

(Yahoo)   Crews to start rebuilding part of WTC today   (dailynews.yahoo.com) divider line 72
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14604 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2002 at 10:47 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

72 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

2002-05-08 10:49:24 AM  
I liked the towers-flipping-the-bird design.
2002-05-08 10:50:41 AM  
Aren't they still cleaning it up and still finding bodies(parts)?
2002-05-08 10:53:02 AM  
Nope, they're done. My friend's dad works for the company that owns the buildings. He was there, like IN the PATH tunnel underneath it, took some pictures. It's impossible to orient yourself without those buildings there, even if you are familiar with the area.

Their 1st priority is getting the PATH running again, and eventually, they want to make a commuter center with regular trains and busses coming through too.
2002-05-08 10:53:12 AM  
Phix: Nope, they hit bedrock and are done with the cleanup as of today.
2002-05-08 10:55:21 AM  
They should build a giant finger (guess which) aimed at ... yeh, I'd say Mecca, but that's not really it... shame you cannot give an invisible enemy the finger
2002-05-08 10:57:00 AM  
That's good. And then I read the news story. It's WTC 7 they're rebuilding... Fell down a day later, no one injured.

My gf's uncle worked there and is still out of work.

It is freaky when you take the subway down under the WTC, and see the stop all borded up with "DO NOT STOP" spray painted in Construction Worker Orange #4.

(Not a native NYCer, so I don't know the train letter/nmber)
2002-05-08 10:58:58 AM  
Haven't we learned anything from horror movies? You don't build on graveyards! BAD things happen!
2002-05-08 10:59:16 AM  
Per the article, they seem to be just excavating. They haven't even finalized the plans for the building, whatever it will be.

2002-05-08 11:00:07 AM  
It's freaky to see pictures of the commuter bar with people's glasses still sitting on tables (don't know why they were drinking then, but...) And the bank of escalators up to the mall just a big concrete slab.
2002-05-08 11:03:52 AM  
The rebuilding has begun. America can be proud of this large victory over terrorism. We Canadians salute you for sending this subliminal message that terrorism is futile.
2002-05-08 11:09:59 AM  
Chick3_16 dripping with sarcasm today?
2002-05-08 11:10:43 AM  
I would like to see The towers in their original state rebuilt. Maybe a little more futuristic or something, but I would be glad to see the 2 towers again in the same spot in their full glory.
2002-05-08 11:16:19 AM  
There's a good Lampoon article titled 'Terrorist can't believe many in US still "don't get it"'.

Well, I thought it was good.
2002-05-08 11:21:05 AM  
Sarcasm? I think the clay hut bomb campaign has gone on long enough. That just shows the terrorists you can look into and destroy caves.

Now rebuilding ground zero. That shows terrorists that you can bring us down, but we'll get right back up again. Terrorists do what they do to break people's confidence in their government. When the people respond by rebuilding, it says to the terrorists "screw you guys, we are Americans and we can't be broken!"

So there wasn't really sarcasm on the surface, but deep down, I don't think the clay hut bombing was necessary. I do support the ground troops scouring for the leader as catching him will send a powerful message to other terrorists. Bombing clay huts proves to them that your country will randomly go ballistic if you attack them.

So I wasn't dripping with sarcasm, I was just submitting subliminal sarcasm.
2002-05-08 11:22:02 AM  
I think it would be cool if they built them in the same spot, but with more of a point to them.. Like stretched triangles. Just a thought.
2002-05-08 11:23:55 AM  
Numberz: Oh god that's funny! heahhaah and true too.

Just as good as The Onion's Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell: 'We Expected Eternal Paradise For This,' Say Suicide Bombers
2002-05-08 11:24:24 AM  
I wouldn't rebuild the WTC as it was. The building's interior was very poorly planned. The flooring trusses weren't fireproofed anywhere near enough to prevent collapsing when it did. After the floors collapsed, the rest of the building had nothing to stabilize it (the true role of floors in buildings) and collapsed. I'm not saying not to build another WTC, I just hope they build one that will stand up longer to fire.
2002-05-08 11:27:56 AM  
Personally, I think they should rebuild them exactly as they were with an additional 10 stories.

Sadly, they probably wont rebuild anything near the original size of the WTC. The problem is that it's going to be alomost impossible to find anyone willing to rent or work in that space after what happened on 9/11.
2002-05-08 11:28:52 AM  
Chick3_16 I apologize for implying you were being overtly sarcastic.

The problem with the WTC and fireproofing trusses... not even halfway through building one of the buildings, abspestos (sp?) was outlawed as a flame retardant.

So most of the beams weren't protected by the most effective (of the time) flameproofing available. Which caused them to heat up faster, melt faster, and ultimately weaken faster.

