferenced. Due to the speculative nature of this section, referencing to reliable sources for EACH assertion must be scrupulous.
• Reference format issues:
  • Inconsistent formatting of references. Ideally, EACH reference should contain complete bibliographical information, such as:
    • Author (if availible)
    • Title of the work
    • Larger work (if applicable)
    • Publication information
    • Date of access for webpages.

If you would like, you can use the citation templates found at WP:CITET to help organize this information. Also see relevent policies WP:ATT and WP:CITE for more information.

• Image issues:
  • The use of the CNN image (Story.crash.sequence.jpg) is a problem. First of all, it is incorrectly tagged, as the tag specifically states that it is to be used only, and I quote from the tag, for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". This use is not doing that, and thus does not meet fair-use requirements. Also, the use of watermarked images is highly deprecated. Finally, the use of the image is unneccsary, as there is already a free image (the National Park Service one) in the article that meets the purpose this one is trying to.
  • The fair use rationale for the image "New wtc.jpg" is a bit sketchy. I would agree that the use of this image probably meets minimum fair use requirements, but the image is not correctly source (please provide a link to the original) and the rationale is non-standard wording.

I know it is a lot, but I would like to see this article be up to standard as spelled out in WP:WIAGA. Please improve the article, and when these fixes have been made, please feel free to renominate it at WP:GAC. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Cell phone calls made aboard hijacked aircraft

My experience has been that cell phones do not work at 30,000 feet. I have never been able to get a single call out or send/recieve text messages while at cruising altitude. Has anyone here had luck making cell phone calls of this nature? I find it hard to believe that one person made a 27 minute phone call while at cruising altitude. http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11_cell_phone_hoax.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.158.166 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC). Found another link http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles

Most of the successful cell phone calls were made much lower than 30k, and even at that not all were completed. Overall, most of the calls were made from on board systems that don't use consumer cell phone technology. Links like the ones you added don't tell the whole story and are mostly lies...so it goes. RxS 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You say that "most" of the calls were made via seat-back sets. provide a link.

cruising altitude is 30K ft. a plane takes off, climbs to that height, and travels. Are you saying that the planes were hijacked while climbing to 30K ft and that the calls were made after the hijacking but before reaching cruising altitude? Independant research has shown less than 10% success at 8K feet, let alone 30K feet. http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11_cell_phone_hoax.htm

You asked, I answered. If you want to believe that nonsense it's up to you. But please keep your comments limited to discussion related to the article, don't use it as a soapbox, thanks. RxS 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? This article does not discuss phone calls. Talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic, but only for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. There are other websites for that. --Aude (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One user seems to be using this talkpage as a chat forum. Ronbo76 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's another attempt to question the whole story behind the September 11 attacks. These people go everywhere and try to question each and every fact about it. No need to discuss further. Northern 09:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No we are the people who want to know the truth, not people who sit at home letting the world go by, just accepting things that G. Bush says. We are what most people call people. Thanks, Brocky9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky9 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

cross? what the deuce?

Sorry, chaps, but that cross near the date of its existence is really, uh, inappropriate. 69.209.79.33 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC) --russ.

It's part of the infobox, used for all articles on skyscrapers. Though, it doesn't mean we can't change it. --Aude (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed. [1] --Aude (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

Wikipedia:Peer review/Design and construction of the World Trade Center - This article is a subarticle of the main WTC article, and one of a series of articles on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. Before going to WP:FAC, this article can use some folks to look it over and make suggestions. Any help with reviewing the article would be most appreciated. --Aude (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Article under semi-protection

After coming across this article this evening and noticing the high level of IP vandalism, a Request for Semi-page Protection was lodged and approved. This page is under semi-protection for the next seven days, and then I will review the vandalism after this point. Continued vandalism will result in longer periods of semi-protection. If there's any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch via my talk page. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New picture of towers

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I violate protocol. Here is a photo that I took in May of 2001 from the copilot seat of a friend's airplane. I think it might make a good addition to the WTC article:

http://www.mock.com/dantrip/ny-01.jpg

I think it shows the towers in the context of the surrounding area in a nice way, as well as showing other buildings in the WTC complex, WTC7 in particular. The image is also from approximately the same viewpoint as the rendering of future construction. I'm happy to make the image available with the appropriate license if the editor would like to include it.

