Jump to content

Talk:World Trade Center (1973–2001)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Topping out versus Completion

The dates given for "completion" for 1/2 WTC are actually the topping out dates, wherein the building is structurally complete, but may not be fully complete (concrete floors, fireproofing, MEP systems, etc.). Neither building was fully completed until 1972/1973, although they had opened to tenants by 1970 and 1971 respectively.

Is this by design? Or would it be prudent to change the infobox to the correct information? Airlane (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on World Trade Center (1973–2001). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Trade Center (1973–2001). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Trade Center (1973–2001). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tongue-in-cheek meaning

From the source listed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)#cite_note-94), it directly reads as to why the towers were each 110-stories:

"...His tongue-in-cheek answer: "I didn't want to lose the human scale."'

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tongue-in-cheek, the definition of "tongue-in-cheek" means:

"Meant or expressed ironically or facetiously."


Clearly, Yamasaki's answer is a JOKE, not to be taken seriously, this line has now been corrected, but often gets reverted back as if he literally meant he didn't want to lose a "human element" when the source itself clearly states this was a jokingly made response. Please keep it, for some reason people often take this site as factual (it clearly isn't when it's not only not peer reviewed but when legitimately fixed errors like this are reverted back to their original mistake it makes it even more unreliable). Thank you2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:E42C:7D5E:31CA:82A0 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not use caps, it is considered shouting. Whilst accepting the dictionary explanation, that does not mean it was meant as a joke and is the author's opinion and not Yamasaki's own. Therefore, the edit has been reverted back. David J Johnson (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Then the section isn't quoted right, and clearly admins like YOU are why this site is VERY inaccurate, it's using a quote from the SAME ARTICLE! By the way, it's not shouting, it's stressing words!!2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:E42C:7D5E:31CA:82A0 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That's what italics are for. clpo13(talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Asbestos in the Original World Trade Center Twin Towers.

Hello! I have read on the internet that the first 20 floors of the Twin Towers had asbestos containing materials[1]. This might be an important information that should be added into the main article or in the "9/11 Conspiracy theories" article but I think that more research must been done before this information goes to the main article. You are more than welcome to leave any comments, research, and suggestions under the "Comments, suggestions and research" section below. Thank you! --Torninterconnected (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments, suggestions and research

This article should help: "FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS, 10/01/2002, by Roger G. MORSE[2] Mregelsberger (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/
  2. ^ http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

Overall structure

The Lease section appears to break up the logical contiguity between the Incidents and Destruction sections. Can it be brought forwards, please? I would suggest its natural home is at the end of the Design section, possibly as a subsection to a new and wider Financing section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.87.148 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The design section has one layout drawing showing the elevators in the core. While this is interesting as a sideline, structural aspects of the building would seem more important to me. A typical floor layout showing the steel structure should therefore be added. Such drawings can be found on the 9-11 Research page[1]. Photographs, which give a true idea of the amount of steel built into the structure would also be helpful[2]. I can add that, if we agree. Mregelsberger (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
  2. ^ http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtccons2.html

File:Twin Towers-NYC.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Twin Towers-NYC.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 11, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

World Trade Center (1973–2001)
The World Trade Center was a large complex of seven buildings in Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States. It featured landmark twin towers, which opened on April 4, 1973, and were the tallest buildings in the world. The other five buildings were completed between 1975 and 1985.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda-affiliated hijackers flew two Boeing 767 jets into the twin towers in a coordinated act of terrorism. After burning for 56 minutes, the South Tower collapsed, followed 29 minutes later by the North Tower. Falling debris and fires led to the partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the complex and caused catastrophic damage to surrounding structures. The attacks killed 2,606 people in and around the towers, as well as all 157 on board the two aircraft.Photograph: Carol M. Highsmith; edit: Soerfm

Archive – More featured pictures...

business computers

Hallo, what I mis , overall, is the description how big part off the economic system littery disapeared in the dust clouds. how many computer-servers were installed, as hardware, in the towers? how many data is destroyed aswell, by destroying the computers? how many bussiness-orders disapeared? are there companies wiped in person and hardware? sorry for the crude question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.17.27.144 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

lots of unverifiable claims on the page currently

would spend time checking through old revisions if I could. 70.71.25.207 (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means do it. I don't have much time now, so I can't do it myself. Epic Genius (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it save a lot of time and disinformation to report how much the complex was losing annually by the turn of the century?
Where would we find out the facts about that (and assuming that the State of New York had no reason to hide their motives.)