Who knows... would using abspestos on the entire building saved another 500 lives? Like the tootsie pop licks... the world will never know.
2002-05-08 11:35:59 AM  
Yeah, but then the fire would work the asbestos fibers loose, and everybody inside would breathe them in, and then even the survivors would be slowly dying.
2002-05-08 11:36:20 AM  
I read that there was no type of fire suppression system (sprinklers) in the WTC. But then, I read that on the internet, which is always known for checking it's facts first.

Do any of you know?

Would it matter? (obviously, the severity of having a jumbo jet hit your building would tend to make things like alarms and phones and power systems act up, to put it mildly)
2002-05-08 11:44:01 AM  
It had the system, but with that much jet fuel burning, they were useless.

And asbestos fibres are very low risk in short term exposure like an evacuation. It's the people who breathe it in every day that have the cancer problems.
2002-05-08 11:46:44 AM  
They'll never build anything that size there again, and a good chunk of that land has to go to a memorial.

Besides, when those towers were first built, all of NYC thought they were ugly grey boxes. No character.

I'll bet a week's salary that there'll be a complex of buildings there, concentric circles or something like that linked together, with lots of lights, and the memorial will probably be in the middle underground so you can look down at it a la the museum in 'Demolition Man'.
2002-05-08 11:47:28 AM  
2002-05-08 11:48:04 AM  
I wonder if they're building the WTC again just to prove a point? "Knock our buildings down but we'll build them again, you bastards!!" I seriously hope that they don't make it as large this time. They won't if they're smart. But wait...They're probably not smart.
2002-05-08 11:48:58 AM  
I recently saw a super-structure show on the discovery channel. It was a huge building that was supposed to be built in Japan, in the water I think. It is as big as a small city. I wonder if they still think that it would be a good idea? Somehow I doubt it. Anyone else see that show? Aw man the building was huge. It will take like over 10 years to build.
2002-05-08 11:50:44 AM  
Frink: Have you ever seen this?
2002-05-08 11:52:01 AM  
I know nothing about construction, asbestos, fire proofing, etc. At this moment in time I'm trying to figure out how to easily remove wallpaper, I've been working on it for two days and have 1 section removed...it's beating me down!!

oh, as for the matter at hand, I don't think I'd be able to work in those buildings if they're rebuilt...something about history repeats itself
2002-05-08 11:52:59 AM  
I think the building you are referring to Frinkie is across from Tokyo. Tokyo Teletype town or something like that. I do know it's more usually referred to as T3, but it is a large building that houses everyone and smaller buildings nearby for them to work. It is an experiment to see if such a town can help solve Japan's lack of space problem.
2002-05-08 11:55:06 AM  
On the "history repeats itself" theory...I agree. To me, the Al Qaeda is kind of like a troll. No matter how many times you build yourself back up, they'll keep shooting you down. Or in this case, running planes into you.
2002-05-08 11:58:12 AM  
Ragingleonard: There's several problems with that article you posted. (Please don't take this as a personal attack, I realize you didn't write it.)

1.) The author claims that they would wantto hit the buildings as low as possible. They probably did, the towers were surrounded pretty closely by a number of other skyscrapers, which were tall in their own right.

2.) The jet fuel didn't have to melt the steel, just soften it. The structure was already weakened from the impact.

3.) Drop a penny from 110 floors up, and it'll crack the sidewalk. Drop 30 stories from that height, gaining momentum on the way down, and any concrete that WASN'T pulverized, will surely be so when it hits the ground.

4.) In one of the video tapes, that Laden guy said they hadn't even counted on the buildings collapsing.
2002-05-08 11:59:45 AM  
I_LikeToFark: Steam. They rent equipment that can steam wallpaper off of walls.
2002-05-08 12:02:18 PM  
Good points. I just wanted to offer up something to discuss. No offence taken.
2002-05-08 12:03:01 PM  
The rebuilding has begun in earnest.

Kudos to the hard-working crews at the WTC site.
2002-05-08 12:05:23 PM  
Although no-one (especially those involved) is going to read this, i'm still gonna say the following (since Chickendrink does not have an email address it seems):

I admit i first typed "Mecca". but then I thought that would
be stupid cause the Islam as such does not have anything to do with the attack... so i try to put a warped twist on it by implying we all should NOT give Mecca (being the Islam) the finger. I concluded with the statement that you can't ginve an "invisible enemy" the finger. To me, it was like saying "the Islam is the scapegoat" (and scapegoats are by definition innocent or at least not truly and entirely guilty), and not "the Islam is to blame". But apparently that's the kind of logic and literary fireworks that does not appeal to everyone. So sorry to all those offended. Let's just continue the global farce called "War on Terrorism" instead of building little fingers directed at everyone that displeases us.

The above statement is not complete but i don't feel like typing the entire argument... I hope it's clear as it is...
2002-05-08 12:05:43 PM  
The Islamic religion is not to blame? Someone should clue them in to this PC fact!
2002-05-08 12:08:35 PM  
Sprotzek: well said

Gururich: What is your point? are you from the south?
2002-05-08 12:08:54 PM  
Thanks, see? Open, ratoinal sharing of points and counterpoints? Tea anyone?