Jeffmock

• Would be an improvement over what images we have now, and good addition to the article. Preferably the highest resolution you have, but anything would be welcome. --Aude (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I added the picture to the wikimedia commons and reprocessed the image to retain as much resolution as possible. I added the image to the article, no offense taken if you guys don't keep this image. Jeffmock 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding it, and glad you are able to edit the article now. The article has been semi-protected (anonymous IPs and new accounts, less than four days old, can't edit such pages) due to excessive vandalism. The image previously there might fit somewhere else in the article, perhaps in place of the photo taken from Queens. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just switched out the Queens photo for the ground view photo. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice photo 202.156.66.110 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Galleries

I added a small gallery with pictures of the Twins beofre 9/11. (No, they are all allowed and uploaded).

I also added a smaller gallery with pictures of the Twins in various cartoons and movies (all pics with Non-free / fair use media rationale)

Please dont remove them as I worked very hard on them, if you have a problem please state why here before tampering with them.

We have discussed why the fair use images are not allowed. Wikipedia policies have not changed. As for the other images, it's great to have new images. I also removed two fair use images - new WTC image and Windows on the World, since I really don't think we have necessary rationale for using them, per WP:FU. Despite removing a couple images, I'm slightly concerned about the number of images though, and possible overcrowding. I moved the construction photo back to go with the planning and construction section. Other images should try to match the topic of the text (e.g. the 9/11 picture located next to that section of text). --Aude (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Its really amazing how you are the only one on this whole site who always takes off my Fair use pics. Even if they where all allowed, all had those rational things. I would have put back the pop culture gallery, but obviously you'll remove it in no time. More images are good, a gallery solves the overcrowding problem. I moved back the construction picture, since it screwed up the whole page.

I removed the gallery again, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files Really, there were way too many pictures in the article. A gallery is much better suited for Wikimedia Commons (though of course they do not accept fair use images).--Aude (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to second the request to keep these images on Commons. Maybe we can replace one or two of the images in the article currently with better ones from the Commons page or elsewhere, but our main goal is to have text and images that compliment the text, not overpower it.--MONGO 13:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

I've never really know who "owns" big giant skyscrapers like this (or who will own the to-be-build Freedom Tower). Is it the city? The state? An individual? A company? When the space is rented out, who gets paid? Who's the "landlord?" The port authority owns the area, but do they own the building, too? What about other buildings in NYC: does someone there own the building and the plot of land it's on? It is the same in all cities? When the WTC collapsed, did people lose their investment into the building, or do I have it all wrong?

I'm just a little curious about the process, so if someone would care to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the land and the buildings, and built them. Though, in early 2001, the Port Authority finally worked out a lease with Larry Silverstein (he competed against a bunch of other companies - Boston Properties and some others). So, Larry Silverstein served as the landlord. The WTC is unique, in that it was built by a quasi-government agency. Pretty much all other large buildings, including the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, were privately built, privately owned, and privately managed. The WTC, like all those other buildings, was insured. Though, I think it was somewhat underinsured, and it's costing quite a bit more to rebuild. Costs are being covered by insurance, Liberty Bonds, and the Port Authority has the ability to take out tax-free loans or financing. With most projects the Port Authority has built (e.g. various bridges and tunnels where tolls are collected), they have been profitable for the Port Authority, allowing it to pay back the loans with no problems. The WTC was supposed to be profitable, but not sure it was or will be now. If this is inadequately explained in the article, I can try to work on it in the near future. --Aude (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also there is the Sears Tower in Chicago, which as the name indicates was built and owned by Sears, Roebuck and Company to serve as their headquarters. They have since moved to new headquarters out in the Chicago suburbs and now owned by K-Mart. The Sears Tower has changed owners a number of times, but is still privately owned and managed. --Aude (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I appreciate your time! Is is common for big buildings like this to be owned by a state/town/national organization, or are buildings for the most part privately owned/operated? _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not common for buildings to be owned by government organizations, at least in the U.S. I know the Sears Tower is no longer the tallest in the world. In recent years, the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia were built by Petronas, a Malaysian owned oil and gas company. Then Taipei 101 was built (doubt by the government, but some private developer), and now Burj Dubai in Dubai (under construction) I think officially surpasses Taipei 101 this month to be the tallest. I'm just guessing that the United Arab Emirates and/or Dubai governments are helping back that project, but won't be owning it in the same way the Port Authority. --Aude (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Still too many images

