Freedom Tower

[CAM502 6]

As we all know there has been a lot in the news lately about the Freedom Tower. Just wondering what people thought about the it, and whether or not it is the right thing for the Trade Center site.

[E64PCFD2044 1]

I think they should build the same exact buildings again, but with a huge memorial park in the center. We shouldn't have to worry about any terrorists in our great country of ours.

[EX2354 0]

They should of build the same 2 buildings but build it 1 floor higher to show ya didnt stop us....

[Ladder44 73]

i think they should move the fire museum to there and put a memorial in the center on the building on the outside.

[JBE 328]

I think there should be a memorial there. As for what's built there, difficult for me to say. Especially with all the emotions surrounding it.

[Guest pentax02839]

I think thre should be memorial there.In honor of all those that were murdered on 9/11

[WAS967 97]

If you knew anything about the construction of the buildings you would probably be against building the exact same ones all over again.

[ajsbear 11]

If you knew anything about the construction of the buildings you would probably be against building the exact same ones all over again.

While there were many design flaws found, when they were built they were considered a design and construction marvel. The designers never took into account a plane as large as the one that hit because none existed that large in the 60's when it was designed. Yes there are many ways they can now improve upon and they indeed can build a similar type structue utilizing the new designs of today. I knew several of the engineers and designers that were involved and they used methods that were "state of the art" from the time. Don't forget these buildings were built in the 60's and completed in '73. Designs and safety regulations were different then.

[WAS967 97]

I'd be willing to bet that if a plane of similar size hit the Empire State Building, that it wouldn't budge. And that was built well before the WTC.

[Guest NYTruckie]

I'd be willing to bet that if a plane of similar size hit the Empire State Building, that it wouldn't budge. And that was built well before the WTC.

First I'm not as old as WAS but I believe a large plane did hit the Empire State Building (I think in the 40's) In heavy Fog, if memory serves heavy damage to two floors.

[Guest NYTruckie]

From Empire State Building Web Site:

Can you tell me more details about the B-25 that crashed into the building in 1945 and how it was different from what happened at WTC?

Answer:

On July 28, 1945, an Army Air Force B-25 crashed into the Building between the 79th and 80th floors. Fourteen people died. Damage to the Building was $1 million but the structural integrity of the Building was not affected. There are several reasons the twin towers "collapsed" and the Empire State Building was left intact in 1945. Both WTC towers entire support was the exterior steel -- the ESB is built into bedrock, is constructed of steel, limestone, brick, marble and has an extensive system of steel and concrete interior support beams. The B-25 was a smaller plane, carried less fuel and was nearing its destination, so was low on fuel. If a big plane hit ESB, the building not fall down, but undoubtedly there would be damage and loss of lives -- just another unimaginable thought....There was only one book ever written about this incident: "The Sky is Falling" by Arthur Weingarten, bit it is out of print. You may check the 7/29/45 archives for The New York Times and the Associated Press for more information.

[WAS967 97]

If anything we learned a lot of very important lessons from the tragedy that happened that morning. Hopefully we will use what we learned and not have history repeat itself. I could b**** and complain about the fact that they are holding up construction of the Freedom Tower because of security issues, but I'd rather it be safe than full of security holes. Tho I often wonder why it took them so long to bring them up and why the problems weren't isolated earlier.

[Guest NYTruckie]

As long as it's safe, I don't really care how long it takes

[E64PCFD2044 1]

If you knew anything about the construction of the buildings you would probably be against building the exact same ones all over again.

I should have wrote "exact same height" to be more clear. Of course not the same non-fire retardant structures. I also like the idea of building them one floor higher. =D>

[ny10570 745]

the empire state building is built using entirely different methods. You could not build something the size of the towers that way. There is not a building in the world that could stand up in those conditions. You have to remember that the buildings survived the impacts and performed as designed. It was the extensive fire coupled with the massive structural damage that brought them to the ground. The is no way to build a tower to survive that kind of impact. You can only engineer them to allow more time for evacuation and rescue.

[Guest WolfEMT]

Tho I often wonder why it took them so long to bring them up and why the problems weren't isolated earlier.

Because the mayor has been obsessing about the assinine stadium on the West Side, and when it looked as if his master plan was about to go south, he decided to try to save face with his constituents and plug an actual issue in an effort to save his re-election campaign. In short, the time delay in bringing up and isolating problems was all political.

[Guest]

They didn't rebuild the OKlahoma building. Why rebuild these. [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< It should be a memorial.

[Guest NYTruckie]

Sorry to say I believe it's all about money. When it shouldn't Be. I think some of land shouldn't be rebuilt.

[ajsbear 11]

the empire state building is built using entirely different methods.  You could not build something the size of the towers that way.  There is not a building in the world that could stand up in those conditions.  You have to remember that the buildings survived the impacts and performed as designed.  It was the extensive fire coupled with the massive structural damage that brought them to the ground.  The is no way to build a tower to survive that kind of impact.  You can only engineer them to allow more time for evacuation and rescue.

Correct on all points. You could not build abuilding like the ESB the size of the WTC towers. They had to use methords that did not exist. Even the equiptment used. The cranes used were of a new design that raized themselves with each floor build, were dismantled at the end and lowered each other to the ground. The last was dismantled and brought down through the elevator shafts. Design changes were made on a daily basis as they ran into problems. First problem they ran into was that in the foundation the rebars were so tightly packed they could not get the concrete between them. They had to change the design of the foundation. The building was designed to use the most space so they designed the outside of the building to hold the weight. This allowed the open floor space with no columns and they doubled the rentable space. It supassed the building codes of the day. Pipe chases only ran 2 or 3 floors and were sealed. Multiple elevators in the same shaft. Also remember the blast in "93. It survived with minimal damage. The size of the blast would have taken many building down but this one stood. Many engineers say if there was just the impact and little fire it would have withstood the impact. The heat played a major factor. That kind of fire would destroy the ESB, the doct work, pipe chases etc. run constant through out the building.

[Guest skubasam]

They didn't rebuild the OKlahoma building. Why rebuild these. [-o<  [-o<  [-o<  [-o< It should be a memorial.

If I stole your bike, you wouldn't buy another?