WTC Tower Design Unveiled

[girlgeek]

By Glenn Thrush
Staff Writer

December 19, 2003, 6:23 PM EST


The Freedom Tower unveiled Friday would be among the world's tallest buildings and possibly the safest, but its architect can't guarantee the 1,776-foot Ground Zero landmark would be able to withstand another Sept. 11-type attack.

The twisting, tapered tower design presented to the public at lower Manhattan's Federal Hall is a unique hybrid of skyscraper and sky sculpture, a 70-story office building topped by an open-air lattice of cables and windmills. It is punctuated by a splinter-like spire.

Gov. George Pataki, who has overseen an often acrimonious design process, called the final product "a work of creative genius" that proves "freedom will always triumph over terror."

The building will have a variety of safety features absent from the doomed twin towers, including reinforced stairwells and more exits to make it "the safest building in the world," said David Childs, the project's lead architect.

Yet even with those improvements, Childs said he didn't know if the tower would be strong enough to survive an attack by a fuel-laden airliner, like the 737s that slammed into the Trade Center.

"It's hard to exactly say the level of security we'll have," he said. "We haven't done those analyses yet."

The project could be completed as early as the fall of 2008 at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. It will be financed entirely by the site's leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, said Charles Gargano, vice-chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site.

Gargano said the Port Authority, whose headquarters were destroyed in the attacks, plans to occupy one-third of building's 2.6 million square feet, providing cash flow from the day the building opens.

Silverstein is locked in a bitter legal battle with insurance companies over payments for the towers. He said the insurers have already guaranteed him enough cash to build the tower but not enough for the four smaller buildings planned in phases over the next decade.

"The money for the Freedom Tower is in the bank," he told reporters.

Read the entire article at:

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...headlines-right

[TeenGodFather]

...freedom tower..

Sorry.

yay!

[Robert]

Freedom Tower? h34r:


"Basic Principles of Newspeak

The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, good thoughts and thoughtcrimes). A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language. (See: duckspeak)

In addition, words with opposite meanings were removed as redundant, so "bad" became "ungood" and "great" became "doubleplusgood"; and as many words as possible were removed. The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a "yes" of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.

The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it can't be thought, either. One question raised by this is whether we are defined by our language, or whether we actively define it; can we communicate the need for freedom, can we organize an uprising, if we don't have the words for either?

Examples of Newspeak, from the novel, include: "crimethink"; "doubleplusungood"; and "Ingsoc". They mean, in turn: "thought-crime"; "extremely bad"; and "English Socialism", the political philosophy of The Party. The word "Newspeak" itself also comes from the language.




Real-Life Examples of Newspeak

A comparison to Newspeak can be seen in political rhetoric, where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to "I'm good; he's bad."

Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically incorrect (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a politically correct or inoffensive one (e.g. "collateral damage"). Some maintain that to make certain words or phrases 'unspeakable' (thoughtcrime), restricts what ideas may be held (Newspeak). Others believe that expunging terms that have fallen out of favour or become insulting will make people less likely to hold outdated or offensive views. The differences between these two points of view is primarilly a matter of perspective.

Either way, there is a resemblance between political correctness and Newspeak, although some may feel that they differ in their intentions: in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is instituted to enhance the power of the state over the individual; politically correct language, on the other hand, is said to "free individuals from preconceptions due to the use of certain terms". It is this attempt to change thought through changing (or eliminating) words that earns political correctness the connection to Newspeak. "


h34r:



Last edited by Robert at Dec 20 2003, 05:43 PM

[Dravyk]

If a new Frank Capra movie came out today ... people would boo it. <_<

[Carrie]

Well, the tower *would* be pretty strong, given its tapered design (look up triangles and their strengths if you don't know what I mean); and having an open-air latticework of cables at the top means that you'd either need to be pretty adept at steering a jet to get down below the cables, or you'd end up getting tangled *in* the cables (or bouncing off) and not do much damage at all.

I think we made our opinion of flying planes into tall towers pretty clear though; it'll be quite a while before someone considers doing that to the WTC again. (At least the 4-yr wait until it's finished, lol.)

[Hell Puppy]

Put a Phalanx on top of it just to be sure.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Dec 20 2003, 10:14 PM
Put a Phalanx on top of it just to be sure.

How about a huge robotic arm holding a gigantic rolled-up newspaper.

[chodadog]

Originally posted by Carrie@Dec 20 2003, 06:40 PM
Well, the tower *would* be pretty strong, given its tapered design (look up triangles and their strengths if you don't know what I mean); and having an open-air latticework of cables at the top means that you'd either need to be pretty adept at steering a jet to get down below the cables, or you'd end up getting tangled *in* the cables (or bouncing off) and not do much damage at all.

I can't imagine the cables catching a plane, or bouncing it off. I think their intent would simply be to dramatically slow a plane down if it did hit, and lower structural damage.

And bounce off? That's.. hilarious. Especially about no damage. I mean, assume for a minute that the plance could actually bounce off of the building, what do you think happens? It's not going to turn around and fly off in the direction it came. It's would be bounced off into a surrounding building.

[Carrie]

Choda I'm imagning huge suspension cables - flexible of course due to the height and wind where they'll be.
It would be easy to bounce a plan off of those... imagine a Cessna trying to fly into the cables on the Golden Gate Bridge.
Sure, a big 747 would probably not bounce off of them - in that case it would act much like the nets do on aircraft carriers that catch the unmanned planes.

Even so, if the plane *were* to hit the cables and bounce off, hitting another building... why is that of any concern to the people designing and erecting *this* building? Their purpose is to make *this* building as safe as possible, not to make it a lightning rod for planes just so the planes won't hurt any of the nearby structures.

[chodadog]

The only thing a bunch of cables are going to catch will be the wings. The bulk of the plane is going to keep on moving and the wings will just be ripped off. There is no way a bunch of suspension cables are stopping a plane. They may slow the plane down a bit, but that's all.

[Cleo]

For everyone that would like to dine on the 110 floor or have office space above the 70th floor please be advised that the terrorists have won.