Workers dismantle building near WTC site
jlew24asu
Posts: 10,118
did they forget to plant bombs in this building? Why don't they just "pull" it?
...........................................................
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_re_us/toxic_tower
NEW YORK - Workers began dismantling a black-shrouded skyscraper near the World Trade Center site Friday, nearing the removal of an urban eyesore that stood for five years above ground zero.
ADVERTISEMENT
The workers started removing the metal-and-glass facade on the top floors of the Deutsche Bank AG building a day after final permits were issued to begin its long-delayed deconstruction.
The head of the downtown agency overseeing the project said removing the 41-story office tower will take a year. The space eventually will have one of five planned towers, a park and a church.
"This is a very positive action on a very difficult job," said Charles Maikish, executive director of the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center.
The tower was the focus of a protracted battle over who should pay to clean it up and take it down after the south tower collapsed into it on Sept. 11, 2001, tearing a 15-story gash and leaving toxic dust, debris and bone fragments. Community leaders have seen it as a symbol of inaction at the 16-acre site and residents have worried the dust in it would endanger their health.
Julie Menin, who chairs a downtown Manhattan community board, said she still has concerns about how the building will be taken down without spewing toxic dust into the neighborhood.
"It's been a real blight on the community. We obviously want to see it taken down and taken down safely," Menin said. "We will continue to be vigilant about this."
Maikish said the glass windows and metal column covers will be removed from the top four floors, followed by the steel and concrete skeleton of those floors. Material from the facade will be cut, wrapped in plastic and moved off the site, he said.
"The first thing that comes off is the skin," Maikish said.
Cleanup of asbestos, trade center debris, lead, mercury and other toxins will continue on the lower floors, as well as an ongoing search for human remains. The black shroud on the building will be lowered with the building, Maikish said.
A business leader said the beginning of work is long overdue.
"It's a physical reminder on the skyline that has been there for far too long," said Eric Deutsch, president of the Alliance for Downtown New York. "Now we are hopeful that everything is coordinated and moving ahead to allow for the deconstruction to happen as quickly as possible."
The Deutsche Bank AG tower is one of two buildings still left with heavy damage near ground zero. Environmental regulators are looking at plans to dismantle Fiterman Hall, a boarded-up college building north of the site.
...........................................................
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_re_us/toxic_tower
NEW YORK - Workers began dismantling a black-shrouded skyscraper near the World Trade Center site Friday, nearing the removal of an urban eyesore that stood for five years above ground zero.
ADVERTISEMENT
The workers started removing the metal-and-glass facade on the top floors of the Deutsche Bank AG building a day after final permits were issued to begin its long-delayed deconstruction.
The head of the downtown agency overseeing the project said removing the 41-story office tower will take a year. The space eventually will have one of five planned towers, a park and a church.
"This is a very positive action on a very difficult job," said Charles Maikish, executive director of the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center.
The tower was the focus of a protracted battle over who should pay to clean it up and take it down after the south tower collapsed into it on Sept. 11, 2001, tearing a 15-story gash and leaving toxic dust, debris and bone fragments. Community leaders have seen it as a symbol of inaction at the 16-acre site and residents have worried the dust in it would endanger their health.
Julie Menin, who chairs a downtown Manhattan community board, said she still has concerns about how the building will be taken down without spewing toxic dust into the neighborhood.
"It's been a real blight on the community. We obviously want to see it taken down and taken down safely," Menin said. "We will continue to be vigilant about this."
Maikish said the glass windows and metal column covers will be removed from the top four floors, followed by the steel and concrete skeleton of those floors. Material from the facade will be cut, wrapped in plastic and moved off the site, he said.
"The first thing that comes off is the skin," Maikish said.
Cleanup of asbestos, trade center debris, lead, mercury and other toxins will continue on the lower floors, as well as an ongoing search for human remains. The black shroud on the building will be lowered with the building, Maikish said.
A business leader said the beginning of work is long overdue.
"It's a physical reminder on the skyline that has been there for far too long," said Eric Deutsch, president of the Alliance for Downtown New York. "Now we are hopeful that everything is coordinated and moving ahead to allow for the deconstruction to happen as quickly as possible."
The Deutsche Bank AG tower is one of two buildings still left with heavy damage near ground zero. Environmental regulators are looking at plans to dismantle Fiterman Hall, a boarded-up college building north of the site.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
so you believe 9/11 was set up but bush and his buddies?
not until someone else wants to get rich? I guess you feel bush and Co. made enough money.
your logic sickens me. really sucks opinions like yours have to be tolerated
you give bush too much credit.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Okaaay, the only opinions that should be tolerated are the ones that coincide with your own, I suppose. :rolleyes:
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
lol, i disagree. i think the people that think he had some kind of hand in 9/11 give him too much credit.
