Slashdot Mirror


1 World Trade Center Becomes the Tallest Building In NYC

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.'"

38 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. What's up with the trolls? by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I actually find it interesting and a feat of engineering to have such a tall building. What is up with all the trolls? Get a life you guys. This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. If there was no mention on Slashdot I would think that someone was asleep at the wheel.

    1. Re:What's up with the trolls? by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Knock Knock
      Who's there?
      9/11
      9/11 who?
      You said you'd never forget!

    2. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean, not forgetting the 3.000 people who died as opposed to the 100.000 who died in the shameless wars after? Fuck you.

    3. Re:What's up with the trolls? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I actually don't understand the importance of not forgetting. It seems like a nice enough thing to say, but I want a genuine justification for why it should be remembered, as opposed to mourned and then moved past? I know this sounds incredibly cynical, but I think the United States penchant for remembering tragedies and not achievements is unhealthy for the national psyche in the long run.

    4. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten

      You're absolutely right. The failure of our government to rebuild immediately after 9/11 was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. The new WTC tower is symbolic of nothing more than America's decline.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:What's up with the trolls? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Informative

      This site really does attract a lot of assholes.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:What's up with the trolls? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why shouldn't this be forgotten?
      I think it's high time we got over it.

      I also think it's high time we got rid of the Patriot Act and the TSA
      -- Like that would ever happen --

      So go ahead shrieking "9/11 NEVER FORGET!" To remind us how we let the terrorists win.
      Because they did.

      Try not to feel like a criminal the next time you undress yourself at the airport while waiting in line to get your nads zapped with a healthy dose of radiation.

    7. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Galestar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this marked troll? U.S used 9/11 to justify the murder of far more innocent civilians. It is atrocities committed by Americans around the world that need never be forgotten.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:What's up with the trolls? by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes being 21 feet taller than the tallest building in that city must have added so many huge technical challenges. Sure its impressive, but this isn't about impressive technical challenfes, its a nationalist hooray for us. Its drivel.

      9/11 was a tragic event, but never forgotten? Why? what does remembering it teach us? I don't see any important lesson in it. Bad shit happens? Sometimes a few dedicated people will fuck shit up for other people?

      Much more to remember is peoples terrible overreactions which continue to this very day. 9/11 was pretty forgetable compared to the backlash it caused. Compared to the massive expansion of govenrment securituy apparatus, compared to the exercises in airport security theater? Meh, 9/11 itself was just a few guys bringing some buildings down and killing a bunch of people.

      There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:What's up with the trolls? by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between "remembering" and "obsessing over".

      We still "remember" Pearl Harbor. We still "remember" the Alamo. We still "remember" the Boston Massacre. But I'm pretty sure very few people are still angry at Japan/Mexico/Britain, and I'm pretty sure we're not going to use them as casus belli anytime soon.

      Britain still "remembers" the Gunpowder Plot. France still remembers the Bastille. Both of those events are centuries in the past, yet they are still worth *remembering*.

      There's nothing wrong with *remembering* that these things happened. There *is* a problem with obsessing over it and continuing to use it as justification for everything from invasions to the TSA. For example.

      PS: We *do* remember achievements (the Apollo program, etc), even some we didn't really accomplish (who single-handedly beat the Nazis? We did!).

    10. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

      --George Santayana

      That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    11. Re:What's up with the trolls? by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      We still remember. It adds to our determination. Nothing, including the war on terror is over until we say it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Perl Harbor? Hell no!

    12. Re:What's up with the trolls? by KingMotley · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten.

      Yet April 19th came and went without a mention. On April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Building was destroyed when 4 American terrorists exploded a cargo van full of explosives. 169 people died including 19 children under the age of 6 and over 680 people were injured.

      People said we shouldn't forget the Oklahoma City bombing... yet we did...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    14. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

        --George Santayana

      That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).

      But leave out the things that cast the U.S. to unfavorably, unless it is politically correct to do so (as with slavery). For example, the British burned the White House, but you'll rarely see a word in U.S. history books about the U.S. burning the houses of parliament in Canada first.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    15. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid there's been a serious misunderstanding.

      "The United States of America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed on this planet. Our citizens spend more on the opening weekend of a movie than the GDP of 40% of the planet. We provide aid in the billions to countries all over the world. We have been to the moon. We can destroy any part of this earth as easily as drinking a cup of coffee.

      *sips coffee*

      "This was the master stroke by a group of madmen who wish to murder civilians in the name of god. We will not be going to war to punish those who have the misfortune of being near these madmen. We know who they are, we know where they are, and will will bring them to justice here in the USA to face murder charges. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they face the death penalty in New York county.

      "In the meantime, we will show you what is meant by 'the most powerful nation on earth'. By the end of this year, we will rebuild those towers and your master stroke will be gone. Yes, those who were murdered are gone from this earth, and we grieve for their loss. But we are America, and we have faced tougher challenges before. You cannot attack us because we will always return, we will never forget, and we will never surrender.