To avoid edit-warring, I am stating my position here for the record: The only images that should exist on any given page in Wikipedia are those that serve a unique purpose to illustrate something about the subject of the article. The images that still need to be removed are the one in the "Structural design" section and the one in the "Architectural criticism" section. Showing the building from different angles does not add to either subtopic.--DLand^TALK 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per my comments above - #Galleries --Aude (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)ّ

Ok, well whats wrong with the picture of the observation deck, its on the Observation deck article, why was it removed? We dont have any pics from the top on Wikipedia, so whats the harm of bringing it back? Pag293 19:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

When Freedom Tower is Built

When the new WTC is built should "World Trade Center" redirect to Freedom Tower? -- 99.243.212.53 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11!

There was no evidence of any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down was the fire. When you enter 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel thrust contruction like the trade centers did, they warped bent and gradually was more then the building could handle. As for Unitied airlines 93 was not shot down but brought down by the hijackers when the passangers of flight 93 fought back and stopped them. "The 9/11 Commission reported that authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington"."In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft — American Airlines Flight 11 — long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center, according to CNN.com". "Furthermore, the closest fighters were about 100 miles away and were unarmed. Fighters also went after a Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 which was suspected to be hijacked though it was later determined untrue and the plane was safe.Alauran 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

--

Infact it was some war exercises going on at the same time as the world trade center attack, and the funny thing is that the exercises where also about hijacked airplanes and also about fake radar blips. So the fighter pilots that where contacted to check what was going on got confused and didn't know if it was a exersice or reality. and secondly just before one of the planes crashed into one of the towers it was reported that a big explosion had gone of somewhere in one of the towers, For thoes that dont belive me, check out the movies Loose change on youtube and zeitgeist on www.zeitgeistmovie.com (part 2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.74.58 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

--

I agree 100% with the above, Alauren can't just take what the American Government said, think of all the conspiracies. Saying Al-Quaeda had bombed the Twin Towers is like saying Aston Villa (English Soccer Team, for you Americans) are better or worse than New England Revolution (American Football Team, for you English), you just can't say anything because there is evidence but until the proof is shown to the world, it can't be believed who is better than who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky9 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's Involvment

The article states that Al-Qaeda hijackers are responsible for the World Trade Center attacks. Whether or not the planes were hijacked, there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda terrorists has any involvement; furthermore, the sources are from .gov sites and should not be considered reliable for reasons relating to Virgil Griffith's recent discoveries with his Wikiscanner.

No evidence huh? Okie dokie.--MONGO 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness --- we must be ultra-careful to unduly malign those nice fellahs over at El-Kayda. They're such thweet little terrorists.

I agree with the original post on the issue - irrational jingoistic rhetoric aside (ie, the two posts above said), i'm not sure if there is conclusive evidence on the perpetrators of the attacks. At the very least it is debatable.Xcitindesigns 06:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ship?

