Perspective: long term questions
 

Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt? Before answering, understand why a fire brought down the 1st two towers so quickly. Both shifts of the legenday NYFD Resuce 1 were all lost without understanding the dangers. Why? Should the WTC be rebuilt? Will we be pragmatic, emotional, or just defiant? If your think I even implied an answer, then you must re-examine your own biases.

On StarTrek, (Wrath of Khan), a starship had security encryption AND could be flown from another ship. Commerical airliners still don't even require keyed ignitions; let alone operator security codes. Previous security plans assumed hijackers were low intelligent extremists who could not operate complex controls, or who wanted to live. Assumptions made in error twice over. What is in the future for all computerized airliners that can fly and even land themselves without a human pilot? GPS - meaning that an airliner can be restricted from some airspaces no matter what the pilot tries to do. Are these ideas new to you? Then what were your news sources even 6 months ago?

While wasting big bucks and excessive time on some exotic and silly missile defense system, even the White House still has no defense from a jumbo jet even after being attacked by a helicopter (see it in Willow Grove) and a small plane. People who come from where the work gets done have been talking about basic, 'not glorious', defense systems. However politicans push a silly intercontinential missile defense system when even a working theatre defense system (Patriot) does not exist. As Undertoad has noted, Clancy defined a jumbo jet attack about 5 years ago in his best selling novel. Instead of overpriced systems, maybe politicans will now listen to those low tech air defense systems for cities? It requires listening to people who come from where the work gets done rather than people who bribe with campaign contributions.

The greatest threat to Washington - National (now Reagan) Airport puts landing planes within thousands of feet to the Capitol, Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, Supreme Court, and White House. Maybe politicans will drive out to Dulles instead of to personal parking spaces in National? Heaven forbid that politicans should inconvenience themselves. Close National Airport now. Republican extremists may be too attached to the airport's name to be so pragmatic.

Suddenly the White House says there was a threat to Air Force One. How? The sky was devoid of any plane. Any plane that kept flying would have been shot down. Also Air Force One is designed to fly significantly higher than any commerical airliner as well as refuel in mid-air. So where was this threat? Reporters doubted that one, immediately questioned those answers, and got silly answers.

On D-Day, most of the 29th Division sacrificed their bodies to stop bullets. Patriots. A few patriots on a Long Island RR train attacked an armed gunman using bodies to stop a massacre. Patriots are not people who sing to a flag. Patriots usually only have one oppurtunity in a lifetime to prove themselves. Over PA, once such patriot called his wife just before a planeload of patriots attacked the hijackers. Hopefully hijackers did not turn off the black boxes so we can learn the truth. (unfortunately those same boxes in the WTC probably never survived a fire so hot.)

If turned off, we may never know whether to present postumously the Congressional Metal of Honor to civilians who, as soldiers in a war, did what patriots do. Their action may have saved the White House. IOW dead patriotic passengers would have been piled in the aisles as they attacked hijackers in waves. Did it happen? Did they respond rather than cry tears? What you would have done?

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

This has crossed my mind periodically over the past couple of days....

Rebuild them as they were? Absolutely not. Too much of a reminder...

Perhaps a memorial in the vein of Oklahoma City? Possible...all in due time.

there are so many people to mourn and honor now. from the pilots to the passengers to the works in teh WTC. and as this has been the single biggest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, i think that eventually a lot of medals need to be handed out, a lot of graves need to be dug, and i think that 5 or 10 yrs down the road we will need a memorial for the 6,000 who died.




rebuilding the world trade centers is a must. we should stake whatever money it takes into rebuilding them to their original glory, we need not do if for the office space, we need not do it for the politicians. we need to do it to signify that the united states will pick itself up from the rubble it was and return to its original glory. we need to show our resiliance in such a way that ranks among the ways we have done it in the past. we need to rebuild them for the deceased also. i think we owe it to them and their families to restore those buildings.



and a lot of things will have to change. we will have to look at teh security of the airports and airplanes, we need to look at our military status in the world. one thing is for sure, those budget cuts in teh military and all those bases that are scheduled to close wont. not now. not ever. there will be a cry from new york city, along with other cities across the united states for retribution of wrongdoings to the usa. new yorkers are not ones easily brushed off, and when pissed off they stay that way untill they get what they want. they want revenge. they want a sense of closure to all those lives that were lost in a crime against the usa. they want to know that they have eliminated one evil in the world and can now relax and recuperate. they need time to fix their buildings temporarily, after that they and the nation needs a few weeks to mourn those lost in tragedy.


we need time. we need to figure out what went wrong. we need to strike back. we need to mourn and honor our deceased. we need to change our country, and we most importantly need to rebuild what we lost: relations with other countries, lives, and our public services. we need to finish what has been started, and what has been done against us.

One reason why money to change the military from 'Cold War' mentality to 'fast response' is not available - all those useless bases that remain open - because no Senator or Congressman has the gumption to let his local base close. Do we spend money on airport security - or on maintaining numerous useless bases?

Of course neither bases nor more military would have or will protect from this current event. We still spend more money on military than the next 5 or 6(?) countries combined. Shortage of cash is really not the problem nor addresses the solution.

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

Translation: tw realizes he implied an answer, and so attempt to blame the reader for inferring one.

Star Trek = fiction.

This = reality.

And of course building in a remote-control mechanism opens as many opportunities for terrorism as it closes.

