World Trade Centre opens for business

bear1

After 13 years New Yorkers have finally gotten their skyline back to some sort of normality.
I must say it is a striking looking building:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/world-trade-center-reopens-business-26646782

The cost? 3.9 billion dollars..... :eek:
I'd love to know though how much the insurance company asked to insure it though.
That being said, I can't help but feel that it is sort of like a dare to terrorists. Like waving a red flag in front of a pissed off bull. Fingers crossed that isn't the case but I couldn't work in that building at all.
It probably would have made a much stronger statement if they had built the exact same towers.

branie2

It's great to have it again though

Mr_Red

I wonder if it will be haunted

Don't Chute!

Mr_Red wrote: »

I wonder if it will be haunted

It won't.

bear1

Mr_Red wrote: »

I wonder if it will be haunted

It won't be haunted but I think the employees will be watching the views a lot more carefully now.

seamus

bear1 wrote: »

It probably would have made a much stronger statement if they had built the exact same towers.

Yeah, but why would you do that. Technology has moved on and no doubt there was a list of errors as high the towers themselves, so why not start afresh with a modern building?

In reality apart from their height, they weren't exactly nice-looking buildings, just two sticks poking up into the air.

bear1

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, but why would you do that. Technology has moved on and no doubt there was a list of errors as high the towers themselves, so why not start afresh with a modern building?

In reality apart from their height, they weren't exactly nice-looking buildings, just two sticks poking up into the air.

I agree, they were nothing nice to look at. They were even hated at the beginning but their design then became iconic and pretty much loved.
I think it would make a stronger statement in the sense that it would be like saying to the terrorists "you knocked them down so here they are the exact same again" and use the same reinforced whatever they used on this building.
I always liked the look of the old WTC in fairness, majestic looking.

minotour

I look forward to paying 12 bucks for a coke in the observation deck again.......

bear1

minotour wrote: »

I look forward to paying 12 bucks for a coke in the observation deck again.......

Don't buy it then.

KomradeBishop

Noticed this last night - surprisingly hard to Google good pictures, which show the full building top to bottom, but it's nice.

Saw this guys Halloween costume from a skyscraper forum I found while searching - brilliant
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=118697473&postcount=56443
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=118729012&postcount=56453

The name though, 'Freedom Tower', is a bit cringeworthy - hope it doesn't get permanently dubbed that.

Karl Stein

Video shot 4 days before the 9/11 attacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHgY_J63Ik

Egginacup

Shame they didn't rebuild the innocent countries and millions of lives they destroyed in their quest for revenge.

Shiraz 4.99

The main entrance is awful for a building of this prestige.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/13-years-after-twin-towers-attacks-world-trade-centre-set-to-reopen-for-business-30713181.html

Robbo

Of course Jim Corr knows how it was *really* constructed.

the_monkey

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, but why would you do that. Technology has moved on and no doubt there was a list of errors as high the towers themselves, so why not start afresh with a modern building?

In reality apart from their height, they weren't exactly nice-looking buildings, just two sticks poking up into the air.

Nah, they could have rebuilt them in the same shape with modern methods eliminating whatever errors.
Also they were iconic - fantastic symbol of NYC and America.

They should have built them to the same shapes - maybe a bit taller to hit the 1776 feet mark.

This new building looks ****e ..

bear1

the_monkey wrote: »

Nah, they could have rebuilt them in the same shape with modern methods eliminating whatever errors.
Also they were iconic - fantastic symbol of NYC and America.

They should have built them to the same shapes - maybe a bit taller to hit the 1776 feet mark.

This new building looks ****e ..

I read that the new tower is something like 1300 feet and then they put a 400 foot spire at the top.

valoren

I wonder would the rents for the highest floors (which would generally be higher) be a lot lower than the lower floors?

the_monkey

bear1 wrote: »

I read that the new tower is something like 1300 feet and then they put a 400 foot spire at the top.

