Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 2

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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not move. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

World Trade Center → World Trade Center (New York) — Per WP:BIAS - Jack (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support but not for reasons of the nominator. This one doesn't seem so cut and dry. Maybe its because I've worked in the Financial markets so to me hearing the phrase "World Trade Center" alone doesn't equate directly to the Twin Towers, even after 9/11. Most major cities have a "World Trade Center" of some sort and they are commonly attached to the city they are located in. In regards to 9/11, I would say the unique identifier is the "Twin Towers" because that conveys the NY WTC alone. I can see valid reason to move it because leaving the title as it is, wrongly conveys that there was only one singular building called a "World Trade Center". 205.157.110.11 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would convey that it is the primary usage. As the very first line of text after the title says: "This article is about the former World Trade Center (Twin Towers) in New York City. For other uses, see World Trade Center (disambiguation)." A more extreme example: the White House -- primary usage, not only usage. As for "twin towers" being unique to the NY WTC: before 9/11, the citizens of Los Angeles as well as professional wrestling fans may have argued the point. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "White house" analogy works because there never was a situation where the US government built several white houses and the one at 1600 Penn. ave just happen to become more notable because of an historical event. in the case of World Trade Centers we have several financial centers that are regionally located and serve a particular functon in the fiance world. Due to a historical event, one of those building because particularly noteworthy. The problem the article has right now is that it is incorrectly conveying that there is only a singular World Trade Center that has ever existed. On top of that, the buildings weren't even officially named "world trade center". (Though the official name escapes me at the moment) 205.157.110.11 00:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Support Absolutely. It may sound strange to some Americans, but there are "World Trade Centers" all over the world. With the exact English term. My main train station is "Amsterdam Zuid/WTC", the city bus literally says "World Trade Center" when approaching the stop. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_trade_center . That page is with a lower case t and c, and this page is with capital. It is very confusing and American-centric. Exept for right after 9/11, I always see the news referring to the Twin Towers as "the World Trade Center in New York". --Looskuh 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose. Since 9/11, I'd say for better or worse, the WTC in New York has primary usage, and will probably remain so as long as Pres Bush and his supporters keep the spectre of 9/11 in the mind of the public. I would also wager that most people looking for info on "world trade center" are looking for the (former) twin towers. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. You've got to be kidding. --Serge 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As above. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Let's face it, no matter how "unfair" it may be, even before 9/11, WTC usually referred to New York's WTC. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose, since September 11 2001, this is the primary meaning. 70.51.9.86 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Whether or not there is an Amero-centric bias that needs to be addressed -- and I'm not saying one way or the other -- I'd say that 9/11 has pretty much thrust the WTC of NY into primary usage, and I daresay it will remain so for a while. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, Al-Qaeda, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Threat level Orange/Red/Plaid, Enemy Combatants, Camp X-ray, the execution of Saddam Hussein -- all of which seemed to have stemmed from (directly or indirectly, naturally or intentionally) from the destruction of the Twin Towers -- the term "World Trade Center" has become synonymous with the particular structure of that name in the Big Apple...sort of the same way that "The Kaiser" is synonymous with one particular one (Bill, the 2nd) despite two others of that title from Germany and God knows how many from Austria, all thanks to the invasion of Belgium.
A check of Google UK shows the first non-New York hit at #32 (a WTC in Beijing, China). Looking at Australia's pages, the first non-NY reference is #29 & 30, then again at #40. Google India has more non-NY hits and sooner (10 in the top 30), but the majority are still about NY.
I realize Google isn't the be-all and end-all for usage. So I remain open to convincing that the WTC of New York is not the primary usage. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as worth much discussion. Since there is a link to the WTC disambiguation page it doesn't really matter. It also seems clear that at Wikipedia, the WTC in NYC is by far the most significant article, and can remain here. -- Samuel Wantman 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move the page. The World Trade Center in New York seems to be the primary topic in this case. That may change in the future, but for now the article shall stay here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