Weatherlawyer (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please place any legitimate comments at the end of this Talk page and not here. Further, please do not post defamatory, unsourced, comments on Wikipedia. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The original world trade center

The original needs to be seperate by some detail compared to the new one Keyshawn scott 12 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the text of the article, it already makes clear that this is the original World Trade Center. Please stop edit warring. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead trimming

Per WP:BOLD, on feeling that the lead was a bit too detailed about 9/11 - especially since all those details are mentioned later in the article - I removed a lot of stuff. In the process, I cut two three refs; I'm putting them here for convenience. 

<ref>{{Cite news |first=Bill |last=Miller |title=Skyscraper Protection Might Not Be Feasible, Federal Engineers Say |url=http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-05-01/news/0205010358_1_engineers-jet-fuel |work=Orlando Sentinel |date=May 1, 2002 |accessdate=November 24, 2013}}</ref>

<ref>''World Trade Center Building Performance Study'', Ch. 5 WTC 7 – section 5.5.4</ref>

<ref>''Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7'', p. xxxvii.</ref>

Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Please change the title of the "New World Trade Centre" section to "After the World Trade Centre". Also, add this sentence after the article's first sentence: "It existed throughout the late 20th century, from the early 70s to its destruction during the 9/11 attacks. Albatross8000 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Regarding the additional sentence, it is already mentioned in the lede, in the form of "It featured landmark twin towers, which opened on April 4, 1973, and were destroyed in the September 11 attacks..." JTP (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Accusations

Some people have made wrong accusations and they have not made an attempt to explain or discuss this with me.

I've been trying to add a photo of the Tourist guy. An article on this person exists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.89.30 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just on the article 'Tourist Guy' a moment ago. I don't think the image is appropriate for this article as it may come off as being a real, legitimate image. The hoax image is more properly suited at the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it isn't already present there. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Just as a disclaimer, I wasn't the one you were having a disagreement with. I just came here to prove 9/11 conspiracy theorists wrong and saw your issue. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On the whole, considering the story's not true and it imparts no information about the original WTC or the event that destroyed it, it really is not suited to this article. I also disagree that 9/11 conspiracy theories is a valid place for it considering it has no place in any such theory today and, honestly, I'm hard pressed to see a conspiratorial angle to it. Best leave it at Tourist guy where it already is. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing, forgotten detail

There must be a source somewhere that explains the North Tower's antenna lighting up at night sometime after the 1993 bombing. The evidence lies in the photographs, and I presume the antenna started to produce a bright, white light, in early 1994. And what's wrong with an uncited source? Most pages that don't have much details have a few uncited sources, and no one has a problem with that. Marino13 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't most pages, plus we want to have sources wherever possible. You could use photographs as sources, though—nothing wrong with that. epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Date of under-construction photo wrong?

The current under-construction photo of the Towers has the caption "World Trade Center under construction in 1970". It appears to me that this could be wrong, although there is a problem at the source. Click on the photo to view further information, and take note of the Description: "World Trade Center during construction", and the given Date: "1 May 1971"; note also that the filename is "WTC-1971-under-construction.jpg". Following the link labeled "Source: WTC-1971", one again encounters ambiguity: "World Trade Center (under Construction)-1970" but "Taken on 1 May 1971".

To me the balance of information appears to tilt in favor of May 1, 1971 as the actual date. →Would anyone like to contact the photographer, Pat Bianculli (or current custodian of this image, which by the way has at the source the words "please do not use without permission"; →perhaps someone needs to request permission, or at least document that permission and note accurately and explicitly whether or not it may be freely shared, remixed, etc.)?--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Centre" ?