~Michael Bolton
Not placing judgement, but just wondering if you read it and if you did, what did you think?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
yes I read them. I believe there is some bullshit in the 9/11 report. its a big report. I think its completely possible that some of the offical story was twisted some to not make america look so foolish for failing to stop such a elaborate successful attack.
I think its possible flight 93 was shot down. my gut says it wasnt, but I wont rule it out because the 9/11 report does so.
I firmly firmly believe that no one, inlcuding bush, knew anything about exactly how and when this was to happen. our intelligence community did not work well together before 9/11. some high level secret agents might have known something about something but had no way to stop it.
the fact that people honestly believe that bush and his people sat in a room and discussed planes hitting 2 of the best american icons, the pentgon, and possibly the US fucking capital building, killing thousadns of hard working innocent americans, just to further some agenda are flat out wrong.
my point of this thread is to find out why this building, which was never savable since that day, wasnt "pulled" like the other ones?
i agree with that. like people have said here, bush gets way too much credit. he's quite low on the totem pole, and incapable of planning what to have for breakfast, nevermind something like 911.
For someone who likes to complain about all the conspiracy theories people believe in on this board you sure do like to start "discussions" about them. If others' belief in a 9/11 conspiracy sickens you so much then dont start obvious baiting threads about them. Pretty simple.
To the person who started this thread...get your head out of your arse and stop being so naive...this attack WAS NOT committed by angry arabs with flick knives.
Thankyou!
Haha -- no I don't believe that 9/11 was set up by Bush and his buddies. However, I do believe that Bush's dad's buddies used him to exploit 9/11 so that they could make some money. Don't forget that pretty much everything Bush Jr has touched has turned to shit his whole life and he lost lots of money for his dad's friends. Having Bush Jr in their pocket meant that when those guys saw an opportunity to take advantage of the American people to make some money, they took it. If you think that this whole Iraq thing started because somebody actually cared about the Iraqi people, you are sorely mistaken. It was about cash and nothing else.
no, no, Thank You. Thank you opening up my eyes and realizing the truth. My head is so far up my ass I cant see who actually committed 9/11. I'm gonna take it out quick enough to see your reply, because I'm dying to know who committed the attacks on 9/11.
I have said all along that oil is a factor when considering the Iraq war. America needs oil to survive. We have a vested interest in not having a person like saddam invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and control 50% of the world oil supply.
your opinion is somewhat extreme but I can understand this logic much better then bush and co. planning 9/11
My logic isn't extreme -- it's what is going on. America did not fear Saddam invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If Saddam tried that, the States (along with the rest of the world would kick their asses back to Iraq like they did in the first Gulf War. This whole Iraq business is about money. If you can't see that, then you should really try to dig just a little deeper for some information.
And: America doesn't have to be dependent on oil. There is technology in place for hydrogen-based engines (and there has been for 50+ years). However, there is no money to be made in hydrogen because it is completely renewable and cheap to produce. Hydrogen as an energy source will be a reality in the next 100 years or so, but the trend is that oil companies buy up the technology and shelf it. I have actually seen a hydrogen-fueled engine run and the only emmissions was pure water. If America invested as much money in developing the technology that the principles of that engine were built on as they have on the war so far, the oil dependence would be gone along with a need to plunder the middle east of all of their oil. But we will never see it in our lifetime because oil companies are too powerful.
you talk a big game without backing anything up.
yes it does. to say otherwise is simply ignorant.
you are just another message board wanna be who comes on here and spits out things that sound nice in a reply but have no realistic meaning.
I assume you mean hydrogen fuel. it took me 2 seconds to find out why this hasnt replaced oil like you said it should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
High cost of fuel cells
Currently, fuel cells are costly to produce and fragile. However, technologies currently under development may eventually result in robust and cost-efficient versions.
Hydrogen fuel cells were initially plagued by the high production costs associated with converting the gas to electricity ultimately required to power a hydrogen car. Scientists are also studying how to produce inexpensive fuel cells that are robust enough to survive the bumps and vibrations that all automobiles have to handle. Furthermore, freezing conditions are a major consideration because fuel cells produce water and utilize moist air with varying water content. Most fuel cell designs are fragile and can't survive in such environments. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst in order to work properly. Such a catalyst can be contaminated by impurities in the hydrogen supply. In the past few years, however, a nickel-tin catalyst has been under development which may lower the cost of cells.