World Trade Center → New York World Trade Center — in order to counter systemic bias, it should be noted this is only one of hundreds of world trade centers worldwide — Jack · talk · 14:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support Futile, I know. I supported it before and still think it is the right thing to do. The current culture of Wikipedia has a twisted sense of primary topic and how it relates to things like WP:BIAS and even WP:PRECISION. Thankfully consensus can and will eventually change. 205.157.110.11 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Per WP:DAB#Primary topic, to most, "World Trade Center" will refers to this one --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Evidence, please. Which of the others claimed, or claims, to be the World Trade Center simpliciter? This one did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per WP:N, this is the most notable named World Trade Center. While merging of notable entries addresses a merge, it also involves a proposed move per this resolution. While undue weight should not be imposed by one community, the notability issue should be the over-riding issue. Let the other WTC articles (if they exist or are introduced) be known by WTC (location). Ronbo76 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the same reasons I did a couple of months ago. Why are you bringing this up again? --Groggy Dice T | C 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose for the same reasons. Why are you bringing this up again? --Xiahou 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose The WTC in New York is by far the most notable and searched one.--Húsönd 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose--MONGO 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose primary meaning is the WTC in NYC that was destroyed. 132.205.44.134 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Whether or not there is an Amero-centric bias that needs to be addressed -- and I'm not saying one way or the other -- I'd say that 9/11 has pretty much thrust the WTC of NY into primary usage, and I daresay it will remain so for a while. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, Al-Qaeda, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Threat level Orange/Red/Plaid, Enemy Combatants, Camp X-ray, the execution of Saddam Hussein -- all of which seemed to have stemmed from (directly or indirectly, naturally or intentionally) from the destruction of the Twin Towers -- the term "World Trade Center" has become synonymous with the particular structure of that name in the Big Apple...sort of the same way that "The Kaiser" is synonymous with one particular one (Bill, the 2nd) despite two others of that title from Germany and God knows how many from Austria, all thanks to the invasion of Belgium. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - sorry about pile-on. But c'mon, clearly this one is best by WP:DAB#Primary topic. Patstuart^talk·edits 01:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose - WP:DAB guidelines support the current set up, with this as the primary topic and a topline link to the actual DAB page. This is already being done, I see no need to change it. If someone, anywhere in the world, says the word "World Trade Center", they are most likely thinking of the twin towers in New York. Also, this is the second time a move has been proposed and defeated in less than 3 months. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose - Didn't we go through this already? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Please, for anyone who uses the word "most", please make clear exactly who you're defining. If you mean white middle-class American males, please read WP:BIAS — Jack · talk · 15:26, Wednesday, 28 March 2007

If you asked Osama Bin Laden, I'm pretty sure he'd be referring to the one in New York as well... 132.205.44.134 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Or the one in Chicago, or the one in Seattle or the one in London, or the one in Tokyo or any of the other financial markets that he also targeted. 205.157.110.11 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Freedom Tower is now referred to as One World Trade Center

As of March 26, 2009, "Freedom Tower" should now be referred to as "One World Trade Center". Please correct this. Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/27/no.freedom.tower/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.68.202 (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In reference to citation 6

I would like to have the implicit connection between Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda removed, unless anyone can find a citation that Bin Laden stands for Al-Qaeda. This is quess-work and needs evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.229.229 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

pictures

Need bigger pictures, dude u need specs to see those --Darth checkmate (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Previously) untitled comment

Can someone please mention the movie "Man On Wire" which virtually stars the WTC towers in the story of Phillipe Petit's daring tightrope walk between them? I cannot figure out how to edit this article at this point. -Bruce K. 2008-08-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.54.166 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

.64.83.128]] (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Twin Towers Completion Dates

Your article mention that the twin tower (1 and 2) were completed in the year 1972 and 73. This is not valid. I took pictures while they were both under construction and the dates on the printed photos May 1974. These photos show the building still incomplete. Me email address is Actnice@Comcast.Net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.194.161 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know when it started, but the WTC was not known as the Twin Towers. That name was incorrectly bestowed upon them by the media. MysticBlue (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are coordinates available in this article?

Just wondering, because last time I checked the towers are blown up. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It shows the site where they were. Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lobby

The article states that the wtc lobby was 3 stories tall. This is incorrect according to blue prints (now available). The outer walls transition from one to three at the sixth floor giving for a cathedral look inside the lobby. The average floor height is 12.43 feet (1368' / 110 floors). The lobby was just less than 80'. Floor 1 = 22', 2 = 12', 3 = 11'6", 4 = 11'6", 5 = 11'6", 6 = 11'6", totaling 80'. Also looking at the blue prints, floors 3 to 6 only have a floor inside the core. Rkinci (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove Low-Quality Photo

In my opinion, the photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ground_Zero_WTC.JPG) showing Ground Zero in 2008 (listed under subsection September 11, 2001) is unnecessary and doesn't add enough to the article to warrant its continued inclusion. It needs to be straightened for one, in addition to the fact that at least 40% of its view is obscured by safety/construction fencing. Also, its location doesn't make sense. Wadester16 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Percentage of WTC Office space in Manhattan?

