Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

1 World Trade Center Becomes the Tallest Building In NYC 407

Posted by Soulskill
from the touching-the-sky dept.
darthcamaro writes "On 9/11, terrorists took the lives of thousands of Americans — and removed a pair of icons from the New York City skyline. For the last 10+ years, The Empire State Building was the tallest building in NYC, but that changed today. 'Poking into the sky, the first column of the 100th floor of 1 World Trade Center will bring the tower to a height of 1,271 feet, making it 21 feet higher than the Empire State Building.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1 World Trade Center Becomes the Tallest Building In NYC

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday April 30, 2012 @02:22PM (#39848907)

    Stupid bickering between the city and developers kept the World Trade Center an embarrassing hole in the ground for over 9 years. This building should have been finished years ago.

  • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday April 30, 2012 @02:36PM (#39849105)

    The new tower is roughly the same size and dimensions as the old North Tower. The roofline is exactly the same and the footprint is exactly the same. The main differences asthetically are the antenna is now an architectural spire, the building is glass-clad, and the corners have a facet that tapers upward. Structurally, the base is made from reinforced concrete, the stairwells and elevator shafts are surrounded by a couple of feet of concrete instead of drywall, and the structure is a bit more redundant with a reinforced concrete core. The fireproofing is still spray-on, so still not up to 1930s standards there :)

  • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Monday April 30, 2012 @02:38PM (#39849129)

    This site really does attract a lot of assholes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2012 @02:45PM (#39849211)

    Almost 11 years to build a building. Nuts. The Empire State was built in just 2.5 years using primitive 1920s technology, and the first WTC in the same amount of time.

    The original WTC was planned in 1958 and the dedication ceremony was in 1973. Groundbreaking was in 1966.
    8 years planning and re-planning, 7 years building.* Roughly similar to the current WTC project.

    Wikipedia:
    In 1958, Rockefeller established the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association (DLMA), which commissioned Skidmore, Owings and Merrill to draw up plans for revitalizing Lower Manhattan. The plans, made public in 1960, called for a World Trade Center to be built on a 13-acre (53,000 m2) site along the East River, from Old Slip to Fulton Street and between Water Street and South Street ...
    After a year-long review of the proposal, the Port Authority formally backed the project on 11 March 1961.[11] ...
    In March 1965, the Port Authority began acquiring property at the World Trade Center site.[72] The Ajax Wrecking and Lumber Corporation was hired for the demolition work, which began on 12 March 1966 to clear the site for construction of the World Trade Center.[73]
    Groundbreaking was on 5 August 1966,

    The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on 23 December 1970, with 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurring later on 19 July 1971.[79] The first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970, and into the South Tower in January 1972.[91] The buildings were dedicated on 4 April 1973; Tobin, who had resigned the year before, was absent from the ceremonies.[92]

  • by KingMotley (944240) on Monday April 30, 2012 @03:10PM (#39849605) Journal

    First collateral damage in a warfront is usually not considered murder. Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other. Considering that only 14% were actually from Americans -- in a warfront -- I would say the American military did an outstanding job of limiting civilian casualties. Terrorist/Extremists planting pressure trigger bombs in the road, and along comes a civilian does not make the US Military responsible, sorry. Go troll and FUD elsewhere.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2012 @03:15PM (#39849667)

    Q:What worse then finding a worm in your apple?
    A: 9/11

    “It’s a bird!”
    “It’s a plane!”
    “It’s. Oh shit, it IS a plane!”
    9/11

    Q: Who are the fastest readers in the world?
    A: New Yorkers. Some of them go through 110 stories in 5 seconds
    9/11

    Q: Why do tourists flock to New York?
    A: It’s a blast
    9/11

    Q: What was the last thing going through Mr. Jones’ head when he was working on the World Trade Center’s 90th floor?
    A: The 91st floor.
    9/11

    Q: What was the quickest escape time from the World Trade Center?
    A: Ten seconds flat.
    9/11

    Q: What’s the biggest difference between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing?
    A: Outsourcing
    9/11

    Q: How many Americans died in 9/11?
    A: Who gives a fuck?
    9/11

    Q: How long does it take to reach the ground from 107 stories up?
    A: The rest of your life!

    9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! Never forget...to laugh!

  • by darkmeridian (119044) <william@chuang.gmail@com> on Monday April 30, 2012 @03:36PM (#39849947) Homepage

    The problem was that the WTC schematic was inherently not as secure as the new tower design. The Freedom Tower will have a concrete-reinforced base to protect it against car bombs, reinforced staircases and sprinkler systems (which all shut down after the "core" of the original buildings were severed by the planes on 9/11, leading to uncontrolled fires above the impact area), more staircases with dedicated staircases for firemen (on 9/11, firemen going up slowed people going down, leading to many casualties), and the internal structure, while column-free internally, is more secure than the original design, which pancaked.

  • Re:Not true (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2012 @05:13PM (#39851179)

    Part of the rationale for going into Iraq was the idea of "preemption" -- that the US could no longer afford to wait to find out if Iraq had WMDs, because they or terrorists who obtained them might use those weapons on the US. That entire doctrine was founded on the experience from 9/11. Furthermore, polls at the time indicated a HUGE amount of confusion about whether Iraq may have been involved in 9/11, a confusion that the political leadership at the time found very convenient, and only admitted was wrong when pressed by reporters and when it became evident years later that making any such connection was becoming ridiculous. This was all long after the invasion was implemented, of course.

    This was dialog among more than just "idiots", unless you're putting the then-president and especially VP in that category [wikipedia.org].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2012 @07:20PM (#39852479)

    Iraq had an army that was keeping order, preventing the Shi'ites and the Sunnis from killing each other. The US invaded, defeated and disbanded that army. The results were predictable.

    Most of the deaths, though, aren't from being shot/bombed/etc, but from natural causes - exacerbated by the lack of basic utilities and services (water, power, hospitals) caused by the war. If you include those deaths, then 600,000+ extra people died by June 2006 (article on the Lancet surveys [wikipedia.org] and references therein), or probably 1,000,000+ deaths up to the present. That's the price that the common people pay when a country goes to war.

  • by KingMotley (944240) on Monday April 30, 2012 @07:24PM (#39852517) Journal

    Well considering that Sadam killed over a million iraqis, I would say the casualty rate went down the 1/10th of what it was, and only 1/12th of that 1/10th was caused by the US military.

    I rest my case.

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Working...