Not a B-17
Posted on 06/02/2005 8:41:23 AM PDT by Brian Allen
I will always think of those Towers as having been monstrosities on the Skyline of NY. I don't want to see them rebuilt in anywhere near that form. There has to be a much more artistic design available.
Not a B-17
You're right, my bad. Also, it was July 1945, not 1946.
'Um, the trade centers belong to the "Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" did they not?'
Not exactly. The Trade Center was leased to a private developer before it was destroyed. The developer recently won the first round in a court battle to force his insurance carriers to pay twice the amount they had intended to pay him. (two plane hits=two events) I don't know whether he still holds the lease on the property.
Yes, I am an American and I'm only being practical. Take out your emotions because my opinion has nothing to do with politics. A corporation should be looking out for their own employees and assets, in addition to the possibility of becoming uninsurable. Say the building is put back and falls (for whatever reason), not only would they risk the solvency of the company, they would be liable for damage to adjacent buildings for introducing a known risk. An attack on a duplicate tower would be inevitable in my opinion when you consider a building like that should last a few hundred years. But then again, even without the threat of terrorism, a building like that is a bad idea (in my opinion). It was fire that brought down the building. It is also possible that New York could take a direct hit from a hurricane. I don't see the need for a building that is impractical (in my opinion) and I don't see a need to put the same thing back just to make a statement. It definately need to be remembered though. And I don't think a big building is memorable. I think a memorial tower built specifically to remember the event would make people 100 years from now say "oh yeah, that marks ground zero for 911." I don't think a big building would have the lasting long-term effect that a memorial tower would have.
[The B-25 (Gross Weight 27,051)] http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/b25.htm plowed into the office of War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference on the 78th and 79th floors, 913 feet (278 meters) off the street, tearing a gaping hole in the Empire State Building's north side.
The aircraft's wings sheared off. Its fuselage hammered into an I-beam between elevator shafts, bending it 18 inches (46 centimeters) inward. The building shuddered. The bomber's fuel tanks exploded, sending brilliant orange flames leaping as high as the observatory and flaming fuel blowing through the offices and cascading down the stairwells.
One of the aircraft's engines torpedoed out the south wall of the building, falling to the roof of a 12-story building on 32nd Street, where it started a fire that demolished the penthouse of noted sculptor Henry Hering, destroying much of his life's work.
***
After 15 years of adversity, John Raskob [one of the building's original backers] was now hardened to it. He declared the building sound, and reopened it for business on Monday morning, two days after the accident
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1128/culture_3-2.html
B-17 Gross weight is 65,000 lbs. http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
Interesting debate whether the Empire State would have weathered a collision with a B-17. Probably would have.
757 is 255,000 pounds...
Underneath the UN they should put an assortment of Mosques and Islamic centers where UN personnel can go to worship the pagan moon god Allah.
Just an awful idea. The odd fixation with rebuilding an ambitious building at the WTC site baffles me.
Great idea. All I could afford would be about a thousand, but that would probably be my single greatest purchase ever.
What does art have to do with architecture? That building was a great example of function over form. As a symbol of Capitalism, it needs no garnishments.
I don't know whether he still holds the lease on the property.He does.
If the Empire State Building was hit in the same way, a large portion of the building would have instantly collapsed. It may not have all come down, but the damage would have been catastrophic. The WTC was vulnerable to a complete collapse, but it's design actually absorbed the initial impact. There is no rendundancy to transfer load in the ESB steel cage design if columns are blown out or severed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.