In the article in citation 4 it says:
"The complex, located in the heart of New York City's downtown financial district, contained 13.4 million square feet (1.24 million m²) of office space, almost four percent of Manhattan's entire office inventory at that time.[4]"

I was reading another article: http://birmingham.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2001/10/01/editorial3.html and it clearly states:
"Nearly 20 percent of Manhattan's office space was in the World Trade Center."

There is a large discrepancy here.

Frinkruds (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

4 World Trade Center

4 World Trade Center is redirecting to "September 11, 2001 attacks". Is this correct? Marriot, 5, 6, and 7 all have their own articles. If 4 doesn't, it should at least be redirecting here, rather than to the 9/11 page. 84.203.55.52 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since all the other buildings have their own articles, I have restored the article on 4 World Trade Center. It was redirected for some reason unexplained.--MONGO 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ta. 84.203.55.52 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

REBUILD Them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.226.178 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos

Why no mention of the issues these buildings had with asbestos issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leekiliev (talk • contribs) 09:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it would de-bunk the fires melting the steel and provide motive for demolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.172.134 (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Link correction needed

Dear editors of this article,
I think it is a good idea to redirect this article (World Trade Center) to World Trade Center (disambiguation) or even to a page like List of WTCs across the globe. As it is inappropriate to direct the article World Trade Center to the World Trade Center (New York). See this for ideas of appropriate article naming and redirects. Please feel free to post your comments about this suggestion here. Kind regards, --Rehman (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as the World Trade Center (New York), owing both to its size and part in 9/11, is likely much more prominent in the English speaking world than any of the other World Trade Centers. In addition, there is already a link to a disambig page at the top of the article to take readers elsewhere, if need be. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the article

The section entitled "September 11, 2001" contains a sentence that is inconsistent with the introduction. According to the September 11, 2001 section: "The four remaining buildings in the WTC plaza sustained heavy damage from debris, and were ultimately demolished." According to the introduction, 3 World Trade Center was crushed by the collapse of 1 and 2 (this makes sense; it was literally right between them), and 4, 5 and 6 sustained damage resulting in later demolition (hence three remaining buildings, not four, were ultimately demolished). I'm reluctant to change this article myself, as I don't know the facts, but perhaps someone could figure out which description is more correct and then conform the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.189.211 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Fletcher (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The WTC?