Why does the article refer to it as the World Trade "Centre" in the British spelling? It's a proper noun, isn't it? And the name is "The World Trade Center". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:4001:E5D0:5D14:B47E:8FA:7CF0 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on World Trade Center (1973–2001). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Meme in the Construction video

Hey, just saw that someone very original put the "Plagueis the wise" meme into the video as captions. Just pointing it out, you guys can decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.103.186.152 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Vornado and Silverstein bids

All that is mentioned is Silverstein Properties , not the actual person , Larry Silverstein who owns it . But the writer wrote like he had already introduced Larry , which was NEVER done . It should read " Silverstein upped THEIR bid ... " , NOT " HIS " bid . Where did this person learn how to write ? Lol . All that mentioned was Silverstein Properties , and absolutely nothing mentioned about the person , Larry Silverstein whom owned it . So is should be THEIR bid ,not HIS bid . And there's another spot right after where the same mistake is repeated . That question I asked was NOT an attack on anyone , so chill . Who is the HIS supposed to be referring to ??? Lol . There was no person mentioned in that section of the article , only business names . And this was actually written by some " official " person ? Lol 96.233.52.166 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this article refers to the site before 2001, should the link in the lede for 3 WTC be to Marriott World Trade Center instead? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that's already done. — JFG talk 10:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nelson and David Rockefeller

I came to look at this page in order to obtain some factual research regarding Nelson and David Rockefellers involvement in the WTC planning, building and construction. Obvious there exists vast amounts of evidence of the brothers deep involvement in the WTC project, yet I was astounded that there is just a brief mention of David Rockerfeller having suggested the lower Manhattan location. No mention whatsoever of Nelson.

I find it hard to believe this results from oversight, many names are listed on the page, almost all are less well known than the Rockerfeller brothers. I therefore have to assume that their involvement has been erased. How for example could you miss the fact that the two towers were actually nicknamed David and Nelson during construction? This being indicative of how completely the Rockefeller brothers were linked to all aspects of the WTC project. Please do not do history this great dis-service. This is a major and fundamental fact, that has for reasons unknown, been removed. I honestly cannot see any reason for this ommission other than disingenuous re-writing of history. Can someone please assist in correcting this? 124.169.147.126 (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this information? Then just add it, with appropriate citations. — JFG talk 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the stripe?

Maybe it's mentioned in the article. I saw a link to video from September 11 and as I watched, I saw what I will call a stripe on both towers just below where the plane hit the South Tower. It's an architectural feature, obviously.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: You mean the three horizontal stripes? epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether there are three or not. In this photo each tower has two that can be clearly seen.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you count the stripe at the top as well? If so, then there's 3 strips, as the image shows. I agree it is notable, but not that notable since they seem to be simply black window glass. epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see a stripe at the top, but there are double stripes there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The stripe at the top is right below the darker-colored cornice at the top of each tower. I agree it is notable, and I'll add it in tomorrow if I could find more sources for the darker-colored "stripe" windows on the towers. epicgenius (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

why is the initially planning bureau of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill not even mentioned? they did all the planning from the beginning in '58 until '62, when Yamasaki and Roth took over so i really think this info is missing in the article - so change it - i couldn't due to editing restrictions Goldener~schnitt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Trade Center (1973–2001). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

source review tips

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

  • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
  • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
  • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Other Events

I was going to add info (a link) about the tightrope to other events section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Petit#World_Trade_Center_walk

Thoughts? Cglenn3932 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:World Trade Center (1973–2001)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 03:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Could you add a comment or two about the relation of this article to the FA for the Construction of the Twin Towers. The initial assessment will take a day or two for me to complete. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


0 Lede

Question of balance between paragraphs: long paragaph followed by a short one, followed by a long one, followed by a short one. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1 Before the World Trade Center

