Talk:Construction of the World Trade Center

message: 1400th FA Buc 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA milestone

message: Not bad, but this needs a copy-edit and a peer review, I think. I found several sentences that read awkwardly and needed re-wording. So there's definitely an issue with the grammar and flow. Thoughts?— Wackymacs 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has had a peer review and is a Featured Article...see links to such actions in the tags at the top.--MONGO 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know it's a Featured Article. It doesn't mean it's "perfect" though - it also doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved. I can see plenty of places where a re-word and grammar work is needed. — Wackymacs 09:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - get to it Wackymacs!!!! 81.156.127.109 09:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wackymacs...the first edit you did was fine. I had a little problem wiht the second, but the last three added some inaccuracies to the article. There was also one passage that read less easily after your change than before.--MONGO 10:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's a matter of personal opinion - and maybe an interest conflict. You obviously seem very protective of this article as you're very proud of it. Reverting back again. Discuss more. — Wackymacs 11:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed one mistake but the rest is valid and I see no problems. Please copy & paste into here what you're having problems with if anything. Thanks — Wackymacs 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately you reverted to the wrong version, since my first edit to this article was valid: "founded" sounds much better than "set up" (I changed a few other words and removed redundant commas). To be fair, this is a featured article and so it should represent the best writing quality on Wikipedia. Sorry about the other edits, I did rush them. — Wackymacs 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Room for improvement?

message: The French guy who walkedon the wire between the two towers did it while the WTC was still being built, I seem to remember.  is this worth mentioning in the text? 81.156.127.109 09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reference for it, sure. — Wackymacs 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it has anything to do with the construction, unless it was in regards to the builders having the guy walk the tightrope for publicity purposes.--MONGO 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah i remember seeing a pic and the tiles at the top of the tower aren't on yet hence not being built completely. i think there is an article on wikipedia about it. 121.127.192.166 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philippe Petit is the article, and he did it in 1974 so it's not relevant to the article. - BanyanTree 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mention of this guy (whose name escaped me) was the first thing I looked for in the article.  He is definitely worth a "see also"; I'll add him as such. BrainyBabe 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   as you can see the tower isn't done yet 203.129.63.34 04:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wire-walking guy

message: because right now the title is kind of ambiguous because it could be calling the towers buildings. 121.127.192.166 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page to "construction of the world trade center"