There are many World Trade Centres around the world. Why should this article be about just one of them? It would make more sense to use this article to explain what a World Trade Centre is and then refer to a list of specific implementations of the concept. Because that is what it is, really. A WTC is not about the building but about what it stands for. For which reason, btw, it doesn't matter that this one doesn't exist any more. The fact that a new building is under construction makes that it is still there. Just not physically. DirkvdM (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support' Agree (i think it should be merged or associated with this, as it has the details which this article should be having. Rehman (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree: the WTC of New York is by far the most prominent World Trade Center, appearing to have been much larger than most other World Trade Centers (though I did not exhaustively review each one), and more importantly associated with two major terrorist attacks, the latter of which became a major influence on the course of history. In contrast, the other WTCs cited appear to be fairly run of the mill office high rises. Judging by the redlinks, many of them are not notable enough to merit their own articles. We should link to the most prominent WTC known in the English speaking world and link to a disambig page to access the other, less important items -- which we already do. (Similarly, Paris appropriately links to Paris, France, not the list of dozens of minor cities also named Paris.) In addition, I see no basis for having an article about the general concept of a world trade center, because it is just a name that has been popular with developers and public officials seeking to build large office complexes. I doubt there is much more to say, other than what is already described on the WTCA article. Fletcher (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• I also strongly disagree- the majority of people searching for WTC will want to know about what, in the west (and elsewhere) is known as the World Trade Centre. I agree that the concept of a World Trade Centre is an important article, but I feel that this one is the one that deserves the 'real' title. I think it is hard to think of a comparable subject where the specific is more notable than the general, but this one does appear to be one of those rare situations- Fletcher's example of Paris isn't quite the same. The closest I can come offhand to a comparable example is that evolution discusses the biological form of evolution, not the general form (how things other than living things can evolve- ideas, practices, weather patterns etc) as the biological form of evolution is far more notable than the idea of evolution generally. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Other WTC's not meriting a separate article isn't relevant to the issue, I'd say. Saem for the size of the building, and also, as I said, it's not about the building but about the function. The fact that other articles are smaller is no argument either and is anyway likely just a matter of most editors on the English Wikipedia being from the US because most English speakers who are active on the internet live there. And I don't see at all what terrorist attacks have to do with this. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, so it should strive to be timeless. Thank you Milburn for explaining what Fletcher meant with his Paris comparison. Indeed, the Paris article should be about the french city, not because it's the largest but because the others are named after it. Which of course raises the question which is the original - where was the term first used?
The comparison with evolution is interesting. When one talks about a non biological type of evolution then that is usually specified. And in my experience that is the same with the New York Trade Centre - in the Netherlands it is always called that, not just 'World trade Centre'. As for what it means in the English speaking world (which is pretty much the whole world), I searched for 'world trade centre', avoiding US sites for obvious reasons. At business site zdnet that results in a list of articles about all sorts of WTC's, of which the New York one is just one. Googling the term of course shows more hits for the New York version because of the ongoing news about it. But like I said, this is an encyclopedia, so news value should be irrelevant.
But better, let me give you a counter-example: Wikipedia. Despite the English version being the first and by far biggest, the article is about Wikipedia in general. In the first sentence, it is specified as being multilingual. And shouldn't a World Trade Centre article also be more internationally oriented? And the English Wikipedia as a whole, for that matter? That is not just for the English speaking world. Being Dutch I resent that implication, unless by that you mean everyone who speaks English, which rather invalidates the argument because that is pretty much the whole world. 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. You are reading WP:NOTNEWS far too expansively, in my opinion. That WP articles are not news does not mean they are "timeless" in the sense of being severed from any historical context. NOTNEWS simply means, for example, that if a water main breaks in your local town it doesn't need to be covered on Wikipedia, even though you may find reliable sources reporting on it. NOTNEWS doesn't mean we have to ignore history with the goal of making an article as general as possible. Thus NY WTC's status as a terrorist target and disaster site is a valid element to consider in terms of how prominent it is; indeed, likely many people who were unfamiliar with the NY WTC before 9/11/01 became much more familiar with it after that date.

2. While I respect the argument that WP should be international, that doesn't mean we have to elevate the less prominent over the more prominent. I maintain that the general concept of a "World Trade Center" is not well defined or widely used -- what it means depends more on the particular developer.

3. We already have a disambig link at the top so there should be no difficulty for readers looking for a different WTC. --Fletcher (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fletcher, besides the fact that the 'renaming' of this article is only strongly opposed by you due to the reasons mentioned above, i'd recommend you to take one last good-look at this and this articles, and you will realize that this is the year 2008, and that there are hundreds of buildings more "prominent" than the NY-WTC. Aside the "prominence", this article has to be renamed some day, because even if you plan to keep this article (which the subject no-longer exists), there is already a new WTC coming-up to replace the lost one, so are you going to add the new facts in this article? No harm done, i just want you to know that there is no valid reason for using an important article-title to an article which the subject dosen't exist. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your first claim is false in that J Milburn also strongly disagreed with a move/merge. Your second claim is a strawman, as I am not attempting to argue the WTC is (was) more prominent than any other building in the world, so linking to the list of tallest buildings and saying it is not the most prominent are beside the point. Third, I don't know if the article will be moved or integrated with the new WTC article; that is an issue that will come up when the new complex is finished and can be more coherently described. Presently, the old WTC is more prominent than the new, so it's appropriate to give the bulk of the article to the old. The new WTC buildings are described in separate articles (e.g., Freedom Tower). This may change years down the road, but that's no argument for changing it now, and certainly no reason to give more prominence to a list of fairly ordinary office high rises that can be easily found via the disambig link. Lastly, I disagree that the subject must currently exist in order to be considered to have the most prominence for something of its name, as Wikipedia has countless articles on historical topics and persons. For example, by your logic, Muhammad (name) should replace Muhammad, which in turn should be renamed Muhammed (prophet) or something similar. Muhammad (name), of course, describes the name generally, and links to many prominent Muhammads, many still living, whereas the famous prophet has been dead for centuries. But no, that is not what we do, because the subject's current existence is only one element in discerning how prominent something or someone is; we can take history into account as well. Fletcher (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fletcher, i dont mean to start any strong arguements, and i apologize if i started any, or expressed any strong words. It seems like this conversation is heading a little too violent (as it sounds). I do not want to force a rename in this article, i just wanted to share my thoughts following the suggestion of User DirkvdM. In a way, you are right about the article. I am not living in the State of New York, so i dont want to plug myself in acting like i know. Good luck with this topic. Once again sorry for any strong expressions. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense, either. I'm just argumentative, I guess.  :-) Fletcher (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I love argumentativeness, so I'll have another say. :)