Closing National will make next to zero difference. They hit the Pentagon from Dulles. They hit the WTC from BOSTON. These are jets. They fly at more than 500 miles per hour. That's a mile every 8 seconds.

my take on rebuilding the WTC
 

USS Samuel B Roberts - struck a mine in Persian Gulf - rebuilt on GP

USS Cole - struck by terrorists in Yemen - being rebuilt as we speak, just because we can and we won't let the terrorists say they destroyed it.

Now, the WTC a few years ago - car bombed - fixed.

We've done it before and we'll do it again.

Prediction: The money will be found to rebuild to show the world we can.
The WTC will be back bigger and better than before. Maybe even taller than the Empire State Building this time. One thing is sure, we won't recognise the New York skyline in ten years.

Brian

Re: my take on rebuilding the WTC
 

Actually Brian, the two WTC towers were over 100 feet taller than the Empire State building. The WTC towers were # 5 & 6 in the world's tallest buildings...the ESB was #7. (# 2, 3, and 4 in the US, respectively)

I could see rebuilding maybe one of them. But eventually, it would only be right to create a memorial to commemorate the lives of those who perished...something I don't personally feel would be achieved by rebuilding two 110-story towers.

ooops
 

I stand corrected. I should know better than that.

But my point should still stand.

The memorial will be built into or nearby the new buildings. Mark my words.

Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

Seeking logical reasoning 1) Tom Clancy flys a jumbo jet into a major American landmark = fiction.
Terrorists fly three commerical airliners into major American landmarks = reality.

Good fiction today is reality tomorrow.


Seeking logical reasoning 2) Remote control security cannot work? Oh well. Remove jailhouse security because mechanisms open as many opportunities as they close?

Re: my take on rebuilding the WTC
 

But reasons provided were only emotional. The Cole, Roberts, and Stark were rebuilt for logical reasons. The ships were still functional and could be operated safely.

However I asked an important question - one that you must first answer before you can answer the queston. Why did the WTC towers collapse? They remained standing when struck. The answer to that question is pragmatic. Yes, there is some honor at stake. But honor was not the reason to refloat the Cole, Roberts, or Stark. BTW, honor or emotion was also not the reason to refloat most of those sunk Battleships in Peral Harbor.

Should the WTC be rebuilt? A question that begs a more pragmatic answer.

I think the least disputed issue here is that plane security should be boosted up. Cabin doors should be bulletproof and have peepholes and pilots armed with beanbag ammo shotguns or something else non-hull piercing.

Remote flying capacity sounds like a damn good idea. Arguing that it could be used against. Well....consider the damage a takedown/over of one of the major control towers could have done, planes crashing, planes crashing into each other etc would have been absolute uncontrollable chaos. Stations on the ground are far easier to protect and re-control.

Personally I think it should be rebuilt. Bigger.

As I pilot, I have been hearing a lot of the conversation about flight security (BTW, small planes are STILL not allowed to fly -- we expect to hear from the FAA on that issue today.) and the concept of making the cockpit doors relatively impenetrable has been a point that has been brought up repeatedly.

The problem in this case, though, does not seem to be that the door was forced. It was that the pilots responded to threats of passanger's lives by opening the cabin doors. My guess is that they had NO idea that (a) the terrorists knew how to fly and (b) that they intended to use the planes as missles.

Note that, as well as it can be pieced together, the Pennsylvania plane's occupants, one they became aware (via cellphone) of the probable plans, decided to forcably attempt to retake the plane even if it meant their lives -- which it apparently did.

These men were apparently armed with nothing more than a few knives and a box that they claimed was a bomb (which it apparently was not). If the passangers and crew had ANY idea that these men were going to kill them all EVEN IF they cooperated, I don't think they would have successfully taken the plane.

The only reason they succeeded was that the passangers thought that some of them might come out of this hijacking alive and the crew probably wanted to save as many lives as possible.

From this day forward, I think we will view the passangers' lives as the secondary goal. The first will be to prevent the plane from being used as a fire-bomb missle.

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

Well, on the one hand, rebuilding it would be a symbol of defiance, showing the world that America goes on, that America won't be stopped. On the other, leaving it a memorial would be a subtler symbol, showing that not only do we remember our own, but that we don't forget who comes against us.

Personally, I feel we'll rebuild. Maybe not exactly the way it was (though probably), but we will build a World Trade Center, because it was a World Trade Center. DeutscheBank had offices there, as well as many other foreign financial institutions. They'll want things to run again like they did before.




I feel this won't happen. You get this going, and you'll breed more sophisticated cyber-terrorism, that's if it gets past unions and other such things wanting to keep people employed as pilots. What I feel should happen is we gotta boost the strength of that door. I mean, stronger lock, stronger material for the door, and give the pilots Glock .9's or something. Some form of self-defense.



Well, don't you see, that won't happen. It's practical. It's affordable. It's not as politically disastrous.

Answeringly,

~Mike

Re: Re: my take on rebuilding the WTC
 

The towers collapsed because their load-bearing members were bathed in flaming jet fuel by militant extremists. So what? Engineers could surely design a highrise office tower to withstand that sort of punishment, but no one could afford to build one. So why bother?

The pragmatic answer is: "Of course they'll be rebuilt." Suddenly, there's a tremendous shortage of Class A office space in lower Manhattan. The real estate market will not tolerate this disparity between supply and demand for long.