Hydrogen production costs
While hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier, it is not an energy source. It still must be produced from fossil fuels, or from some other energy source, with a net loss of energy. There are also relatively high costs associated with packaging, distribution, storage and transfer. Altogether, between 1.65 and 2.12 times as much energy needs to be input to the process as the higher heating value of the hydrogen in the car.
Using hydrogen in a fuel cell is nearly twice as efficient as traditional combustion engines, which only have an efficiency of 15-25%. Hydrogen fuel cells can achieve thermodynamic efficiencies of 50-60%. The percentage will never be 100% because of the second law of thermodynamics. While hydrogen fuel cells produce only water as its byproduct, the production of hydrogen using fossil fuels creates emissions of greenhouse gases, which adds an additional environmental cost.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative aims to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells.
"A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy."
— President Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
It Will Overcome Key Technical and Cost Barriers:
* Lowering the cost of hydrogen: Currently, hydrogen is three to four times as expensive to produce as gasoline (when produced from its most affordable source, natural gas). The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative seeks to lower that cost enough to make hydrogen cost-competitive with gasoline by 2010, and to advance the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources, nuclear energy, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration.
* Creating effective hydrogen storage: Current hydrogen storage systems are inadequate for use in the wide range of vehicles that consumers demand. The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative supports the exploratory research and development needed to overcome the grand challenge for hydrogen storage: to store the amount of hydrogen required for a conventional driving range (>300 miles), within the vehicular constraints of weight, volume, efficiency, safety, and cost.
* Creating affordable hydrogen fuel cells: Currently, fuel cells are up to ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is working to reduce the cost to affordable levels.
Well considering that I an an electrical engineer myself, I'm not really spitting things out that sound nice in a reply. I am trying to enlighten you, who seems bound and determined to defend this administration for some reason, on how things really are. First, I know that hydrogen is a byproduct of producing hydro-electricity so if we ever run out of running water, maybe hydrogen production will slow down a bit. Next, if you think that oil-fuelled engines weren't expensive at first, you are wrong. How much money has gone into improving oil-fuelled engines? If that same money went into improving hydrogen-fuelled engines, they would be much better than they are right now. Also: if you think that oil companies haven't bought and shelved hydrogen technology, you are wrong.
I think we can both agree that we want to get away from our dependency on foreign oil. like or not, we are.
I agree with flywallfly here...you're baiting conspiracy theorists....I'll take a nibble.
There are two answers for this question, I guess...
If you don't think Bushco. had a hand in 9/11, the answer is because WTC7 wasn't pulled.
If you think they were complicit, the answer is because this building is the Deutsche Bank. WTC7 housed the CIA, Secret Service (which is the theoretical planning HQ for the attack) and Securities Commission (the destruction of which supposedly destroyed files concerning ongoing corporate corruption cases). At least there's a motive....Why would anyone (US gov or terrorists) blow up the Deutsche Bank building?
Apples and oranges.
That is very true for the states. However, Canada has the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Canada has about 179 billion reserve barrels compared to the US's 20 if you include the tar sands in Alberta (about 267 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia if anyone cares). Iraq has around 115 billion barrels and the US needs to make sure that Iraq didn't start selling that oil to China, leaving the US dry so to speak. Actually, when I look at those numbers, it kind of clarifies the war a little bit more for me. I don't think that this had much to do with the rich getting richer, it had more to do with the US government getting scared that China's ever-growing economy might muscle in on the huge oil supply in Iraq. There is no way that anyone would allow the states to take over Canada to control our oil reserves (although I would argue that they control the reserves with money anyway). The US is down to 20 billion reserve barrels (and at a demand of 20 million barrels a day in the US, that well will be dry shortly). So, to keep the US fossil fuel juggernaut running for awhile, the boys behind Bush (the Seven Sisters perhaps) started the war in Iraq so they could control the worlds 3rd largest oil reserve in the world. That line of thinking actually makes the conspiricy theories of 9/11 start making some sense too (although I doubt that anyone in Bush's administration had anything to do with it). It seems suddenly plausible to me that some oil-funded organization could have plotted these attacks to get this Iraq thing rolling. Or maybe Bush really is a humanitarian -- I'm just rambling with my fingers now -- back to work.
Why did you post about this? This is a non-story.
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf
~Ron Burgundy