Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 271

Thread: St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church

  1. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC View Post
    The 767 is a narrower version of the 747, which has been flying since 1970.
    So what?

  2. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC View Post
    Boeing 767s crashed into both towers. The 767 is a narrower version of the 747, which has been flying since 1970.
    No, it isn't. And regardless,the Twins were designed to withstand a 707 flying low and slow going to and from the airport.

    707 stats (707-320B):

    Length: 46.6 m
    Wingspan: 44.42 m
    Height: 12.93 m
    Weight: 66,406 kg empty
    Fuel capacity: 90,160 liters

    767 stats (767-200ER):

    Length: 48.5 m
    Wingspan: 47.6 m
    Height: 15.8 m
    Weight: 82,380 kg empty
    Fuel capacity: 90,770 liters

    The stats may seem very close, but the speed and weight are completely different. Let's say 250 kph for a 707 that is landing, and an average of 800 kph for the 767s on 9/11.

    KE = .5mv^2

    707 KE = .5 (66,406 kg) (~250 kilometers per hour)^2
    707 KE = 2,075,187.5 kJ

    767 KE on 9/11 = .5 (82,380 kg) (~800 kilometers per hour)^2
    767 KE on 9/11 = 26,361,600 kJ

    More than a 10 fold increase in the kinetic energy of the impacting aircraft. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I'd think that even IF they could have withstood the 707, the design tolerances would never have accepted the 767 impact.
    Last edited by HoveringCheesecake; August 24th, 2010 at 04:05 PM.

  3. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    So what?
    So, given that opponents were running ads in the NY Times with photos of a jumbo jet about to collide into one of the towers, maybe the PA would have wanted to get that possibility checked out. Not sure why (per the above poster) they would have only tested it against 707s, when 747s were already in the air. In any event, the fireproofing issue could have been fixed at any time up until 2001. The buildings certainly were not doomed by virtue of the drawings on Yamasaki's sketchpad.

  4. #79

    Default

    If the original Twins were designed in 1964, then they could not have even contemplated the 747, which was first designed in 1966 and rolled out in 1968. The 707 was the largest plane flying in the early 60s.

  5. #80

    Default

    excerpt - http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...l=1#post335339
    "The furor over plans to build an Islamic center two blocks from ground zero had already been joined by several politicians. On Monday, two politicians were joined in turn by officials of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, who sought to use the controversy to focus attention on their long-stymied effort to rebuild a church destroyed on 9/11 at the foot of the World Trade Center."

    Not to change the subject: but more on topic and what I think is a very interesting question giving the cordoba/park51 project. Why have we not yet (after 9 years) make any significant progress in the rebuilding of the 'Church' ; there are probably some simple answers, but is a subject I have not heard about in awhile and glad BPC has posted the article.

    http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...l=1#post335339

  6. #81
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    That "But what about the unbuilt Greek church?" kool aid isn't too refreshing.

    Anyone who knows the WTC site knows that there's no place available to rebuild as of yet.

    The "Why" is self evident.

  7. #82

    Default

    And there's no place available to rebuild yet because the PA seized the church's land to put in a truck ramp, and then reneged on its promise to swap them another parcel, and nobody cared until the President and Mayor felt the need to wax poetic about the Imam's freedom to build a mega-mosque, something that was never questioned, while staying silent about the expropriation of the Church's land, which is actually something our elected officials could and should do something about but aren't, because it scores them no points in the liberal press. (Except, of course, for ex-Governor Pataki, who was far from a perfect governor, but was a hell of a lot better than his two Democratic successors, and is honorably standing behind his commitment to the church even though he is out of politics.) I guess all that is self-evident, but it's nice to have the Times finally take notice.

  8. #83
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    They would have taken the church property by eminent domain if the church had said "NO" -- the land swap will be worked out.

    This statement from the article is disingenuous:

    ... blocking the reconstruction of St. Nicholas Church ...
    Is there any indication that the church wants to build anywhere else but on Liberty Street near their old site?

  9. #84
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC View Post

    ... reneged on its promise to swap them another parcel...
    The other parcel that was offered was on the same side of Liberty Street as the original parcel, but now closer to Greenwich.

    No matter which parcel, it's all a construction zone and nothing can be built there now.

    Neither side is being totally up front about the details.

  10. #85

    Default

    Full circle.

    The protest against the mosque is supposedly in regard to the feelings of 09/11 families. So the liberal politicians, by "waxing poetic" [this sounds like a Cow Geller sound bite] about First Amendment rights, have reminded us that the mean PA has taken property from the church in order to build a "truck ramp."

    But the truck ramp is is only a part of the underground Vehicle Security Center. The original vehicle entry to the WTC was to be on the north side of the WTC site, with vehicle storage underground.