Besides... the owner of the site (the Port Authority) faces a tremendous incentive to rebuild: only ONE of the WTC towers was insured. They need the revenue that leasing office space will provide. Their risk management people (correctly and pragmatically) advised them to insure against the most PROBABLE risk, not the most DANGEROUS risk. One tower? Sure. Both towers? Inconceivable!

Expect RFP's for architectural design not less than six months after the last truckload of debris leaves the site.

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

During destructive events, loadbearing members of smaller skyscrapers fail, that floor collapses, yet what remains is intact. But to build them higher, then load bearing members cannot withstand a collapse of just one floor. If any one floor collapses on excessively tall buildings, then entire building pancakes. However and for some unknown reason, Hubris Boy 'knows' that if any one floor of any building collapses, then it is normal for all buildings to pancake. That is normal? What about those buildings in Kobe Japan? His conclusion - buisness as usual because he 'knows' it would cost too much to build as smaller skyscrapers are constructed and because there will be a demand for real estate. He just 'knows' without a doubt.

Hubris Boy probably also does not know that most financial firms had been considering moves to NJ anyway because they did not have to be located in expensive NYC. IOW there is a shortage of class A real estate - in Jersey. Not in crowded, expensive, and now to be even more expensive NYC. NYC real estate insurance rates will increase substancially.

Before asking "Should the WTC be rebuilt?" with so much confidence, one must first learn an overabundance of details and have accurate details in support of those conclusions. IOW 'know' before you mock another with an answer. Should we build structures so tall that a collapse of any one floor results in the destruction of the entire building? Should we build buildings so tall as to take a half hour just to get out of the building? Should we build buildings so tall that firefighters cannot even effectively fight the fire? Those details must be answered before WTC is rebuilt. Is honor more important than those risks?

One dismisses the question of how a building collapses to just obtain a particular conclusion. An engineer instead would ask whether it is intelligent to build structures so tall as to be easily pancaked. Demonstrated is how different mental processes approach the problem. Hubris Boy dismisses the problem with a quick politician answer - not based upon technical knowledge and using flawed details to prove his answer. Others approach with the question only from the viewpoint of honor - which is a valid point but not sufficient to answer the question. An engineer's viewpoint takes a more detailed, wide ranging, and pragmatic approach. Is it smart to put too many marbles at risk on one table when the table is therefore too large to be stable? Remember this dirty little fact from engineers: the 1993 WTC bombing should have brought down both towers (contrary to Hubris Boy's erroneous comments on building insurance).

Many NYC financial firms have already answered that question to commercial real estate brokers. They don't want their new offices in larger, taller landmark buildings. Therefore is it smart to rebuild the WTC? Is there even a market for such real estate based upon an engineer's more pragmatic viewpoint or upon the experience and new attitude of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter?

Yea lisa that did come to mind - thats why I said beanbag shotguns. The other idea that cmae ot mind is come kind of alarm or button the pilot can press to give contorl excluseivly to the ground of the aircraft whci h would completely foil an attack because there is noone on board they can threaten.

Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

Unfortunately tw, the world does not completely work in simple dry rationale. You bring up the cold hard facts, which are certainly important. But the underlying emotional factor in all this is DEFINITELY going to figure in, whether it should or not.

Question: Would a newer building have survived something of this magnitude? What I mean is, aren't today's newer buildings built to withstand substantial earthquakes? Would these standards help buffer against a crash by a 757? Did the WTC towers have these standards? (Wasn't it one of the designers or engineers who last week said in Germany that it was built to withstand a 707 crashing into it?)

The purpose of the skyscraper, as I understand it, is to create more space by building upward instead of outward. Nowadays, it seems more like competition as to who has the tallest building, and what is and isn't considered part of the building. The WTC towers were #5 and 6 on the world's tallest list, but apparently were the most utilized in terms of office space. In looking at the bare bones of the situation, New York City has lost some significant office space. Sure, businesses are moving to New Jersey...but it's already the most densely populated state, and now businesses will add to the clutter.

I don't think we should abandon the skyscraper, as they serve a practical, and an aesthethic purpose. Furthermore, if we did not build large buildings, this could result in more smaller buildings, which IMO, would create even more urban sprawl. As to how tall they should be, the only thing that could reasonably be done is to gauge future demand for space and build accordingly. But how practical would this be?

As far as reducing evacuation time, could we create an elevator that would be safe to use in a fire? Or should we utilize elevators in a fire now? Perhaps emergency chutes that would bring people to safety fast, but not cause them to accelerate at alarming speeds. (I'm not trying to sound ridiculous, but I am ignorant to the reasoning as to why we are supposed to use stairwells now.)

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

The world does work when using dry rationale. It is emotion that causes instability. There is an emotional factor in building a new WTC - described as honor. As noted previously, "honor - which is a valid point but not sufficient to answer the question."

Honor must be dealt with as just another dry pragmatic reason and definitely not as the primary reason for action.

The WTC center survived more than a 707. Each tower survived a direct strike from a Jumbo Jet. But when a fire compromised structural integrity of one floor, then the entire building was lost. It is a compromise necessary to build them that high.

Trump wants to extend the Chicago Sears Tower to be the world's highest. IOW to expand those above floors, then so much steel is required in lower floors as to result in less office space. First the building is so tall that any one floor failure collapses the entire building? Second, to make them taller, the total square footage of the building is reduced? Yes. Emotion - being the tallest - is more important to some than other pragmatic factors. Making the Sears tower tallest clearly demonstrates the foolhardiness of using only emotion - honor or pride - to make decisions.