Of course the attacks on the NYWTC (even the first one) are bigger than a water main breakage. I just meant that that doesn't affect the prominence of a WTC. In itself it might have been a big thing, but in relation to the WTCs it's a news event. Btw, you yourself make the point that the NYWTC was not all that prominent before the second attack.

If, as you say, "a "World Trade Center" is not well defined or widely used -- what it means depends more on the particular developer" then that should be explained to anyone looking up 'World Trade Center'. (Actually, this is rather my main point, because that's what I was after when I looked up the term and that in turn prompted me to ask about this here.) And your argument that the others can be easily found through the disambiguation link works both ways. If this is to become the main article and the NYWTC is the most prominent (former) WTC, then it will appear at the top of the list and will also be easily found. (And if it isn't, then there is no more argument.)

Rehman raises an interesting point. When the new NYWTC is ready, then what will this article be about? It can't be about both. Since we already know that a new one is under construction, there should also be an article about it. Why wait until it is ready? We already have an article on China World Trade Center Tower III, which is still under construction. The article even started almost 2 years ago.

Rehman's second link is indeed not relevant it seems, but the first one definitely is if it is size that matters, as you seem to argue. The Afghan WTC is almost twice as tall as the NY one was. And the World Trade Center (Beijing) "is widely reputed as "The Place Where China Meets The World"." How is that for prominence? Also note that that one has three tower (soon), so height isn't everything.

Your comparison with Mohammed doesn't hold. The prophet's death didn't affect his prominence. But if a WTC is just a building, as you claim, then the fact that it doesn't exist anymore changes everything. All that is left then is the attack, but there already is an article about that. Actually, there are loads. Just look up 'wtc attack' and you'll see a staggering list of articles. Rather overwhelming even. Which one is the main article. Maybe WTC attack should become a disambiguation article for all those (plus maybe others). But that's a different matter. (Or is it?) DirkvdM (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

past tense for WTC

I'm sure this has been covered before but I would like to know why the article speaks as though the world trade center is the thing of the past when 7 world trade center exists at the present time. surely the history of the world trade center should not end at the attacks but continue to include the reconstruction and the first line should be changed from was to is. --78.105.93.100 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ok it's become pretty clear that no one has any interest in answering my question. If no one explains why using past tense is accurate I will begin editing the article. --Hippoattack (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FIX SPELLING:

{{editsemiprotected}} FIX SPELLING:

spandel --> spandrel vicsoelastic --> viscoelastic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.67.2 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2008

 Done ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee

Just a reminder to editors that this article is undergoing a Good Article Review, a process which I will be involved with for a few days at the very least. Other editors are welcome to make comments here or at the GAReview page: Talk:World Trade Center/GA1. I retain final decision about GA status but viewpoints from all editors are welcome. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Passed! Congratulations to all who've contributed. Binksternet (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Office space old vs new

How much office space does the new complex have on paper? Is it more than the destroyed complex? Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs

Now that GA is established, the next hurdle in advancing the article involves tighter constraints on what makes for clear writing. I think the lead section is gummed up with years of piecemeal editing efforts by various participants; it needs a firm hand to cut some detail out. Material cut from the lead would, of course, be restored in the body of the article. The problem before you guys is this: What detail stays in the lead and what doesn't?

I've just poked at it somewhat to try and get the ball rolling. I'm no fan of a string of alternate names right up in the first sentence as that arrangement tends to obscure rather than reveal. I moved the three alternate names down chronologically to where the building complex was first finished.