History section is fine, though I am asking that you consider putting together a small rudimentary section on Urban design using something like the following outline or some part of it:
A) Urban design
a) larger scale of groups of buildings around WTC,
b) streets and public spaces surrounding WTC,
c) whole neighborhoods and districts,
d) and entire cities,
e) with the goal of making urban areas functional, attractive, and sustainable
f) economics, budget, taxes, profit to surrounding community

2 Design and construction

There is an FA for this subject of Construcion, is all this material needed, can it be trimmed by half. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

2.1 Design

2.2 Construction

2.3 Criticism

3 Complex

Can any comparisons be made to Rockefeller Center or to the new WTC. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

3.1 North and South Towers

3.2 Top of the World observation deck

3.3 Windows on the World restaurant

Success of the restaurant should be mentioned here, possibly 1-2 reviews by food critics. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

3.4 Other buildings

4 Major events

4.1 February 13, 1975, fire

4.2 February 26, 1993, bombing

4.3 January 14, 1998, robbery

4.4 Other events

A section of In Popular Culture would be useful somewhere toward the end of this article. Gillespie, for example, states that there was a sci fi film featuring the twin towers prominently, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

5 Lease

6 Destruction

Already covered extensively in companion articles at Wikipedia, extensively. Consider shortening. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

7 New World Trade Center

Comparison comments about the relative size of each version, old and new, would be useful. For example, how different and how similar were the objectives and plans for the two versions of the center. Also, somewhere in the article you might take up the fate of the large central sculptural monument, currently relocated to NJ as I recall, with replica in the courtyard at Mt Sinai on Fifth Avenue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


@Epicgenius: This should get things started. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Adding all this information would be really nice, but it's kind of a major change (e.g. comparisons and urban design, which I'm not even sure have been published). I will work on these issues over the next couple of days. epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: I was thinking that maybe the popular culture summary and urban-design impact may be combined into a single "Impact" section at the end of the article, similar to Empire State Building#Impact. How does that sound? epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It must be the Importance section that you are referring to there since there is no Impact section at Empire State. Your idea here sounds workable if you can pull it together and it would be nice to see what you have in mind. Separately, I have taken the time to read some other NYC articles you have worked on at Wikipedia, and thought you might like to know that the GA for Empire State has a lede that has gone over the 4 paragraphs recommended by MoS, and at the Met museum page which you've edited, an IP-editor has apparently tag bombed the entire article looking for the opening hours at the library there. Regarding this WTC article, your idea for an expanded Importance section sounds like an interesting approach. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the Importance section. To your other points: MOS is a suggestion, and the ESB article is very long, so five lead paragraphs is appropriate (although bordering on the maximum). It looks like some other IP editor also erased some of the tag bombing in the lead of the Met Museum article. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll look forward to seeing the revisions here on this article when you're ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Owing to my not having the books right now, I can't make these revisions immediately. I will make these additions on Monday, when I have the books. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Any updates after the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday, I wasn't able to go to the library to get the books. Today, I might be able to go there. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I finally got my hands on two sources: City in the Sky by Glanz, and Twin Towers by Gillespie. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: The Gillespie is really the correct source for this. Just to restate the priorities here which first of all must be the recognition that there is already an FA article for Construction and Design of the building, and that this material should be trimmed by half in this article here. That's the main issue, and after you place your editing to condense it, I should like to look to making a closing assessment over the next day or two. The section on Urban design I consider as useful but optional at this point, since the issue above is more pressing. If you have the Gillespie book, then you can easily look-up the Hollywood blockbuster connection as a short addition as a new, short Popular culture section. That's the main priority at this time and should be within easy reach since the article already has a fairly well developed reference section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I already trimmed the Construction/Design section. I didn't borrow the Gillespie book so I have to return to the library tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm adding some info on the urban impact. epicgenius (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Oops. epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand this "oops" here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so you got the ping. The previous ping was missing a bracket so it didn't go through. epicgenius (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