IOW maybe new buildings will appear at ground zero. But need they be so tall as to be so unstable? Is honor that important - or are there any other reasons? Honor alone is a foolhardy reason to rebuild the towers.

As for using elevators to evacuate - when the second plane crashed into the South Tower, many people were found burned in the lobby. The fireball simply exploded down elevator shafts into the lobby. One man, Ken, was in the revolving door trying to get away from crashing debris outside. Instead, he ran directly into a fireball from elevator shafts. How many others were cooked inside those shafts? The only way to get out of a building is fire stairs with fire rated doors and special ventilation. Elevators are death traps in any fire if the integrity of the entire elevator shaft cannot be established. Also insufficient elevators could be provided in any such building.


A 30 something floor skyscraper burning in Philly about 10 years ago adjacent to city hall. The 22nd floor fire started in linseed oil rags collected after painters cleaned up on Saturday evening. After ignoring multiple fire alarms, and not calling 911, a guard decided find out what was happened using an elevator. Once on the 22nd floor, he ran right into a fire - trapped. The elevator would not move. Fortunately, he had taken a transceiver. His partner was at a control desk with another radio turned on. His partner overrode elevator controls. But the building burned right to the top where it finally ran into sprinklers.

Listening to fire radios, the Fire Marshall was constantly checking building integrity because the fire was so hot and uncontrolled. This building's extremely hot fire did not destroy any floor's integrity. The building was small enough that if integity was compromised, then firemen had time to get out. But since long term strength could never be determined, instead the building had to be removed - after 8 years. Since not so excessively tall, then the entire Philly fire department fought the fire (finally abandoned the building - they let it burn) without a building collapse. Even with a fire that hot, a building collapse was not immediate and would have provided sufficient time for all firemen to get out.

Yes, the WTC suffered a hotter fire. So why did both towers last so damn long? WTC was so overbuilt. It was so overbuilt and still look what happened. It was so overbuilt that a 1993 bomb should have destroyed both towers, but did not. It was so overbuilt and still lost of intregity in only one floor that took out the other 100+ floors.

Elevators are dangerous in case of fire. Also building could never provide enough elevators to empty the building.

Do we really need so many eggs in one unstable basket just in the name of an emotion called honor? IOW how many people really understand this integrity problem? Therefore how many people can really answer this question - "Should the WTC be rebuilt?"

*sighs*
I like skyscrapers. My ultimate city - big skyscrapers here and there, undergournd/above transport and parks all the way on ground.

Did it only lsoe one floor? I mean by the look of thsoe holes i would have assumed 3-4 floors would have gone, i'm no doubt missing something but...

Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

I can appreciate what you are saying. Building a skyscraper, from a bare bones perspective, doesn't require emotion. But how many of these skyscrapers have been built w/o some sort of fanfare? The WTC towers were built as a revitilization project for Manhattan. Weren't Liberty One and Two here in Philadelphia built as a revitilization project for Center City? The skyscraper in and of itself is a marvel that can stir emotion.

Quote:

The WTC center survived more than a 707. Each tower survived a direct strike from a Jumbo Jet. But when a fire compromised structural integrity of one floor, then the entire building was lost. It is a compromise necessary to build them that high.

If I understand correctly, the main reason of the collapse was b/c the temperature of the steel hit 800 degrees, which is the melting point, correct? Is it possible to make a building element that can withstand higher temperatures? And not to sound stupid, but I'm assuming that the sprinkler systems were either futile, or damaged in the attack, correct?

Quote:

Trump wants to extend the Chicago Sears Tower to be the world's highest.

They still insist they're the world's tallest building, although it involves some controversy over what is considered part of a building and what is not. With their spires, the Petronas Towers put the Sears Tower down to #3. Not to mention, I remember at one point hearing rumors about the Sears Tower being half-empty.

Quote:

IOW maybe new buildings will appear at ground zero. But need they be so tall as to be so unstable? Is honor that important - or are there any other reasons? Honor alone is a foolhardy reason to rebuild the towers.

That is true. However, you don't really think that the rebuilders will work without emotion, do you?

Thank you for the enlightenment on the elevators.

Once again, we have left-wing militant extremists holding forth, at great and tedious length, on subjects about which they know nothing. In this case: engineering.

Hubris Boy KNOWS that a body at rest tends to remain at rest, and a body in motion tends to remain in motion. Anybody else who was awake in high school physics class KNOWS this too; apparently, tw is not a member of this elite group.

Hubris Boy also paid close attention in his Strength of Materials I & II classes when he was a freshman engineering student. Consequently, Hubris Boy KNOWS that steel, when heated to around 800° C or so, starts to melt.

These two facts are important, because they are the reasons behind the collapse of the WTC towers. I will explain in terms so simple that even tw will be able to understand:

When the militant extremists crashed their aircraft into the building, the worst thing they did was not the impact of the aircraft itself; rather, it was the introduction of about 24,000 gallons of burning jet fuel into the structure. As the jet fuel burned, it heated to structural steel members nearby to the point that they began to melt. When they began to melt, they became unable to support the cumulative weight of the floors above them.

Unfortunately, the floors above them weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 tons. At this point, the floors above the fire began to move. Downward. As explained above, they continued to move downward until they came to rest on the ground, there being no intervening structural members of sufficient strength to arrest the movement. The whole event could be described with 3 or 4 simple and elegant formulas, but I won't bother because I don't want to confuse readers like tw.