      Good night, everyone."

      -- What he should have said, 11 September 2011

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    16. Re:What's up with the trolls? by MiniMike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Was it over when the Germans bombed Perl Harbor? Hell no!

      I thought it was the Javans who bombed Perl Harbor.

    17. Re:What's up with the trolls? by JosephTX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, "collateral damage" and "accidental casualties" caused by a government-sponsored "war" launched for the sake of exerting control over recently-socialized oil pipelines are indeed murder. So is re-electing someone after they've started that "war."

    18. Re:What's up with the trolls? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, this was G. W. Bush.

      "Ladies. Gentlemen. Mr. Burger. I'm afraid, and I don't understand.

      "America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed in God's kingdom. Our susp ... citizens spend more on the opening weekend of a movie than the ... ga ... gadup ... of 40$ of the planet. We provide AIDS to Africa. We are going to shoot down the moon, and we will sip coffee there.

      *wipes coffee from tie*

      "I masterfully stroked off a group of madmen.... God will murder the civilians. We are going to war! We know who you are, and we are going to punish you by bringing you to the USA. If you come to New York County, you are guilty, and we will charge you with the death penalty. Heh, heh. Just like Texas. String 'em high!

      *realizes where he is*

      "Ahem ... In the meantime, we are the most powerful nation on earth. By the end of this year, we will be gone, and you will stroke your towers. Never forget ... uh ... never! ... Never surrender! <approval-seeking grin> You cannot attack us, because we have tougher challengers, who murdered, and then left Earth for the Moon. Guess that's why we're shooting it down. We are America!

      "Good night, Mr. Cheney."

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    19. Re:What's up with the trolls? by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And they came to Iraq from all the surrounding countrys to get a shot at killing Americans and hide among the women and children while doing just that.

      Yes, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of terrorists in Iraq in 2005.

      We would have been equally justified to invade, say, Iceland, if doing so would have convinced some terrorists to follow us there to get a shot at killing some American soldiers.

      Right?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Shameful that it took so long by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Shameful that it took so long by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. Should have just dusted-off the old WTC schematic, made a few tweaks to modernize the internal skeleton, and then rebuild the whole damn thing again. Plus add a temporary middle finger to the top, aimed towards Mecca.

      "You destroy it; we'll rebuild it. You destroy it again; we'll rebuild it again. And again and again." Just like the Senate and People of Rome. They lost 3 navies before finally crushing Carthage. They refused to give up.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Shameful that it took so long by localman57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How flawed could the building have been? The blew up a bomb in the basement, and it kept standing. They flew a fully fueled 747 into each tower resulting in a couple of the biggest fires New York had seen in over a Century, and the damn things stayed up long enough for nearly everybody to get out. I'll hire that architect.

    3. Re:Shameful that it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you see the interview with the architect?

      He looked like his kids had been killed, and I suppose they were. He was talking about how it was actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was the biggest plane at the time. Building it to withstand a 747 would have been the equivalent of designing to withstand the impact of the Space Shuttle.

      I did see that, and I thought he got the raw end of the deal.

      It was designed to withstand a fully fueled 707 at 250 knots speed (maximum legal speed under 10,000 feet). This accounts for accident scenarios, airplane lost in fog, etc. Design request was partly due to a B-25 Mitchell bomber that actually hit the Empire State Building in similar conditions, impaled itself in the building.

      It actually withstood the impact of a fully fueled 767 at over 300 knots speed (maximum ramming speed). It remained standing for several hours.
      Neither tower toppled over immediately after impact.
      In both towers, people below the impact point were able to exit, and rescue workers were able to enter and try to evacuate the injured.
      Had there been enough helicopter support, it might have been possible to extract some of the people above the impact point.
      It was not able to withstand the impact plus the fire, including failure of the fire pipes and the division of fire personnel between multiple damaged buildings.

      Had it been an accidental impact from a cargo 707 in the fog, I doubt that the stricken tower would have been left unscathed, needing only paint, windows and new carpeting. It would have taken a partial to complete rebuild of that damaged tower, and there would undoubtedly have been deaths / entrapment for occupants.

      In short, show me a building that can take the impact of a modern airliner without being completely obliterated immediately. Then show me one that is still standing after being on fire for several hours. I think the original WTC did a great job of staying upright as long as it did. A design failure would have been the top third landing on the street, while the people were still figuring out which way to run.

      In fact, thinking back, the building's foundation was strong enough to withstand a truck bomb in a van, several years prior. So I personally think the designer got it right, it's just that the terrorists raised the stakes higher than ever imagined.

  3. Took way too long. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

      I think the long dragout time is symbolic of how America has lost its ability to get things done in a quick fashion. (And why people turn to India or China or Russia instead.) Too much bureaucracy and second-guessing and twiddling of thumbs.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Took way too long. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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]

  4. Re:Construct, not building by WilliamBaughman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Clearly Slashdot is news for the kind of nerd who nerds out about what kind of news is for nerds.