Beyond that, you guys should decide if all the names, dates and organizations need to remain above the fold. I imagine a fair portion could be moved south. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the article. I will definitely go through all the issues you raised, but might take a break from this article for a little while and come back refreshed in a couple weeks. Copyediting and prose is definitely a key thing to address. Anyway, for the lead, take a look at Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence_content. This mentions that alternative names should be given up front in the first sentence, often in parenthesis. Other FAs seem to follow this, though I suppose they are just guidelines and we can do differently. I'm not sure what is best. --Aude (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at the link you provided... I see that alternate names may be included in the first sentence ("...and it may include variations") though these variations of the name should be bold upon their first appearance. At any rate, have fun on your wikibreak! Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The way you have it is fine with me. --Aude (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Internal links

Please only make links that are relevant to the context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Square Footage

The article claims the WTC "contained 13.4 million square feet (1.24 million m²) of office space" and cites as a reference this January 6, 2002 New York Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E4D81030F935A35752C0A9649C8B63). The article, however, says only that "The attacks on the World Trade Center removed 13.4 million square feet of office space for at least several years and temporarily rendered an additional 12.1 million square feet unusable." The 13.4 million square feet presumably includes the Deutsche Bank Building, several buildings at the World Financial Center, and/or other nearby properties that were severely damaged or destroyed. The WTC itself did not account for all of this space. Then again, this total includes only "office space"; the WTC complex also included retail, hotel, parking and other facilities which may not have been included in this figure. I remember hearing that it contained about 11 million square feet, but the infobox says 8.6 million. I don't know what figure is correct, but the 13.4 million figure contained in the article is almost certainly wrong. 208.127.99.185 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I looked around some more and do think the 13.4 million square feet number is correct. Here is a Real Estate Weekly article that provides more detail [2], and a quote:

“ 13.4 million SF of class A office space in the World Trade Center was destroyed, 18.5 million SF of class A office space was damaged to varying degrees, and 2.6 million SF of class B and C space was damaged. To date, of the 18.5 million SF of damaged class A space, 10 million SF is now operational. The remaining damaged space will be operational in anywhere from two weeks to as long as five years. ”

So, I think the 13.4 million sq ft was just the WTC, and just office space there, and additional space beyond that was lost — some temporarily. --Aude (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Construction

I believe the article needs more on the construction of the Twin Towers. Only the foundation is dealt with in detail. Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You thermitic materials folks

a thermitic bomb on the plane could be a source of the material, just because there's money under the pillow, doesn't mean the tooth fairy put it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.30.217 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Destroyed vs attacked

I changed the words "attacked by al-qaeda" to "destroyed" as there is some debate over the US government's role in the attack. I'm not implying one way or the other, I just think it's a more neutral statement.

Agreed. Because of this, I've put a {POV-section} (with double {}) at the beginning of that section. 202.78.159.216 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no. The claim that the New York terrorist attack was perpetrated by the government is a conspiracy theory and it should only be mentioned in the article as such. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading, I would not recommend adding anything about this... There is no such evidence from the government, even if there is from random citizens, it is just misleading... It is also a rumour, not true anyhow... ~The CCTV —Preceding unsigned comment added by CircuitCityTeleVision (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a new scientific research that the Towers were demolished. http://www.inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/10300/2009-04-06.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.240.36 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. If the government did conspire to cause 9/11, and they were lucky enough to find a bunch of Muslim patsies to fly the planes into the building, why go any further and put thermite in the WT Centers, thus massively--AND UNNECESSARILY--increasing their risk of exposure. The buildings didn't have to collapse to tick off the American public and make them want blood. Just crashing the planes into them would have been enough. Do any of you conspiracy theorists actually think before spewing out your idiocy?99.150.207.99 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Main image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image 1

Image 2

Here we have two images that have spent time on as the main image representing the WTC. However, which one is better? I believe it is image 2, for these reasons:

1. Both buildings are easily seen; they are not blocked by other buildings.
2. The color is closer to a natural tone one would see during a regular day.
3. The vertical shot in image 1 somewhat distorts the actual shape and height of the two buildings, while image 2 clearly shows just how massive they were.