Concluding assessment

The submitting editor and the reviewing editor have been going back and forth on the correct length for the Construction section of this article here because there is an FA article already in Wikipedia which covers this topic. Because there is an FA for this material, the section on Construction in this article could likely be trimmed even further. My assessment in the above comments has also suggested that it would be useful to optionally expand the discussion of Urban planning and to include some other material from the Gillespie book which would be of use to readers. Expanding these items is optional at this time, and should likely be included if this article is to be further expanded as a peer reviewed article at the featured article level. For purposes of this GA assessment, such further development is optional for the present time. The reference section of this article is in good condition and fully formatted, and all the images seem to check all the boxes. The lede section has also been refined for the benefit of readers wishing to get a quick and comprehensive view of the separate sections and the article is promoted as a good article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we add Philippe Petit's tightrope walk?

In August 1974, French tightrope walker Philippe Petit walked between the 2 towers. This was referenced and adapted into many books, films, etc since then. Should we mention this in the article? 2605:6001:E7DD:AC00:501C:4E1B:4784:2777 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. A single sentence or a short paragraph in the "operating history" section would suffice. Pololei (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Empire State Building 417 yards high, Former 1 World Trade Center 417 meters high

It should be pointed out that the height of the Empire State Building of 1,250 feet is converted to 417 yards high. 'Coincidentally', the Former 1 World Trade Center which replaced the Empire State Building as the tallest building in the world was 417 meters high. 129.171.233.86 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Destruction Section

During a c/e for requested from the GOCE I blocked off what I consider is excessive detail concerning the deaths after the 9/11 attack. This concerned numbers of dead plus the specific details of individuals latter added to the victims' list. This strikes me as unnecessary for an article on a building complex. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

NRHP recognition

Does the World Trade Center recognized by NRHP? I want to add an infobox of it.

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 14:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Soumya-8974, no, being a relatively new complex at the time of its destruction, it was never listed on the NRHP. epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

In the fourth sentence of the "Complex" section change: "The Twin Towers became known worldwide, appearing in numerous movies and television shows as well as on postcards and other merchandise It became a New York icon," to "The Twin Towers became known worldwide, appearing in numerous movies and television shows as well as on postcards and other merchandise. It became a New York icon," Adding a period after the fourth sentence.

Change the sentence "One World Trade Center and Two World Trade Center, commonly the Twin Towers" to "One World Trade Center and Two World Trade Center, commonly referred to as the Twin Towers" in the "North and South Towers" subsection of the "Complex section" Tionajordan (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Panorama

I took this 360-degree panorama 2 weeks before the collapse and wanted to offer it to be added to the article. I have released it under CC0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:360-Degree_World_Trade_Center_Panorama_V2.jpg?fbclid=IwAR3lU4TJDpP7-AA41L56J-Z6NfoSYLMmHeJ-JBV69JLyk1xDku7J46IFk8A Dheera (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Steven buildings

Why is it written in the first sentence that SEVEN buildings were destroyed? Media told us about three only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.153.150 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Because all seven buildings were destroyed. Two of them fell on the others, and on surrounding buildings. All of that was amply reported. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


The person behind Bin Laden was a psychiatrist

as far, as I know; however, the assault-plan came, as far as I know, from somebody or more than one person, from Hamburg.

Note, Karadzicz was a psychiatrist; these people are no real (or mislead) psychiatrists.

Maybe you're interested in Uwe Barschel --> Talk (at the end).

89.15.238.40 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the impact section - lacks of NPOV

The impact section is written not from neutral point of view perspective, but rather somebody who thinks that it was too big, and modern is "approved by public", because it is considerably smaller for time of building.

