Talk:World Trade Center

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles

New York City

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles

New York (state)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles

World Trade Center was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 21, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. One user seems to be using this talkpage as a chat forum. Ronbo76 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Changed. [1] --Aude (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just switched out the Queens photo for the ground view photo. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice photo 202.156.66.110 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree, per my comments above - #Galleries --Aude (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)ّ[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

  Mhm, okay. So how should cerosine which burns way under the melting point of steel...melt the steel? Also, There's plenty of
  evidence that the fire was "starving", as in burning cold (black smoke).
  Moreover, WTC 1,2 and 7 were the only buildings in human history which collapsed through a FIRE!

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.

 Where were the remains of the plane??? Compare pictures of other flight accidents with the one of UA93. You'll find plenty of
 scrap! Yet, the area looked like as if some kids had played with matches.

"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.

  OOO...don't get me started on the 9/11 comission or NORAD! Training missions, on the same day, covering the EXACT SAME
  SCENARIO. Repeat after me: T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G M-I-S-S-I-O-N, S-A-M-E D-A-Y, S-A-M-E S-C-E-N-A-R-I-O.

  Oh well, what do I know. Study some history!!! Sort of the same thing happened 1933 in Germany, and the Germans believed
  it as well. Good night America.

Alauran 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.