    I come to Slashdot because every once in a while I find one insightful, useful comment that changes my whole understanding of a technical issue. Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

  5. Re:This site really does attract a lot of assholes by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246),
    so that would be a good thing for you?

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  6. Re:Support by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.

    The perpetrators were mainly Saudi, they trained in Afghanistan and the US public links all this with the war in Iraq - where a shitload of innocent people died, probably all of whom had nothing to do with 9/11. And even in Afghanistan a bucketload of innocent people died.
     
      Iraq body count
     
      Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
     
    But I can't seem to find a link for a war in Saudi Arabia, or the number of civilian deaths there.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  7. Re:Support by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.

    That's a morally problematic stance to take. First of all, what's "many of those 10.000"? 1.000? 5.000? Let's say 5.000 for the sake of avoiding harder math. Ok, so the next step would be to take you and 16.665 like-minded individuals (plus a midget), put them in a group with 16.666 random people (plus a midget) and kill the whole group.

    And I think the bluntness of the AC didn't really convey what I find to be a valid point: you should remember the ramifications. The most important lesson to learn, here, is that 9/11 didn't end with the building coming down. It resulted in much more people (including a lot of non-combatants) getting killed in two wars, an enourmous economic crisis, creation of the Patriot Act and the TSA etc. The reaction to the event was arguably worse than the attack itself, and if people forget about that and only think "honor our 3.000 and fuck the terrists", they are only fostering the kind of exploitable us v. them mentality that led to this political and economic nightmare to begin with.

  8. Re:Support by r1348 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's 100.000, not 10.000, and it's still a very conservative estimate of the casualties of the American wars in the last decade.

    The notion that "many of those 100.000" supported the events of 9/11 is plain ridiculous, particularly if you consider the average demographics of the war casualties (unharmed civilians from underdeveloped countries). Also, I would like to remind you that collective punishment is banned by the Geneve Treaty.

    Still, nowadays world is much less safe and stable than 10 years ago, and Americans got robbed of a much deserved peace dividend that would have turned the US into a prosperous peaceful country.
    But you got just another big skyscraper so Go America, I guess.

  9. Re:News for nerds? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Depends on how you measure buildings: do you count architectural spires or antenna, or just measure to the top of occupied floors? As noted in TFA, there's a lot of arguments about these factors when comparing building heights. Personally, as an engineer, I'm more interested in the height as measured by occupied floors, because the rest is just fluff. Anyone can add a mast (either non-functional, as in the case of spires, or functional, in the case of antennas) to the top of some building. In fact, some structures don't even qualify as buildings, as they're just giant antenna (such as the one in North Dakota that's the tallest structure in North America), but to me a giant antenna is nowhere near as significant an engineering accomplishment as a giant building, so the antennas slapped on top should be ignored when comparing heights.

  10. Re:News for nerds? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    I go by highest usable restroom. Any altitude above which I cannot relieve myself in comfort is irrelevant.

  11. Re:I like those numbers by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You kill 3,000 of ours, we'll kill 100,000 of yours.

    When did we kill 100,000 Saudis?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  12. Re:I like those numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hi there. You're an idiot.

  13. Re:I doubt they did by Imrik · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know, assuming they didn't die instantly I would guess that most of them were pretty anti-American when they died.

  14. Re:Support by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For everyone 1 person that hates the US there's 5 that wish we'd come in and fix whatever crap is going on in their community.

    This is a perfect example of the root cause of everything that is wrong with the USA: supremely arrogant, utterly self-deluded, smugly imbecillic and profoundly ignorant feeling of the Universe revolving around your ass.

    From what I've seen traveling around the world (something that I am sure you did not deem necessary to form your opinion) is that if anything, your numbers are actually reversed: for every naive goofus who sees USA as a potential saviour, 5 see it for what it is: a self-important empire whose distinguishing feature is hypocritical pontification about "freedom" and "democracy" while depriving anyone who has something it wants of freedom, property and frequently life all the while propping up convenient dictators and absolute monarchs (see also: Saudi Arabia) all over the world.

    And your general attitude just illustrates the point gloriously.

    America isn't perfect but we're the best hope for the World and everyone knows it, that's why they loan us money until they're starving because they know if there's ever a problem we're the ones they can call.

    Comedy gold. What was the last time anyone other than thieves and would-be robber barons hoping to profit from misery of their fellows actually asked you to show up and blow their country to smithereens in the name of "saving" it?

    Or were you trying to be sarcastic by pointing out how USA rigged the world financial markets for its own benefit? Or more precisely for the benefit of its top 1%, who - amusingly enough - are these days busy abandoning what they sense is soon to be a rotting corpse of a has-been empire for some greener pastures...

  15. Re:I like those numbers by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You kill 3,000 of ours, we'll kill 100,000 of yours. Do that often enough, maybe people will learn not to fuck with us.

    It's when both sides start using this logic that things get really fun.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.