The facts are that original trade center was the biggest building in the World, and one of the biggest for many years. This showed the America potential and importance in the world(and nobody usually is questioning this). When they were building modern trade center it wasn't the biggest building of the time. In fact the other countries have bigger buildings, showing they importance and potential in modern world(and this race is probably as old as Pyramids). Most of the New York newspapers, just tries to deal with lost of importance, just writing "oh, we don't need tall buildings anymore, it's outdated", but in fact New York City lost it's importance in the world, the flats in modern Manhattan buildings are cheaper than in Europe(e.g. Monaco), as written before the buildings are smaller, and many cities tries to be a finance center of the World. Like China oil commodities, London, Swiss, Singapore, even Tokyo market or French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.65.58 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a point you're making? Acroterion (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Reason for name change 1 and 2 to North and South

I have read somewhere that before they were both known as WTC1 and WTC2 and that the expressions North and South tower were only widely used later to avoid confusion since the FIRST TOWER WTC1 was the first to be attacked, but only the second to fall. Shouldn't this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.49.82 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

Can you remove the red and bold formatting from the Status section of the infobox? It just comes off as needlessly melodramatic and hammers in the point about 9/11 a little too much. 72.42.172.83 (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 72.42.172.83 (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It seems to be derived from the infobox template, though, so it might be best discussed at the relevant template, if you can figure out which one it is - they're nested. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

I need to change the date on win the twin towers were destroyed because it says in 2001 19 years ago wen it needs to say 20 years ago. Furry fox 300 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It will be 20 years ago in September, not now. Acroterion (talk)

Can you reclarify the article?

Can you make the section of the destruction or combine it with the other article about the September 11 attacks? well i know there's another article about the collapse or this but the section about the destruction in the main article about the world trade center can give some people anxiety looking at it while just looking at the article for general information. Also can you add more world trade center pictures to the article and remove the ones related to 9/11? also I expect a section added to the article denoting a Chicago version if theres evidence that someone builds a full size WTC replica there. And here's a repository for the WTC pictures: [1] --Salvador 626 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

4 WTC Construction date

Hi in the infobox it says that the construction date of 4 WTC started in 1970 which is not correct. Here is a picture from 1973 of the World Trade Center complex https://nycity.media/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/null-1-137.jpg You can see here there is no 4 WTC at all --Aaron106 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

MoS error

In the section “destruction”, there is a sentence that begins with a numerical number, that number should be spelled out or words should be placed in front of it. 2600:1011:B121:9DA:813B:590C:D6A:D869 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Architectural Styles

Buildings 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 were all concieved as part of the same masterplan by Minoru Yamasaki in a style incorporating gothic elements within modernist design - most reliably known as 'New Formalism.' Building 7 was designed towards the beginning of the period where post-modernism was coming into fashion, shown by the use of more traditional materials such as granite on the facade. While buildings 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 can confidently be labeled under the banner of 'New Formalism,' a specific label of architectural style cannot be as reliably applied to buildings 3 & 7. BNStudios1 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information:

From your article:

When completed in 1972, 1 World Trade Center became the tallest building in the world for two years, surpassing the Empire State Building after its 40-year reign. The North Tower stood 1,368 feet (417 m) tall[92] and featured a 362 foot (110 m) telecommunications antenna or mast that was built on the roof in 1978. With this addition, the highest point of the North Tower reached 1,730 feet (530 m).[93] Chicago's Sears Tower, finished in May 1973, reached 1,450 feet (440 m) at the rooftop.[94]

When completed in 1973, the South Tower became the second tallest building in the world at 1,362 feet (415 m). Its rooftop observation deck was 1,362 ft (415 m) high and its indoor observation deck was 1,310 ft (400 m) high.[93] Each tower stood over 1,350 feet (410 m) high, and occupied about 1 acre (4,000 m2) of the total 16 acres (65,000 m2) of the site's land. During a press conference in 1973, Yamasaki was asked, "Why two 110-story buildings? Why not one 220-story building?" His tongue-in-cheek response was: "I didn't want to lose the human scale."[95]

No, the first tower was completed in 1970, the second in 1972.