I read somewhere, think it was onsnopes that they were making a warship out of the scrap metal of the WTC, could someone put it in the article as I think its amazing and important. andrewrox424 ^Bleep 00:46, 8 September 2007 ( What I think is that who would want to ruin his or her life and get killed.

they sold the steel to other countries, as it was very high grade, and it was used to make knives an forks pots and pans and car doors. from a documentry on the discovery channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The original statement is true, the USS New York is the name of the ship. They used about seven tonnes of steel melted down and poured into a cast to make the bow section of the ship’s hull. Here is a quality source confirming the info:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article723328.ece

also it can be cross referenced at the following wiki article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_(LPD-21) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.104.11 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Windows

The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all. from World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects under "Architectural Critisisim" the article claims that the windows were 18 inches wide, while acording to this it is the steel beams that are 18 inches wide, the windows being 22 inches wide. 202.156.66.110 14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New External Link?

Should we add a link to Victims of the World Trade Center Collapse? Ayudante (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Memorial. However I feel that it is quite appropriate to have at least a short, complete list of the Victims. I'd say go ahead and add it. WillSWC (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No Original Research

I continually revert the classification of the status of the World Trade Centers from "destroyed" to "demolished". Our source is Emporis. Listing it as anything other than what Emporis has violates the Wikipedia "no original research" policy. Yes, the buildings were destroyed, not taken down during a controlled demolition, and you can mention that in the article. However, if we are going to use Emprois's building classifications as a source, adding classifications is considered original research.

These are Emporis's classifications for buildings.

- Completed - Demolished - Under Renovation - Under Demolition - Under Construction - On Hold - Approved - Never Built - Proposed - Vision

There is no "destroyed" category. The World Trade Centers are listed as demolished, but there is a link given to information about the 9/11 attacks. If we're going to use a source, we must use the information that the source gives us. Here's the page of "demolished skyscrapers in New York City".

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101028&bt=6&ht=2&sro=1

The status is listed as "demolished". It later mentions that the buildings were destroyed, like this article does, but the status uses only their own building classification system.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1worldtradecenter-newyorkcity-ny-usa http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=2worldtradecenter-newyorkcity-ny-usa

Until there's a "destroyed" classification by Emporis, the status listed in the table should say "demolished". MVillani1985 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Demolished?

Saying they were demolished makes it sound like the buildings were legitimately torn down. It should say something like Destroyed instead.
24.87.52.57 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and Contradiction Regarding World Trade Center Article & The fact that 9/11 was an inside JOB!!!!!!

Wake up people, some cavemans in iraq could not beat NORAD, if a plane is highjacked,norad has to send fighter jets , they didn`t , anyway, search the internet, watch the zeitgeist, America: freedom to fascism, and other great movies, don`t believe me ! search for yourself, and you will find the truth !!!! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

The World Trade Center article has a mistake.

Under the heading "Structural Design", this statement is correct:

The perimeter columns supported virtually all lateral loads, such as wind loads, and shared the gravity loads with the core columns.

Under the heading "Design Innovations", this statement is inaccurate and contradicts the above correct statement:

The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure.

The fact is the core columns did not support the weight of the entire building. The core columns shared gravity loads with the perimeter columns.

Someone should correct this.

24.254.165.73 (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why stop there. The same section you quoted called the perimeter columns Vierendeel trusses, when they are not. They acted as such, but were not.Gary Joseph (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just went through the section and tried rewording it, to remove inaccuracies. In all, the articles needs a lot of work to bring up to acceptable quality standards. Right now, which what little time I have to spend on Wikipedia, I'm busy with other articles but sooner or later will come back to it. (if no one else does) For now, you should refer to the Construction of the World Trade Center sub-article, which has been quality-checked. --Aude (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On the 1993 memorial

The article refers to "the only remaining part of the 1993 memorial that survived the collapse of the towers." Shouldn't this be "the only part of the 1993 memorial known to have survived"? 71.126.116.142 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

some NPOV....

All seven original buildings in the complex were destroyed by Al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001. Three of the buildings collapsed: One World Trade Center (1 WTC, the North Tower), Two World Trade Center (2 WTC, the South Tower), and 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC).

well.... alqaeda might have attacked the Twin Towers, but WTC7 and other buildings collapsed (as explained by the media) from the damage of the debris from T1&2. and the "were destroyed" sounds a little i dunno... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)