FIRE is what destroyed the WTC. Not the impact of the aircraft. Not the height or weight of the building. Fire. There's not a building in the world that could have survived the sort of punishment that was inflicted on the WTC. Fire is a factor that Kobe didn't have to contend with. Comparing the performance of the WTC to the performance of the buildings in Kobe, Japan is sort of like comparing the performance of a lawnmower to the performance of a volleyball. It's really not a very meaningful comparison. Any engineer will tell you the same thing. TW is not an engineer.* TW is not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. TW's "writing" on the subject is irrelevant gibberish, and educated Cellar consumers will notice this and proceed accordingly. (*At least, I certainly HOPE tw isn't an engineer. If tw IS an engineer, his license should be revoked.)

Hubris Boy is well aware of the fact that many large companies, headquartered in NY, threaten to do this all the time. They usually do it when militant extremists on the New York city council threaten to raise taxes in order to support their militant extremist agenda. The companies never really leave, though. Manhattan is too much fun.

There's nothing erroneous about my comment. Only one of the WTC towers was insured.

According to our 16 year old engineer, a falling WTC floor should have kept falling until it got to China. Hubris Boy cites bodies floating in free space whereas floors on the WTC were subject to boundary value conditions.

In many earthquakes where a floor has pancaked, the rest of a building remains intact. In Philadelphia, structural members were subject to equivalent temperatures without any collapse. Structural failure of one floor, either from heat or from vibration, should not result in the complete and immediate destruction of a building.

Furthermore, a building should be designed so that occupants have sufficient warning to escape. IOW a building so tall as to require over 1/2 hour to evacutate is simply not an intelligent design. Design - something that a radical and emotional high school student would not yet understand.

Right wing radical extremist: anyone who does not agree must be a left wing militant. Fortunately some high school kids do eventually grow up. Otherwise we would have more terrorists.

Ohhh *puts hand up* I just did this last semester - the line i'm sure you both knew you missed is a body will remain in motion(or not in motion) till another forces acts on it. One of newtons laws, I forget which..

So Hubris is correct - just missed that line, no doubt because he thought it was obvious =P.

And can we all please stop throwing round right/left wing radical/militant extremists?

Now correct me if i'm wrong and this will sound vauge but skyscrapers you a kind of steel curtain effect to stay up, meaning if this is compramised in this way the entire weight of the above floors will be on the floor below - ie: what hubris says..?

Never did like engineering.

One thing that did get me....Consumers? This ain't a product.....

Or until it hit something able to support that kind of weight. Such as the Earth, specifically the land known as Manhattan Island. Or the rubble of the floors below it.

Which boundaries they hit.

ONE floor didn't pancake. Several stories did. You do understand that if the structure in the MIDDLE fails, the floor just below that is subject to the impact of not just the single floor above it, but to the impact of the entire building above that point, right?

Further, the structure in Philadelphia (1 Meridian Place) was NOT subject to equivalent temperatures.

Both you and I know that. However I posted in response to temperatures cited by our 16 year old engineer. 1 Meridan Place was also subject to temperatures that he posted - and remained intact. I was going to let him demonstrate again his lack of engineering knowledge.

However the point remains - a structure that requires more than one half hour to evacuate must be able to stand far longer than either WTC tower did. Russotto is correct. Real temperatures inside that or any other building would have eventually resulted in a floor collapse. The problem is that no one floor on the WTC could withstand the collapse of the floor above - in order to build excessively high. That is not true of smaller skyscrapers. A single floor collapse does not result in wholesale building destruction. An so I ask again whether it makes sense to build them too high.

Furthermore smaller skyscrapers confronted by the same temperatures would have given occupants sufficient time to escape.

BTW, my estimate puts the missing in my hometown at about 7% of the households. Yes, some of those pictures of people searching for love ones - I went to school with them.

One Meridian Plaza
 

Several things about that building:

1. It got hot, but not as hot at 24,000+ gallons of jet fuel igniting. That's hot enough to melt structural steel.

2. One Meridian Plaza got hot enough to melt some steel, but it didn't have the "igniter" of all that Jet Fuel. Plenty of gasoline, however.

3. The main reason the building collapsed was all that jet fuel melting and making very soft a large amount of structural steel, causing our friend from physics, g, to take over at 9.8 meters per second downward. Using a few basic physics equations, we can determine that no structure man has built would be able to withstand 100,000 tons of steel and concrete moving downward that fast, even if the period of acceleration was only a few meters. ANY building would go bye-bye really fast.

4. The real reasons One Meridian Plaza took so long to demolish was environmental violations. That fire, combined with the large amounts of toxic chemicals in the building, caused it to be so unsafe that they had to send in specialized cleanup teams to isolate and scrub down the building's interior while wearing moonsuits. It was a Superfund cleanup, due to the toxicity.

They were actually considering reopening floors 1-12. They were structurally okay. However, due to the stigma, they decided to rip the entire building down. I remember this much from reading over what happened. They actually did have an okay from one of the oversight agencies to reopen floors 1-12.

Also, the entire tunnel system underneath would have made a complete demolition horrific, due to potential damage to the Septa tunnels and other basements.

I work 2 blocks away from it. If it was so damaged, why is there an underground parking lot still in use from One Meridian Plaza?

5. Using basic physics again, we can see one other thing from this horrible disaster. The entire foundation that many buildings besides the World Trade complex were built on, due to the force of several million tons hitting it at a very high rate of speed, are probably cracked beyond repair.