It is , it reached 1776 feet to hit that landmark value (1776 declaration of US independence)

I just think the original design would have been a bigger f*ck you to the backward assholes that destroyed the 1st ones.

biko

They should check the towers for pre-installed explosives.

the_monkey

valoren wrote: »

I wonder would the rents for the highest floors (which would generally be higher) be a lot lower than the lower floors?

I doubt it, I remember just after 9/11/2001 people thought the days of the tall building were over - that fear quickly dissapated.

There is no real threat of this type of attack ever happening again - at least in US Airspace, not with tight airport security and Air Marshalls aboard the planes.

Karl Stein

the_monkey wrote: »

I just think the original design would have been a bigger f*ck you to the backward assholes that destroyed the 1st ones.

They're all dead.

Avada

valoren wrote: »

I wonder would the rents for the highest floors (which would generally be higher) be a lot lower than the lower floors?

Nope, read the link in the OP

seamus

the_monkey wrote: »

There is no real threat of this type of attack ever happening again - at least in US Airspace, not with tight airport security and Air Marshalls aboard the planes.

Richard Reid.

3 months after 11/9/2001, when security and alertness was at its highest, this guy boarded a plane in the US with explosives.

The procedures in the US airports are security theatre - people feel better about air travel without actually being any safer.

As time goes on, readiness decreases and the liklihood of something happening increases again.

Let's not forget MH370; all indications are that this was a suicidal pilot. Do you honestly think it would be impossible for a terrorist group to play the long game here and get actual pilots into cockpits again?

Or even the weapons used - on the day they all had stanley knives. Easily picked up by metal detectors, but what about plastic or ceramic blades? Just as dangerous as metal blades, but undetectable at airport security.

The only difference now is that there would be less faffing - no hesitation in shooting down a rogue passenger aircraft. But in the former scenario a pilot could divert as they make their approach to JFK and crash into the city before anyone can scramble any jets.

the_monkey

seamus wrote: »

Richard Reid.

3 months after 11/9/2001, when security and alertness was at its highest, this guy boarded a plane in the US with explosives.

The procedures in the US airports are security theatre - people feel better about air travel without actually being any safer.

As time goes on, readiness decreases and the liklihood of something happening increases again.

Let's not forget MH370; all indications are that this was a suicidal pilot. Do you honestly think it would be impossible for a terrorist group to play the long game here and get actual pilots into cockpits again?

Or even the weapons used - on the day they all had stanley knives. Easily picked up by metal detectors, but what about plastic or ceramic blades? Just as dangerous as metal blades, but undetectable at airport security.

The only difference now is that there would be less faffing - no hesitation in shooting down a rouge passenger aircraft. But in the former scenario a pilot could divert as they make their approach to JFK and crash into the city before anyone can scramble any jets.

There some good points there, still think an on board US Air marshall would
stop it

the_monkey

Karl Stein wrote: »

They're all dead.

Indeed but the "beliefs" that inspired them are still very much alive

Mr Freeze

the_monkey wrote: »

There some good points there, still think an on board US Air marshall would
stop it

How many US Air marshals are there though?

Like there isn't one on every plane.

Edit, a quick google comes back with somewhere between 1% and 5% of flights in the US might have an Air Marshal on board.

KomradeBishop

the_monkey wrote: »

Indeed but the "beliefs" that inspired them are still very much alive

What beliefs are they?

bear1

I'd say there are air marshalls operating within the US to stop this sort of threat.
I'd doubt they would be allowed to travel internationally with guns on board.

the_monkey

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What beliefs are they?

Do we really need to go there ?

with everything that's going on in the world now ..

cena

I look forward to going soon

Tokyo

the_monkey wrote: »

There some good points there, still think an on board US Air marshall would
stop it

It wouldn't be an issue either way - plane would most likely be shot down before it ever got near the city. Had it happened before 9/11, of course there would be a huge outcry, but there's precedent now, those on board would be hailed as heroes for making the ultimate sacrifice, and that would be the end of it.