One more thing, those steel columns in the middle? You think they were each 110 stories high? Nuh-uh. Smaller ones glued by those concrete blocks, each floor probably pulled it's own section of supporting column down with it with the weight and momentum of everything on top of it.

Another one more thing, I don't think the terrorists foresaw the collapse anyway, and were engineering geniouses. Running 2 planes into those buildings was scary enough no matter the end result.

I don't think the New Yankee workshop is big enough. Bob Vila can rebuild one tower, Steve Thomas the other, in a race to see who's the better 'This Old House' host.
2002-05-08 12:11:18 PM  
Allahdamnit, the Islam is not the cause, but jsut an excuse ... for these particular attacks at least

Just as dubya uses terrorism as an excuse to secure oil field in the Middle East or poppy fields or whatever the hell it is he's trying to do over there.

Which does NOT imply that I think the Islam is harmless/blameless... it's just as guilty as any religion having put massacres to its name (is that correct english?), including Christianity and...

oh well i give up... I just don't give a fark... I'm glad I live in a country where... oh wait, we DID have an assassination just yesterday!! Damnit...
2002-05-08 12:13:58 PM  

Whoe, you actually read my comment!

Thanks, I can sleep again ;)
2002-05-08 12:18:34 PM  
good night.
2002-05-08 12:18:58 PM  
This story freaks me out, as this morning I was walking around wondering when they were gonna start rebuilding the site.
2002-05-08 12:38:48 PM  

Thanks for the link to that story. I don't know if I agree with all of it, but I'm not an engineer (not by a long shot!)

I remember watching video of a guy trying to convince some govt. panel that the OK City bombing could not have been simply a truck bomb, that there had to be explosives strapped to the support columns. Interesting that this guy is making a similar point.

I do think the way he presents "facts" is interesting, he's assuming just because an engineer does not say something on TV or on the internet means it is not true. Does that make sense? In the part where he's saying "everybody acts like this is normal" (my paraphrase) he's implying just because there wasn't lots of yelling and jumping up and down on CNN about the collapse that people aren't wanting to research it or understand it better, or that they shouldn't. Or something like that.

Oh, well, I work in the basement of a four story building, so this isn't my area of expertise :-) What do I know?
2002-05-08 12:52:31 PM  
Nova, on PBS, had a great special on why the towers fell - they've been repeating it, and of course, being PBS, have a pretty good website about the findings.

As for the building that they started on, it's 7 World Trade Center, not either of the towers. Whereas 7WTC collapsed much later and no one was killed, it's likely to be a lot easier to get plans for a new buiding approved. What to do with the site of the two towers is going to be debated for a long time, and in the end, you can be sure there will be people who think they did the absolutely wrong thing.
2002-05-08 01:30:37 PM  
I would like to see new office buildings put on the site.

I believe that there is no way any city in america will ever allow another building to be constructed the way the WYC was. The designers of the WTC DID design it to take the impact of a 707, BUT DID NOT plan for the resulting fire from all the jet fuel. These people were either bad architects OR are guilty of keeping that information secret so that their building design would not be rejected.

There would be no greater monument to the dead than to have a functioning office building. A place where people earn a living will do more twards preserving the american way than any statue ever will.
2002-05-08 01:38:09 PM  

Actually no. The shape of a penny is not very aerodynamic, as has a terminal velocity of about 15mph... sorry :-)
2002-05-08 01:41:23 PM  
Meanwhile, another building that had a plane hit it is doing fine, see: Phoenix Project. They are still on track to have the bits of Ring E hit reoccupied by Sept. 11, 2002.

I'm still surprised that the Pentagon rebuilding gets so little news time, even on the big national news networks. Not surprisingly, the Washington Post is about the only place to get current news about it.
2002-05-08 01:47:02 PM  

thats because here in DC tragety gets milked for about a week and a half and then we're back to normal cussin' each other out on the beltway...
2002-05-08 01:47:32 PM  
"penny...terminal velocity of about 15mph"

COOL, next time I have to jump out of a tall building, I'll do it with a pocket full of pennies. That should drasticly slow my decent and I won't hit the ground so hard......./sarcasm
2002-05-08 02:00:16 PM  
As Hoosier pointed out, the WTC was built to withstand a hit from the what the designers cosidered the largest aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707. However I disagree with his comment that the designers did not account for the fuel.

The 757s and 767s used in the attacks are considerably larger than a 707 (particularly the 76-), and they had been fuel for non-stop cross-country flight.

I can only imagine that the designers figured that any aircraft strike would likely be from an aircraft attempting to land at one of the three NYC area airports, and as a reult, would be mostly empty of fuel. Do I have any proof? No, but it seems to be the most logical reasoning.

Displayed 50 of 72 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.



  4. Click here to submit a link.