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Building of the World Trade Center → World Trade Center (Construction) — logical to start article with name of center. Makes searching for all World Trade Center articles easier, eg the post 9/11 details are in "Word Trade Center Site" —bärlinerTalk 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a subarticle of the main article - World Trade Center.  It is linked there.  Not all subarticles start with "World Trade Center", such as Collapse of the World Trade Center, 7 World Trade Center, and the other buildings - 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, Marriott World Trade Center, and the new buildings Freedom Tower, 150 Greenwich Street, etc.  We also have a navigation box that we can use to link articles together - .  Also, a poll isn't necessary.  A discussion will suffice. --Aude (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article is about more than just the construction of...so the current title is more accurate...World Trade Center (Construction) is not acceptable.--MONGO 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support Should definitely be re-named, "building" is rather ambiguous really. — Wackymacs 15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support "Construction of the World Trade Center" - seems the obvious location - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
The date of the beginning of construction (1969) must be wrong. Perhaps it refers to the construction of the towers after the site had been prepared. In 1961 I worked in Lower Manhattan (2 Lafayette St) not far from the site and my lunch hours were made hell by the construction workers sitting on sidewalks all around and commenting on any woman who passed by. Either in the two years there or at UC Berkeley 1963-65 I was taught about PERT charts and the example used was the World Trade Center construction - every beam was tracked from its fabrication to its delivery at the site. No truck to that site could enter Manhattan until another had left. I cannot cite a source for this beyond my own memories but doubtless it exists.216.151.21.130 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In March 1965, the Port Authority began acquiring property and demolishing existing structures. Groundbreaking was on August 5, 1966, with site preparations taking place over many years.  Actual construction of the North Tower began in August 1968 and the South Tower in 1969.  Though, when the Port Authority acquired PATH, they acquired the Hudson Terminal building, which was demolished at some point.  Maybe that's what you remember.  The Singer Building, once located where One Liberty Plaza is today, was also demolished.  The Washington Market was also demolished at some point in the years before the WTC was constructed.  Around 1960, One Chase Manhattan Plaza was constructed.  These were all very major projects that could make lunch hour hell.  Could it be one of these projects that you remember? --Aude (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support Should definitely be re-named, "building" is rather ambiguous really. — Wackymacs 15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support "Construction of the World Trade Center" - seems the obvious location - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
The date of the beginning of construction (1969) must be wrong. Perhaps it refers to the construction of the towers after the site had been prepared. In 1961 I worked in Lower Manhattan (2 Lafayette St) not far from the site and my lunch hours were made hell by the construction workers sitting on sidewalks all around and commenting on any woman who passed by. Either in the two years there or at UC Berkeley 1963-65 I was taught about PERT charts and the example used was the World Trade Center construction - every beam was tracked from its fabrication to its delivery at the site. No truck to that site could enter Manhattan until another had left. I cannot cite a source for this beyond my own memories but doubtless it exists.216.151.21.130 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In March 1965, the Port Authority began acquiring property and demolishing existing structures. Groundbreaking was on August 5, 1966, with site preparations taking place over many years.  Actual construction of the North Tower began in August 1968 and the South Tower in 1969.  Though, when the Port Authority acquired PATH, they acquired the Hudson Terminal building, which was demolished at some point.  Maybe that's what you remember.  The Singer Building, once located where One Liberty Plaza is today, was also demolished.  The Washington Market was also demolished at some point in the years before the WTC was constructed.  Around 1960, One Chase Manhattan Plaza was constructed.  These were all very major projects that could make lunch hour hell.  Could it be one of these projects that you remember? --Aude (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Building of the World Trade Center → Construction of the World Trade Center — From a previous requested move, it seems as if this would be supported more. It sounds the least ambiguous. —Reginmund 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: The current name sounds vague. The new name is much better. Chris! my talk 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move-2

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: The current name sounds vague. The new name is much better. Chris! my talk 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :File:East-side-wtc.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:East-side-wtc.png

message: The reference 49 description of :A36 steel erroneously ascribes it characteristics of varying yield strength from 36 to 100,000 PSI.  This is incorrect - it has yield strength of at minimum 36 KSI (36,000 PSI) for plates and sections less than 1 inch thick and 32 KSI over 1 inch thick.  Can someone who has better access to primary sources determine what steels were used in the outer column structures, so we can correct this?  I could just fix this A36 comment, but there'd be an information gap left anyways.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Steel description flawed

message: I've added a section that we worked out over at the article on the collapse of the World Trade Center. It can probably be expanded but here's what we've got so far.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New section on anticipation of aircraft impact

message: In the lead and again in the body mention is made of the gravity load of the columns. Wording currently implies that the core shared a part of the load. The core actually supported 50% of the load while the perimeter columns supported 20%. It either needs rewording to make clear that the core carried most of the load or have the percentages included. Suggestions? Wayne (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing ooad distribution with demand-to-capacity. Both the fire and perimeter carried 50% each, and under gravity load alone (no wind), the core was loaded to 50% of capacity whereas the perimeter was loaded to 20% capacity. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity load

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested changes are okay with me.  Please go ahead with the changes. --Aude (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

message: Why is the World Trade Center still here? It's been demolished, and is gone forever, so thus it needs to be removed from Wikipedia, as it no longer exists. Please remove this article. Thank you.--75.0.33.123 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY? 