6. Using more knowledge, the infrastructure of NYC, especially that part, extends over 100 feet underground, and encompasses, electrical lines, gas lines, subway lines, as well as fiber-optic lines. Many parts of that infrastructure around World Trade for a certain radius are damaged, since the shock wave registered outward for a significant amount. These just were not built to take that level of shock. There will be foundation cracks up to several blocks away, since this was not an expected event, not to mention the need to possibly demolish a large amount of buildings, namely World Financial Center possibly, after a civil engineering firm comes in and does foundation studies.

What's even crazier is that many of these buildings were built on reclaimed land, especially WFC, from the construction of World Trade.

In other words, it's not clean, and a total mess to clean up.

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

I've been meaning to address this one for a while. Government leaders are not the only people that used this airport.

National Airport (I'm not calling it Reagan...f**k that) provided convenience not only to government leaders, but also provided another choice for Washingtonians. It's a stop on the blue and yellow Metro lines. Furthermore, service there would have multiplied, as the 1000-mile flight limit had recently been rescinded. Not to mention, Bolling AFB is directly across the Potomac from the airport.

Dulles is in East Bumf**k, accessible only by car. The Washington Flyer is a nice service, but can get costly. You have to pay tolls just to drive the road out there.

BWI is more accessible, as MARC and Amtrak take you right there (via the free shuttle from BWI Airport station). I-195 ends right at the airport, and it's free (unless you're coming from the east side of the Harbor, then you pay a mere buck for the Tunnels or the Key Bridge). And for people on the east side of the Potomac, it's closer than Dulles. But it's still 30 miles from Washington.

At the speeds that airplanes can travel, distances don't seem very relevant. Perhaps I do not understand the seriousness in keeping National closed, but given that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon came from Dulles (15-20 miles away), I don't see the harm in reopening National.

Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

A plane landing at National need only make a left turn and crash into any Washington building in 5 seconds. No response could ever defend Washington or even evacutate VIPs. Any plane 5 seconds from any Washington DC building is totally unacceptable.

A plane from Dulles would provide a full 10 minutes of warning since the plane would not climb, would immediately violate its flight plan, and would turn immediately into restricted airspace. 10 minute is sufficient for an appropriate response. Look at FAA maps. Currently the restricted airspace over Washington is a joke - which is why so many aircraft have already crashed on White House grounds without any warning. Long overdue is to make Washington DC restricted airspace - and to elimate all that airline noise that does not belong over Washington. Last time I was there, we had to repeat a conversation that was drowned out by a National bound airplane.

Every major security service has been complaining about Washinton security for decades - even before the first aircraft tried to crash into the White House. Why are noisy airplanes only a few thousand feet from the Lincoln Memorial? Why do airplanes continue to operate out of an airport that is also considered dangerous? Congress.

Why does the Metro not stop in Dulles? Plans for it were repeatedly killed since National exists. Kill National, and the Metro will suddenly appear in Dulles where it should have been anyway. Dulles access is only more difficult because National exists - for reasons of Congressional convenience - Washington DC safety be damned. There is no other powerful body interested enough in National to keep it open.

30 miles is standard traveling distance to any airport - and woefully insufficient reason to justify an airport so dangerously close to this city.

Planes 10 miles out and headed for Washington - no problem. Planes a few thousand feet out and apparently pretending to land in National - extremely dangerous.

Re: Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

But the West Wing was not evacuated until after American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. That flight took off from Dulles. And is the area around the Pentagon not restricted airspace? (Not being sarcastic...I am unfamiliar with just what is and is not restricted airspace in DC.) I understand what you're saying in that a plane making a routine landing at National could blow past the runway and hit the city. But we've already seen what a plane can do from Dulles.

Quote:

Why does the Metro not stop in Dulles? Plans for it were repeatedly killed since National exists. Kill National, and the Metro will suddenly appear in Dulles where it should have been anyway. Dulles access is only more difficult because National exists - for reasons of Congressional convenience - Washington DC safety be damned.

Actually, there was talk of making an offshoot of the Metro to reach Dulles...this was as of mid-2000.

Quote:

30 miles is standard traveling distance to any airport - and woefully insufficient reason to justify an airport so dangerously close to this city.

Are you referring strictly to Washington on this?
As I said, I now better understand why National is an accident waiting to happen. My only concern with that rationale though is this: Washington is the capital of the nation, but New York runs the economy. LaGuardia is not that terribly far from Manhattan...should we move it further away? (Although LaGuardia has already had its own troubles). And as I've already mentioned, Bolling AFB sits right across the water from National. Not to mention, the plane that crashed into the 14th Street Bridge back in the early 80s. The 14th Street Bridge sits practically next to the Treasury Dept., and is a hop away from the Capitol.

Realistically, there is no way to guarantee that what happened 3 weeks ago will not happen again. National could be shut down forever as a preventative measure, but truth be told, I believe that DC needs a third airport. 20 million passengers went through Dulles last year, 18 million through BWI, 16 million into National. 7 million people live in the Baltimore-Washington area. Though I've not flown from Dulles, I've flown into BWI...and I felt like I was at O'Hare (although 72 million passengers went through O'Hare last year). So, where do you put a third airport in DC?

Perfect Airport Place
 

Hello,

I am thinking one of two places:

1. Somewhere out near Dulles. Literally, maybe 30-40 miles south. The area is growing at a massive amount still, and that's the boom area. 30 miles south of Dulles off of I-95 or the Beltway would be perfect.

