Did they planted the building demolition explosives used to destroy the building at 11 Sep initially at the building stage?
No, it was the art students.
The World Trade Center under construction through photos, 1966-1979
111–116 of 116 posts
Re: The World Trade Center under construction through photos, 1966-1979
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the parent, and I'm not saying it definitely wouldn't have happened (I have no idea), but it's at least possible. There was advance intelligence around the event that might have been treated differently by a different administration. Even if it had happened, the response would also have been different.
In Richard Clarke’s book he details the intelligence community’s multiple warnings to the new Bush administration that spring and summer. They were ignored. As Gore came from the Clinton admin he and the people around him would have had a lot more experience dealing with and familiar with the threats and actors, who were already known.
The Bush administration let the attacks happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-k...
Re: The World Trade Center under construction through photos, 1966-1979
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about looks but efficient use of land: Manhattan was (and still is) the financial capital of the world. It had the most valuable real estate in the world. Radio Row was a poor use of real estate. Before the Chinese traded electronics in Shenzhen, they traded it in Hong Kong. Yes, as Hong Kong transformed into a financial center, it got rid of the electronics traders.
> It's not about looks but efficient use of land Right, confiscation from private owners to use it for erection of a building no one needs is a very efficient use of land. The project will require astronomical up front expenses, will stay vacant for almost 2 decades, and have endless problems until its last day (fires, terrorist acts, issues with the structure). But who cares, it's efficiency we are talking about.
Line must go up
Re: The World Trade Center under construction through photos, 1966-1979
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect so. The case was made in 102 minutes, a NY Times book detailing how 18 people on or above the South Tower's impact zone managed to escape in one of the partially collapsed staircases. Were the stairs built to firecode specs in place in 1966, and not in the flimsy manner expedited by Rockefeller, these stairs would have easily survived intact long enough for many more than 18 to survive.
I guess we're talking about not just brick, but reinforced concrete infused brick ? Anyway I'd be interested to read more about it, thanks.
Right, it's fireproof brick, isolated steel stairs, pressurized air, 120 m fireproof doors.
Re: The World Trade Center under construction through photos, 1966-1979
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about looks but efficient use of land: Manhattan was (and still is) the financial capital of the world. It had the most valuable real estate in the world. Radio Row was a poor use of real estate. Before the Chinese traded electronics in Shenzhen, they traded it in Hong Kong. Yes, as Hong Kong transformed into a financial center, it got rid of the electronics traders.
The White House and Central Park are a poor use of real estate as well. Imagine how much money you could make if you developed it into a new Kowloon Walled City! Besides, didn't the Twin Towers have a massive occupancy problem? I recall that being the reason why so many government entities were forced to move there...
[deleted]
Re: The World Trade Center under construction through photos, 1966-1979
#116This might be an unpopular opinion, but, apart from that 9/11 was a terrible act, I think the twin towers kind of dominated the NYC skyline in a way that was not good. By themselves they were impressive, but, jutting out of the ground as they did, without peer, made for a jarring skyline. The fact that they did not taper and were twin made it worse. The new tower is much better integrated into NYC skyline aesthetical…
Not sure why you're being down voted for an aesthetic opinion for which you gave a logical explanation. I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but the comment seemed fine to me.
They were downvoted because the downvoters disagreed with the opinion. I so wish we could all agree to not do that.