message: Hi, can you add in the header a link to the main article (World_Trade_Center)? 
Somehow I landed to Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center, but from this article there is no easy direct link to the more general article about WTC...
116.6.52.162 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to WTC main page 

message: I have been working and nearing completion on a book about the former twin towers construction in the 1960's. In my research I was baffled by the fact that currently to date the Port Authority of NY & NY which build these great buildings has very little in the way of documents or articles even photographs pertaining to its construction. I was informed that The Port Authority of NY & NJ closed its library located in the North Tower of the former twin towers in 1995 and later subsequently lost what remained after the attacks of September 11th. 2001. Apparently their archives was also located within the Library. A few documents have surfaced over the years but not much in the way with loads of information. To date the Port Authority of NY & NJ only has approximately thirty photographs in different stages of construction. I have over three hundred unpublished photographic slides that will be part of my book showing excavation at the site to the slurry wall construction and then steel up to completion of the twin towers. Sadly I have made the decision to cut my book short for lack of information and years of fruitless research. Speaking on a more positive note, they say a picture is worth a thousand words and I can't wait to publish and show the world my now very rare and scares photographs of these beautiful buildings no longer existing while during their birth.
NIST also seems to have lost test results. The architect of the whole project was asked once about the possibility of a plane impact - "like a mosquito hitting a screen door". If he still is around, or his records , he might be able to back up his claim. Maybe NIST could redo its tests from data it had, and probably also lost.
2601:181:8301:4510:B99A:E75A:D1C4:7867 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lose Of Construction Documents And Records Pertaining to the Construction of The WTC by the Port Authority of NY & NJ on September 11th. 2001.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Construction of the World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043409/http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLJ9?OpenDocument to http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLJ9?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Construction of the World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401224243/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502225357/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/timeline/index.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/timeline/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401224243/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html to https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor just added a referenced note about the steel strength increasing with height. This was probably done to further reduce the mass of the upper parts of the structure, and because it would be too expensive to use a high grade for the heavy lower columns, but I might be committing OR to add that clarification. Can somebody find a citation for that informed analysis? Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find a citation for this but was not successful. In the process, I stumbled upon more than a hundred sources that may be useful, though they don't answer your specific question. These sources are listed under footnote 3 in . Unfortunately, I don't know if any of these sources confirm the facts that were recently added to this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel strength 

message: Currently, the article states that 60 workers died during the construction of the World Trade Center, citing this PBS source. However, I have noticed a few potential issues:
* The PBS source does not cite any sources for this figure; literally every other statistic on that webpage has a source, except for the number of workers who died.
* I was unable to corroborate this figure in any other source. I previously consulted several books that discuss the construction of the WTC (specifically Gillespie (1999) and Glanz & Lipton (2003), but these books don't seem to cite the fact that 60 workers died.
* This number seems extremely high, and I would have expected that a megaproject with that many deaths would have received extensive coverage. The WTC originally consisted of 6 buildings, including the low-rise structures; this would mean that, on average, 10 people died while constructing each building. By comparison, five workers died while constructing the Willis Tower, which was completed at roughly the same time. Even at the Empire State Building (which was completed four decades before the WTC, when safety standards were lower, and which was built within a matter of months), between 5 and 15 workers are estimated to have died. If sixty people did die while building the WTC, there probably was a reason for the death rate being that high, a reason that I have not been able to ascertain.
For these reasons, I would like to remove the claim that 60 workers died during the WTC's construction. Epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: [Disclaimer: Brought this to Epicgenius' attention off-wiki.] My thinking here is either PBS typoed "6" or that for whatever reason they're using some very broad definition that includes deaths from natural causes in any company working on the project, although even there 60 would seem rather high. Either way, it's a tertiary source and is expected to reflect what's in the secondary sources, so if it doesn't, it isn't reliable (at least with respect to that claim).  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of workers who died building the WTC 

message: The twin towers were not constructed using framed tubes. This is one reason why it failed. 69.112.10.127 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for your assertions? Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Framed Tubes