Article

2003-12-19 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sorge 2003-12-19 12:47:33 PM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is great news, but I'm curious what advances have been made--if any--in fighting high-rise fires since 9/11? Every other month or so I bring out the "9/11" DVD (the fire dept. documentary by the two French bros.) and still shake my head in disbelief as company after company of firefighters march into the lobby of Tower 1 and start their arduous trek up 70-80 flights of stairs--and what were they expecting to do with their handtools once they got to the levels on fire?

I think safety glass and separate staircases are hardly improvements that will matter if a fire breaks out on the 80th floor. The firefighters will have no more choices than they had on 9/11.

Posted by Dar 2003-12-19 1:05:03 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:05:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Worlds tallest... that's the best F*CK YOU ever.

Posted by BH 2003-12-19 1:06:39 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:06:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 the problem with 9/11 was the massive amount of jet fuel, which completely overwhelmed the sprinklers/halon system and structurally weakened the steel frame. A normal highrise fire doesn't have the amount of combustible fuel, and can be fought... the only way to prevent the same occurrence is to stop the hijacking in the first place

Posted by Frank G 2003-12-19 1:20:06 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:20:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Make it the best, biggest, shining building. You go New York!

Posted by True German Ally 2003-12-19 1:39:22 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:39:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 We need four tall buildings in a row, with one of the middle two being forty percent taller than the others.
A two-thousand foot, "jihad this, buddy."

Posted by Richard Aubrey 2003-12-19 1:48:55 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:48:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Structurally, this building will be 70 stories high, shorter than the Empire State Building, or its predecessor twin towers, which were 110 stories high. (The amount of office space in the 9-building complex will be the same as before, with taller surrounding buildings making up for the shortfall).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-19 1:55:00 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:55:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 New York should get their architects to build bigger buildings all around. If every building in lower Manhatten was 1,776 feet tall none would stand out as a target.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-12-19 1:55:40 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:55:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 the only way to prevent the same occurrence is to stop the hijacking in the first place

Fat chance, that. Stomp out political correctness and then, maybe, it might be possible.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-19 1:56:55 PM|| 2003-12-19 1:56:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't think you'll ever see a hijacking quite like that again. For sucess the hijacking required that the passengers not have a conception that they might be used as a missile to hurt others.

The most likely case is that a cargo plane would be hijacked. Eventually we will need some kind of identification code specific to each pilot that is authorized to fly a cargo or passenger flight in American airspace. This will not be foolproof, but steady improvement should be the goal.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-12-19 2:05:30 PM|| 2003-12-19 2:05:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 As Jonah Goldberg wrote in his NRO post shortly after 9/11, they should put the memorial to the victims on the roof of the building . . . right next to the anti-aircraft guns.

Posted by Tibor 2003-12-19 2:14:39 PM|| 2003-12-19 2:14:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 1,776 feet -- that's gonna be a long way for Osama to fall.

Posted by Matt 2003-12-19 2:22:48 PM|| 2003-12-19 2:22:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 New York should get their architects to build bigger buildings all around. If every building in lower Manhatten was 1,776 feet tall none would stand out as a target.

Above a certain height, each story costs a lot more money to build. Combined with the danger of another terrorist strike, I doubt we'll see too many other buildings as tall (structurally, meaning occupied floors) as the twin towers being built in the US. Probably the biggest practical problem is getting insurance against such attacks at an affordable price.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-19 2:55:49 PM|| 2003-12-19 2:55:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Matt, especially with a Bungee rope... I mean, a few rehearsals can't hurt, right?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-12-19 3:01:26 PM|| 2003-12-19 3:01:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 While emotionally, a tall "fuck you" is very satisfying, you know, New York City has a surplus of office space, I believe a big surplus. So, who will finance a gigantic office tower and, after all the cheering dies down, will the other real estate interests in the City keep quiet about this huge dilution of their value?

Posted by Seymour Paine 2003-12-19 3:12:45 PM|| 2003-12-19 3:12:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Above a certain height

Zhang Fei what's the height and has it changed over the last say 30 years?

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-19 3:49:08 PM|| 2003-12-19 3:49:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 the problem with 9/11 was the massive amount of jet fuel, which completely overwhelmed the sprinklers/halon system and structurally weakened the steel frame

I saw some program that placed the fire problem on the office furniture. The argument was that the jet fuel burned out relatively quickly, but that the combustible office furniture, etc., is what got the temperature so high for so long. Any thoughts on that?

Posted by cingold 2003-12-19 3:50:42 PM|| 2003-12-19 3:50:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Another factor is that the asbestos insulation used in protecting the structural beams only went up to about the 65th floor. For thre up, the steel was basically bare.

Posted by Tibor 2003-12-19 4:32:22 PM|| 2003-12-19 4:32:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 cingold, I heard the fire was fueled by all the paper.

Aside from commercial considerations of cost, insurance, and dilution of real estate value, who will be willing to work in the top stories now?

I think they should bag building another WTC-sited skyscraper and just build the Memorial. Make the rest a park--NYC could use the green space.
As patriotic and defiant as this new design sounds, 30 stories of windmills looks dumb and chickenshit to me, as if we're building it higher than the WTC, but not really.
The Twin Towers are gone, but their "place" in the NY skyline will always be there as will as a piece of the souls of the people who died there.
Bring back the Beams of Light, too, and turn them on every night forever.
Remember the 9/11 dead and the WTC, but don't build this.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-19 7:30:39 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-19 7:30:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Seymour, the Port Authority certainly will need the space. They built the original WTC and occupied a huge chunk of it until retail demand caught up with the supply in south Manhatten.

Posted by Steve White 2003-12-19 7:44:36 PM|| 2003-12-19 7:44:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "Who will be willing to work in the top stories now?" I'd have no problem working there; though I'd have a parachute stuffed under the desk for peace of mind.

Posted by Les Nessman 2003-12-19 11:54:24 PM|| 2003-12-19 11:54:24 PM|| Front Page Top

06:04 Mark Hart
15:33 ed
12:56 Daniel King
23:58 PBMcL
23:54 Les Nessman
23:37 OldSpook
23:09 Gasse Katze
22:56 Gasse Katze
22:55 Super Hose
22:51 Super Hose
22:47 Alaska Paul
22:41 ed
22:40 Vic
22:39 Super Hose
22:30 JP
22:20 Super Hose
22:18 Super Hose
22:11 Super Hose
22:10 Matt
22:06 Glenn (not Reynolds)
21:56 True German Ally
21:55 Super Hose
21:52 Super Hose
21:47 Glenn (not Reynolds)