Granted, image 1 is newer, but the buildings didn't change in a period of two months so I see that as a non issue. Any thoughts? –túrian^patois 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image number one is better it is brighter and its not as daul as number 2.--Beatlefan97 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Dave

That is not reason enough, so you will have to do better than that. And the dullness of an image is subjective. –túrian^patois 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This image(number 1) should be deleted because it has no info or anything. Also the user's talk page has tons of warnings about images which are not his own. Brandy63 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Image number 2. I think that this image is more encyclopedic with its aerial view in plain daylight. Number 1 looks less encyclopedic and more artistic, what with the sunrise/sunset setting and the perspective from ground-level. Also, Number 2 has better resolution and overall quality (note that Number 1 has some sort of white staining along the top and upper-left of the frame). — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been changed, I think it is enough to call it consensus. Also, the discussion has been open for a week. –túrian^patois 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the purpose of the WTC

I just looked at a Wikipedia article about the world trade center and noticed that although there was a lot of information about the buildings from their construction to their destruction, I couldn't find any information about the purpose of the world trade center. What was its function? Or was it just a series of buildings, and there really was no organized or specialized work that its inhabitants did? If somebody could help me with this information I would be grateful. What was the role the World Trade Center played in the world? Also, if there was a role it played, where would I look on Wikipedia to learn about that role? I want to learn about the job of the world trade center: what the buildings stood for, not just what they stood on and how they were made and destroyed. (Howardtheducktown (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardtheducktown (talk • contribs)

They were just big office buildings really. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had accumulated such a huge surplus in the 1950's and 1960's from the tolls of bridges and tunnels they operated that the states of New York and New Jersey were going to legislate a repatriation of their surplus. To prevent this from occurring without building a new bridge or tunnel, the PA decided they were also in the business of creating office buildings in an area which normal market forces were not converting to office buildings. patsw (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Image Pt. 2

I have found a very nice picture of them better than photo one and two Can we use this one, it looks like it would fit the page great!!! --Beatlefan97 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)beatlefan97

It is a nice photo; however, since I will be pushing this for FA within the month we have to be more careful. The massive problem with that image is the bridge blocking the view. It can still go in the article I believe as it is a aesthetic image. –túrian^patois 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the photo too, I just think the current photo is better suited for the article's infobox. As mentioned above in the previous discussion, the current photo shows how massive the towers were compared to the many others visable in the background, and the photo better displays its position next to the other buildings near it. SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mumford quote

The Mumford quote was like this: For example, in his book The Pentagon of Power, Lewis Mumford denounced the center as an "example of the purposeless giantism and technological exhibitionism that are [sic] now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city." I see no reason why there should be a [sic] there. (are agrees with the purposeless giantism and technological exhibitionism.) Thus, I removed it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Mumford's quote could be reduced to "a characteristic example... that are now eviscerating the living tissue..." Trimmed even further, the quote could read "A[n] example that are eviscerating..." The way I see it the subject is 'example', the subject is singular, and Mumford's editors muffed this one. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the rationale, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Mumford meant. That would mean that the example of the WTC was somehow eviscerating the living tissue of Paris, London, etc. I think it's more likely that he meant that the broader trends of giantism and technological exhibitionism were doing the eviscerating of the word's cities and that the WTC was an example of those trends. --Chris Johnson (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page, here's the complete Mumford sentence as it appeared in Pentagon of Power:

“ The Port of New York Authority's World Trade center, 100 stories high, is a characteristic example of the purposeless giantism and technological exhibitionism that are now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city. ”

This makes WTC the subject, not 'example' like I thought. :P Binksternet (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes WTC the subject of 'is a characteristic example.' The subject for 'are now eviscerating the living tissue of every great city' is 'trends of giantism and technological exhibitionism', so the use of plural fits. --Koorogi (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. I'm not going to alter the article but you should realise that the contracted version of the phrase with non-key words removed to preserve subject / object relationship clearly shows the singular is correct: 'the WTC is an example of the exhibitionism that are eviscerating....' This really grates on the eye of any grammarian. Blitterbug (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

When you simplified the sentence, you turned a conjoined (and thus plural) noun phrase into a singular one. It should be: 'the WTC is an example of the gigantism and exhibitionism that are eviscerating....'--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrections!!!