    The 09/11 families protested, stating that the twin tower footprints were sacred ground from bedrock to beyond infinity. Governor Potato Head agreed and had the PA look for alternatives, and the only workable solution was for the Deutsche Bank, Millstein, and St Nicholas properties to be transferred to the PA, and the VSC built underneath.

    I remember lots of neighborhood people were "waxing poetic" about the self-centered 09/11 families and Governor Potato Head.

    So here we are. If the VSC wasn't moved, the church could have already been rebuilt on the original property, without the need for a $40 million bomb-proof slab underneath.

  11. #86

    Default

    That is largely how it happened (except that I generate my own soundbites, your misogynist comment notwithstanding). But none of that is the Church's doing or fault. It has always wanted to rebuild at or near its site as quickly as possible. The demands of the families, the neighbors, the PA, the Islamic Fundamentalists and their sympathizers and apologists, are all beside the point.

  12. #87
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    And they will still build "at or near its site."

    And everyone wanted the Deutsche Bank down "as quickly as possible." Until that happens and the VSC is close to completion nothing is going up here.

    The church group are the ones who, whether willingly or as puppets, are now trying to leverage the mosque mania to their advantage.

    But in NYC real estate wars it seems all is fair.

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC View Post
    But none of that is the Church's doing or fault. It has always wanted to rebuild at or near its site as quickly as possible. The demands of the families, the neighbors, the PA, the Islamic Fundamentalists and their sympathizers and apologists, are all beside the point.
    I guess you can add the Greek Orthodox sympathizers to the pile.

    No, it isn't the church's fault.

    You said the issues of the mosque and church are "wholly unrelated," and then proceeded to tie them together in a Democrat-Republican feud.

    Somehow this issue got caught up with the whole GZ mosque thing.
    Not somehow. It was George Demos the candidate appearing on Fox. What did he think, "I'm Greek-American, maybe I can get some political capital out of this." His comments added fuel to the Judeo-Christian v. Islam debate. He even managed to get in a connection to Suffolk County voters who may have prayed at the church.

    So what appeared to be a money disagreement that could be laid out and quantitatively reviewed, is now linked to people on Park Pl screaming at each other.

  14. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    And they will still build "at or near its site."

    And everyone wanted the Deutsche Bank down "as quickly as possible." Until that happens and the VSC is close to completion nothing is going up here.

    Well, that's good news. I need to start following this project; and should make for an 'entertaining' thread as well. (LOL)

    P.S. This is an issue that seems to be (like the Mosque) something that will divide mostly along political party lines. News here from the 'conservative' party press. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...icials-forgot/ This story will serve as a good 'angle' for attacking the Mosque project: and some valid issues are raised as well.
    Last edited by infoshare; August 25th, 2010 at 04:47 PM.

  15. #90
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    From that ^

    The good Father doesn't seem to want to explain, but rather ride piggy back with the folks across the square ...

    "We have people that are saying, why isn't our church being rebuilt and why is there ... such concern for people of the mosque?" Father Alex Karloutsos, assistant to the archbishop, told FoxNews.com. He said "religious freedom" would allow a place of worship for any denomination to be built, but accused officials with the Port Authority of making no effort to help move the congregation's project along.

    As the PA explains:

    The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild it in a new location -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

    Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended. Port Authority officials told Fox News that the deal is dead.

    The archdiocese and Port Authority offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

    "The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

    But Karloutsos called the Port Authority's claims "propaganda" and said the church has complied with all conditions. He said the government should honor agreements that date back to 2004 ...

    Both sides agree they had the beginnings of the final agreement in 2008. Now the Church is demanding that they both go back to some preliminary unfinished "agreement" from 2004?

    "Valid issues" indeed.

    When two parties are at the point of finalizing a deal and one side tries to tack on new stuff at the end, thinking they can leverage the game, deals often fall apart.

    No doubt this will force the parties back to the table, which is good. Then the Church will know where they will build and can get on with the designing stage for their $20 - $40 - $60 Million project to replace their little 3-story building.

    Don't be surprised if the Christians try to up the deal to $100 M in order to match the Muslim competition a few blocks to the north.

    Go Religion!

    Nice to see our tax dollars at work. Funny how that doesn't seem to be working both ways.

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine - by Heins & Lafarge / Ralph Adams Cram
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 06:34 PM
  2. The Riverside Church - 490 Riverside Drive - by Allen, Pelton and Collens
    By ddny in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 10:29 PM
  3. Federal Building - 90 Church Street - by Cross & Cross / Pennington, Lewis & Mills
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 19th, 2009, 12:26 AM
  4. First Corinthian Baptist Church
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 11th, 2002, 05:32 AM
  5. Parishioners restoring Annunciation Church
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2002, 11:53 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software