(81.129.126.104 (talk))

You need reliable secondary sources to insert this information(?) in any Wikipedia page. David J Johnson (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Do try the Wikipedia article on the construction of the World Trade Center. It contains reliable secondary sources. This main WTC article misconstrues the official opening ceremony for the completion of the towers, and you have one Wikipedia article contradicting another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center

From the article:

The topping out ceremony of the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) took place on December 23, 1970, while the South Tower (2 World Trade Center)'s ceremony occurred on July 19, 1971.[143] The first tenants moved into the North Tower on December 15, 1970,[155] and into the South Tower in January 1972.[156] The buildings were dedicated on April 4, 1973; Tobin, who had resigned the year before, was absent from the ceremonies.[157]

I wouldn't dream of trying to insert any information, I leave that to Wiki editors. I just found myself reading contradictory information.

(81.129.126.104 (talk))

How could the WTC succeed the Empire State building as tallest building in the world, if it is 415m high, when the Empire State building is over 445m high? Which wiki article is wrong? The feet numbers are also wrong, over 1400 ft for the Empire State, under 1400 ft for the WTC, so it can't be a conversion error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.61.102 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction - the issue is whether the building's spires are counted in their architectural height. Both buildings had antennas; 1 WTC's antenna was taller than the Empire State Building's. You are comparing one measurement with an antenna and another measurement without an antenna.
The Empire State Building's spire is 1,250 feet (380 m) tall; it is not "over 445m high" unless you count the very narrow antenna atop the spire, which was added at a later date and doesn't count toward the architectural height. Similarly, the roof of 1 WTC was 1,368 feet (417 m) high. The antenna was added at a later date and made the building 1,730 feet (530 m). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Error in year

2001 was not 28 years ago 70.15.165.64 (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, but upon closer inspection, that infobox template is saying that the Twins were up for 28 years (1973 - 2001), not that they were destroyed 28 years ago. Maybe we can find a better template or clarify this somewhere. Thanks! — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) (contribs) 00:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Main image proposal

Since the current image is low quality, not well detailed and not all WTC complex buildings are visible, I suggest the image be changed to:

..which is photographed from the opposite side compared to current image, but also shot from a helicopter at a similar height.

The new image is higher quality, crisper, sharper and more WTC complex buildings can be seen, in fact all of them completely, except Customs building and Marriott hotel building.

Also Austin J. Tobin plaza, the Ideogram sculpture and the pedestrian bridge to WTC 7 is seen in the proposed version, which is not seen in current photo.

For comparison, the current and the proposed, new version:

Another thing worth noting is the current image has a large casted shadow on almost 3 (out of 4) visible sides of the Twin Towers, while towers in the proposed version are well illuminated.

YitzhakNat (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree -- the proposed image is clearly better since it displays a view of all seven buildings. It doesn't look like there is any type of formal vote going on, but for what it's worth, I support changing the infobox image to this. Sewageboy (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow, no one has replied to this in months (regrettably). I'd be happy to have the proposed image be the article's main image. Not to mention that it has a prettier view of the Hudson River and the entire old WTC complex. Very good find - will implement unless editors object (in which case I'm more than happy to talk it through on this talk page).
Courtesy ping: @Sewageboy, @YitzhakNat — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) (contribs) 23:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I support you Parham wiki (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree Parham wiki (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

The original World Trade Center was inaugurated 50 years ago. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 02:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file which has a cropped file being used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. PascalHD (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

In the Construction section append the following info....

In several episodes of the McCloud detective TV Series you can see the towers under construction especially Series 02 Episode 03 where you can see both towers half built. The opening aerial credits show the bottom of one tower being constructed. 87.75.140.92 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close of a stated test edit. Station1 (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

– Correct date is September 11, 1999. For test purposes GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

There is a spelling error for facade in the section 'Destruction'. It has been written as façade instead of facade. Adrij2011 (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a spelling error, the cedilla can be used in this context in English, at least optionally. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I already changed it for consistency (two other instances of "facade" already in article). Hyphenation Expert (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Plane crash fatalities

It should be noted that 147 people died from the two planes crashing into the Twin Towers. The 157 given in this article includes the ten terrorists on both planes. I've repeatedly seen the total fatality count at the World Trade Center as being 2,753 and I believe this should be consistent throughout. Butterscotch5 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Trade_Center_(1973–2001)/Archive_1&oldid=1248130258"