The World Trade Center (WTC) was a complex in Lower Manhattan in New York City whose seven buildings were destroyed in 2001 in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Correction: 3 buildings where destroyed and the other 4 where damaged beyond repair and then demolished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8limes (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"destroyed" means: "to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate" [3] "to ruin completely; spoil" [4] "to damage beyond use or repair" [5] The damage to all 7 WTC buildings meets these definitions. Hut 8.5 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's stylistically odd, however, to define a building by referring to its destruction, as we currently do in the first sentence. Also, some uninformed readers may actually think that the destruction of the seven buildings would have been due to (physically) unrelated actions. Making the lead unambiguous would be a good thing, although your observation on the meaning of the term "destroyed" is correct.  Cs32en  17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WTC7

There's a mistake or at least no reference, in the collapse of WTC7. To my knowledge, it was "pulled down" by Silverstein. Source : http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html

Paragraph 3 states, "All seven original buildings in the complex were destroyed by terrorists". this MUST BE EDITED to say, "The United States government claims that all seven buildings..." or, "Some people claim that all seven buildings..." or even possibly, "Many people claim that all seven buildings...". But the original statement is written as fact without supporting evidence. And since there is so much evidence (for example that it is scientifically impossible for the planes to be the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings)that there were other factors involved, and no claims from the 'terrorists' themselves, it can not be presented as FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidimay (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All ref to Building 7 must be deleted as a matter of National Security :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.172.134 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to add new content to WTC7

Topic moved to Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Proposal_for_new_content_based_on_the_latest_NIST_report Johninwiki (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Heidimay, but it's a known fact that anything in "whatreallyhappened.com" is pure garbage. ----DanTD (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn’t worry about him. He wrote that back in April and hasn’t been back since. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotection

The status of "Destroyed" is offensive. Why does there even need to be a "status", and why is it in red? Destroyed seems too simple and insensitive to describe what happened on 9/11/2001. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.14 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's Try to Use Concise Sentences

Am I the only one that considers the following set of sentences a little confusing and improper?

"Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer,[121] while Marsh & McLennan Companies, located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11's impact), lost 295 employees, and 175 employees of Aon Corporation were killed.[122] As well, 343 deaths were New York City firefighters, 84 were Port Authority employees, of whom 37 were members of the Port Authority Police Department, and another 23 were New York City Police Department officers.[123][124][125] Of all the people who were still in the towers when they collapsed, only 20 were pulled out alive.[126]"

I'm not trying to stir up any trouble, nor do I claim that these statistics are incorrect, but I am slightly concerned that the current wording is confusing to casual editors like myself. After all, the second to last sentence doesn't even meet grammatical standards for being a sentence. Surely we can do better than this. Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Plan B

Pardon me if I'm missing something, but on this page I see no note of the Plan B discussions that have been underway for some months, and some related pages such as 150 Greenwich Street have forward-looking statements about the state of construction which have not come to pass, and are now untrue. Some work needs to be done to incorporate things like this NBC New York article and other similar sources of recent information. -Miskaton (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unconscionable

There's almost no mention of what the WTC's purpose was. This is absurd. What was it there for in the first place? How was it used? By whom was it used? 70.116.76.173 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Link dead

The link to the Port authority page is dead (http://www.panynj.gov/drp/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.101.109 (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

The first sentence under the sub-heading "The WTC American flag" has a spelling error; "Following the collapes (sic)...".

I'd fix it but all my fixes thus far have been from my anonymous IP address, hence I can't do it as an unconfirmed user. Tonypuryer (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Chris Johnson (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

error on World Trade Center page

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone please correct the following error on the WTC page: under the heading Complex, the area of the footprint of each of the Twin Towers is stated to be approximately "one acre (208.71 square feet)," which is incorrect. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet, i.e. (208.71 feet) squared. Thank you. 204.9.14.130 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, nice catch! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

there is no concrete core

an author of an obscure book which claims the world trade center towers had a concrete core embedded with high explosives during construction is bragging on message boards that he finally was able to get evidence of a concrete core into wikipedia.

it is clear from all construction photos and articles about construction of the world trade center towers that they had a steel core. here are a few references all saying it was a steel core. newsweek [6] engineering.com [7] skyscraper.org [8]berkeley [9] and a photo of the steel core under construction. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzbot (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

According to www.engineering.com and skyscraper.com, it was a "reinforced steel core". What kind of material was used to reinforce the steel? According to other sources, concrete "walls" or "infill panels" have been used.  Cs32en  15:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Official Open Date?

What was the original date the two towers opened? Is it the April date (when the ribbon was cut)? Thanks! --174.100.229.232 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)