2. Western Maryland, right on the MARC line. There's already a train line It's not too far from the beltway either. And, it's close to that other boom area in Western MD, and can serve as a regional hub for Harrisburg, Gettysburg, parts of WV, and the DC area. Believe it or not, that area is very good for business, and Citibank is relocating large amounts of operations to Hagerstown, MD. I know of several large construction firms out there, as well.

Reagan is too close to support re-opening. You just can't have jets that close to critical national security. It doesn't work. Look at other countries. Their airports are nowhere NEAR critical government functions, especially Tokyo, Seoul, and London.

Reagan is just TOO close. They'll build that Metro line now, and they'll get the tax dollars they need to do it.

LaGuardia
 

One other thing,

I've noticed that the main terminal for all international flights coming to and from NYC is Newark Airport.

Newark is in that zone with the port of Elizabeth that handles a large chunk of international commerce.

What does LaGuardia handle? It seems like JFK handles a lot of the domestic traffic, and Newark the international.

What does LaGuardia do? It seems to handle a lot of shorter-distance flights.

Mitch

Re: Re: Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

According to my Washington maps, there are only two areas restricted in Washinton DC. A circle in the NW corner (is that the Naval Observatory?) and a patch from Union train station across to the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials (that covers the White House, Capitol, and Foggy Bottom). The Potomac is not restricted and one commerical flight path passes directly over the Pentagon. Nothing outside of Washington DC limits is restricted. About half of Washington is not restricted.

In reality, there is really very little in NYC that is not redundant elsewhere. Even much of Washington is not a good target. However the Capitol and White House are too small, too easily located, and too important - ideal targets.

Part of the reason why Washington was so slow to respond to airliner attacks - no one (of significance) even believed or wanted to believe Clancy's scenario of a 747 crashing into the Capitol. Even just months eariler, a wild passenger tried to bash his way into the cockpit. He was only stopped when a large number of passengers joined the melee to attack the wild passenger. I believe it took six passengers plus flight crew to defend the cockpit. Even then, the 'Powers that Be' refused to address airline flight crews continued demands for better security - after how many Congressional hearings? IOW we needed this WTC attack to break complacency at the highest levels of government. Even now, those same complacent ones are still considering opening National for limited flights.

BTW keep in mind what Mary Scifone(?), the FAA's own Inspector General said about FAA mentalities after the TWA800 explosion. Her words (and also those of the NTSB) accused FAA of a graveyard mentality. Look what it takes to face reality after how many flight crews were attacked by unrully (unarmed, non-terrorist) passengers. Clancy's book alone should have been enough warning. The FAA and Congress did nothing. Even one Newark gate attendent is paralyzed and his attacker was declared innocent. How many graves were necessary to finally address even restricted airspace or even felony sentences for unrully passengers?


Look at how many flights Newark alone handles with two (too close) runways. Dullles could easily accomadate the increased traffic. BWI is vastly under utilitized. I sat on a bike trail in Linthicum watching. BWI is almost an unused airport by comparision. It needs more gates. It has plenty of room for expansion.

What would be the compromise on National? Congressman would be allowed private flights from National. Screw that. They should have to drive out to Dulles like everyone else. Just guess what state will suddenly get new funding for bigger highways westbound.


If you did not notice, many US cities received Aegis frigates or destroyers, or had Patriot batteries setup. You should start hearing about aircraft missile defense systems setup in the Washington DC area in the near future (I wonder where) - with Patriot sized missiles capable of taking a wing off or splitting the cabine of a 747. NYC may get one battery in NJ's Atlantic Highlands. The point is that a city like Washington requires a 5 minute warning for defensive decisions and responses. Currently the Air Force is notified within two minutes of any flight anomolies. Future responses should means no airliners over Washington and a new defense system (old technology) to provide a 'last point of defense' system.

BTW, current air defense over the White House cannot take out any airliner. They only installed defenses for aircraft that had already crashed on White House grounds - nothing for anything of larger size - again complacency.

In the meantime, restricted airspace should include all of and outside of Washington including VA, the CIA, Pentagon, and halfway to Dulles. Restricted airspace means only high security aircraft such as military and even then only with specific security restricitions. There was really no reason for airliners to be over any part of Washington. Presently most of Washington and nothing in adjacent MD or VA is restricted airspace.

As for NYC, my maps show no restricted airspace other than those conditions associated with Airport Control perimeters and minimum altitudes. Ironically, there are more restrictions on airspace well out into the Atlantic where Military Operations Areas are closed during military training. Maybe some NYC airspace restrictions will also be applied.

The second airliner that hit the WTC flew down from NY State, over western North Jersey, to McGuire AFB before turning to hit the WTC. He turned directly over F-16s that were never scrambled to defend NYC. Instead, fighters from Cape Cod were trying to defend the WTC. Indeed the Strategic Air Command (or equivalent) will take on a new mission and will reassess their anemic response so that 5 minutes should be sufficient response time.

Basically, the only reason that the military had any response at all was fighters waiting for a bomber attack incoming from the Atlantic. In hindsight, I don't think those Cape Cod fighters had authority to shoot down the second airliner even if they had arrived two minutes earlier. Again, there was no planning for domestic air terrorism. I don't believe anyone in the Air Force had enough balls to order missiles into that second 767 with only 30 seconds to make the decision. They did not have authority to make such as decision. But then we will never know since I am sure no one wants to talk.

