NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1060

SoaringSkylines · #**21181** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

Point by Point:

A. You're supremely confident that they're slacking off for any conceivable reason other than wind issues because..........?

B. On the one hand, I suppose blaming uncooperative gusts for slowing down progress in construction *would* be kinda like flipping off the moon coz your monthly crops suck. But come on, now.

Essentially what you're saying as per my interpretation is this:

"What's to stop a pesky little detail like potentially hazardous gale-force conditions at 1000'+ above the street from getting this thing done by the officially announced top-off date? So what if a few construction workers get swept off their feet onto the asphalt below headfirst? Or a precariously swaying, multi-thousand pound girder snaps off the rope and squashes some unfortunate, unsuspecting street life below? Messy? Hell yeah; but in the grand scheme it's a small price to pay for showing the world that the skivvy-bombing terrorists in Wakkowarneristan and the red-tape merchants at the Port Authority haven't got *us* beat, no siree."

My admittedly over-analytic mind---once at rest---has me thinking that you don't mean all that. But your somewhat odd rationale to get this project finished yesterday had me reading your wind-related comments in that manner.

Oh, BTW: No one looking at 1WTC's completed form is going to give a plague-rat's pockmarked backside how many stories she's rising. That's absolutely going to be the farthest thing from the casual tourist's mind...and that of the average Downtown pedestrian/resident.

One simple response to that:
"Though the weather was unseasonably warm this January it was also unusually windy. Because of that, the Port Authority had to halt the erection of steel on One World Trade Center for a considerable number of days for safety reasons."

You don't read thoroughly.

dchan · #**21182** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 4:26 PM**

^ ???

Roadcruiser1 · #**21183** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 4:39 PM**

So? Ever heard of the rules safety first? You can't erect steel beams when the winds at 1,000 feet up is moving at 50 miles an hour.

Nexis4Jersey · #**21184** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 4:51 PM**

My World Trade Center photos from Yesterday

Manhattan

DSCN2461 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

DSCN2463 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

From Jersey City

DSCN2464 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

DSCN2465 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

Katyn Memorial with WTC 1&4 Rising in the Background by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

DSCN2475 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

DSCN2557 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

meh_cd · #**21185** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoaringSkylines

One simple response to that:
"Though the weather was unseasonably warm this January it was also unusually windy. Because of that, the Port Authority had to halt the erection of steel on One World Trade Center for a considerable number of days for safety reasons."

You don't read thoroughly.

They cannot erect steel when it is windy because it is not safe. Christ.

pnapp1 · #**21186** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 6:01 PM**

Very large shipment of steel has been arriving all day at 1 WTC. This shot is at 12PM and does not include what has already been offloaded this morning. Very interesting pieces.

Image via KPI TV Webcam.
http://www.video-monitoring.com/cons...itv/silver.htm

SoaringSkylines · #**21187** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

They cannot erect steel when it is windy because it is not safe. Christ.

That is absolutely no where near what I was saying.

MY question was: Did they really think it wouldn't be windy that high?

But I'm not going to argue on the threads.

PZelda · #**21188** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

North Dakota has two radio towers that are 2060 feet tall, they just got permission from the FAA

If that many planes flew that close to the Hudson a 1776 foot structure wouldn't be allowed either, what difference does that make?

I live in ND... I can tell you for sure that our tallest "skyscraper" here is the state capitol building in Bismarck, at a whopping 19 stories. So - planes have no problem flying across ND because there isn't anything else, height-wise, to be mindful of here.

Now, NYC, I could understand because NYC has a *lot* of skyscrapers clustered close together.

NewYorkSkyline117 · #**21189** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoaringSkylines

That is absolutely no where near what I was saying.

MY question was: Did they really think it wouldn't be windy that high?

But I'm not going to argue on the threads.

No I'm pretty sure you were saying that they're slacking. not their faults

JayPro · #**21190** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 7:15 PM**

BTW just to chime in on the Antenna/Spire issue with Durst:

I get the feeling that they're gonna do a bit of value-engineering solely with the material and not the design. And even if they do tweak in that way, it'll most likely be with the width of the thing. Thinner spire, I think they said.

mfastx · #**21191** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 7:29 PM**

Signed.

marshall · #**21192** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Those dark bands on One World Trade Center represents mechanical floors as they are vents. Similar marks were see on the Twin Towers which were the same thing.

Vents huh? Cool, I had always thought the bands on the old WTC towers marked the two skylobbies, which were on floors 44 and 78 in the Twins..Well, I guess they were actually mechanical floors after all. Looking at the renderings of One World Trade Center, it looks to have similar mechanical vertical vents near the top, between about the 90-98th floors. I had thought they were a design feature but I guess they are functional after all!

Dense_Electric · #**21193** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Do people actually think that sending emails and 80 signatures on a petition is going to change Dusrts's mind?

They will completely ignore your demands I'm sorry to say.

If every person who said "Ron Paul is un-electable" voted for Ron Paul, Ron Paul would have won the nomination.

Of course 80 signatures isn't going to change their minds, and even if we hit 10,000 it still probably won't. Does that mean we shouldn't even try?

Besides, the real goal is to raise awareness. Once again I don't expect that this thing will get this much recognition, but if I were to log on to Yahoo! one day and read something like "New World Trade Center Design Changes Cause Public Outcry," I would consider what we're doing more than a success.

Roadcruiser1 · #**21194** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 8:15 PM**

Here is a diagram.

Original World Trade Center. The area were it says technical floors are the mechanical floors.

New World Trade Center. Areas marked in gray are mechanical floors.

THE BIG APPLE · #**21195** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 8:17 PM**

MusicMan84

Zapatan · #**21196** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PZelda

I live in ND... I can tell you for sure that our tallest "skyscraper" here is the state capitol building in Bismarck, at a whopping 19 stories. So - planes have no problem flying across ND because there isn't anything else, height-wise, to be mindful of here.

Now, NYC, I could understand because NYC has a *lot* of skyscrapers clustered close together.

I know I was simply saying it's not impossible to clear the 2000 foot height limit.

RockMont · #**21197** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall

Vents huh? Cool, I had always thought the bands on the old WTC towers marked the two skylobbies, which were on floors 44 and 78 in the Twins..Well, I guess they were actually mechanical floors after all. Looking at the renderings of One World Trade Center, it looks to have similar mechanical vertical vents near the top, between about the 90-98th floors. I had thought they were a design feature but I guess they are functional after all!

Oh this would have been an interesting concept, twin towers, only they would be fraternal twins. I like the way these two look together.

jd3189 · #**21198** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I know I was simply saying it's not impossible to clear the 2000 foot height limit.

Agreed. When 1 WTC does get a successor(yes,I want the U.S. to have a normal economy in the near future) we can finally build a building reaching 2,000+ feet to the tip. FAA should require planes to not fly over a city's business district instead of issuing a height limit.

uaarkson · #**21199** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 9:59 PM**

For an idea of what a thinner spire might look like, I went ahead and copy/pasted the old north tower antenna on top of 1WTC. Doesn't look too shabby, honestly.

All credit goes to STR for the original image.

RockMont · #**21200** Posted **Mar 9, 2012, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

For an idea of what a thinner spire might look like, I went ahead and copy/pasted the old north tower antenna on top of 1WTC. Doesn't look too shabby, honestly.

All credit goes to STR for the original image.

No it really doesn't