Re: LaGuardia
 

Newark is mostly domestic traffic with some international. Newark International traffic is probably equivalent to Philadelphia's. Major carrier is Continential.

LaGuardia is fully domestic. Major carrier includes US Air. JFK is everything. It is an essential international gateway to the US like Heathrow is to London and DeGaulle is to Paris. JFK is one of two airports permitted to accept the Concorde.

BTW, who was LaGaurdia? He was as legendary a mayor as Koch was in the 70s and Giuliani is today. I believe I have just names NYC's three greatest mayors in history - with LaGuardia probably being the best.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

Sounds like it. Is it relatively close to the Potomac, N of Reagan National?

Quote:

Nothing outside of Washington DC limits is restricted. About half of Washington is not restricted.

Not even Andrews AFB (in N. Prince George's County, MD)?

Quote:

In reality, there is really very little in NYC that is not redundant elsewhere.

Granted, you have a point. But why were the WTC towers attacked? Because of the SYMBOLIC value (or at least we suspect). Sure, they had practical value in terms of office space, but they represented America's financial power.

Quote:

Look at how many flights Newark alone handles with two (too close) runways. Dullles could easily accomadate the increased traffic. BWI is vastly under utilitized.

EWR actually handles more passengers than JFK or LaGuardia (by 3 million and 9 million, respectively). But the New York metro area is over twice the size of Baltimore-Washington. Granted, both BWI and Dulles could be expanded, but depending on if people warm back up to travel, it may be unnecessary.

Quote:

What would be the compromise on National? Congressman would be allowed private flights from National. Screw that. They should have to drive out to Dulles like everyone else. Just guess what state will suddenly get new funding for bigger highways westbound.

Well, Congressmen already have their own gas masks...

Arlington will go down swinging if they try to expand I-66...they were fighting over it when we moved up here.

Part of me thinks it's fair for the Congressmen to have their own private flights...of course, if they are using private planes. If they're running US Airways first class, then sure, ship 'em off to BWI or Dulles.

I was thinking about your comments regarding the Metro stopping at National, but not Dulles. Granted, a LOT of people use Metro. But I don't recall seeing, and can't imagine, government leaders using the Blue or Yellow line to hike it over to National. Would you say then, tw, that the Metro station at National is a "prop" to give National some credibility to the general public?

New Yorkers
 

I just have to bite for this one ... you state that New Yorkers want revenge, we're pissed off, and we're going to be hard to stop. What an observation. We watched those towers crumble with our own eyes, yet we're not the ones shooting Indian storeowners and beating Afghanis in the streets; we're not the ones screaming for a bloody war.

You are making one hell of an assumption when you say so, and it's quite offensive. Come to New York and hear emotional grief,
anti-war rhetoric and actual intellectual discussion (possible in person too, not just online, apparently!). You'll have to look to the drunken hicks in Texas and Arizona for the traits you describe.

Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

The question of keeping National closed is mute. Politicians got even more and put a neat little twist on the facts. First, all Congressional flights will have multiple Air Marshalls. IOW that protection comes at the expense of protected flights from other airports and the general public. Those Congressman think their flights should have better protection? Of course. But they phrased it so that it sounds as if an infinite supply of Air Marshalls exist. Basically they want their cake and screw us too.

Prohibited air: yes ,that circle is due north of the Pentagon, on the Washington DC side of the Potomac. Is that where the Naval Observatory (and Cheney's house) is?

Outside of Washington are numerous restrictions. For example, over Fort AP Hill in VA, a large area west of what I think is Quantico, the area around and south of Patuxent River Naval Air, large area around what I believe is Aberdeen Test Ground, and a region in MD that I believe is Camp David - east of Hagarstown MD - an area that may be larger than Washington DC. But again, almost trivial prohibitions inside Washington DC and none outside of DC. Do you like this FAA graveyard mentality? Or is this just another example of Congressional mettling? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. The only remaining question is who is the top management and will WE hold them accountable?

We know that National is only reopening because of a self serving Congress. They simply say we will add security on all flights. For who? The public, or for a self serving Congress? No Air Marshall is going to stop a suicidal pilot - Clancy's book again. No ground based defense system can protect anything in Washington if National remains in operation. Aircraft of that size have no business so close to Washington DC. But maybe that is too much logic for a Congress so interested in their own convenience and personal safety?

Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

Yep...on Massachusetts Ave. NW, along Embassy Row.

This talk reminds me of an incident that occurred last summer while I was living in DC. The Blue Angels were practicing (or something like that) nearby, and apparently, they broke formation and flew through restricted airspace in the city. I never heard what happened in the end; I believe it was some sort of miscommunication. *shrugs*

I'd be lying if I said I didn't hear much traffic over the skies during my time there. I can only recall seeing one aircraft--the President's chopper flying over to the White House, presumably from Andrews. Saw it while walking down Constitution Ave. one day. To be honest, I (incorrectly) assumed that aircraft could not fly over the city for security reasons. Of course, I lived just outside of NE DC, a short drive away from Andrews.

Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

To protect DC from aircraft which go over 500mph, you'd have to shut down National, Dulles, _and_ BWI, as well as most of the airspace around the entire area. Otherwise, your future terrorist just picks a flight that will go close by. Closing National would be a futile gesture.

I can drive from Dulles to BWI in less 60 minutes, barring traffic. Airliners can go 10 times faster and can take a straight line path. You do the math.

Re: Re: Re: Perspective: long term questions
 

At 3am in the morning. ;)