[AdamIN87]

As far as I remember, the sculptures were only on the 105th floor. Cantor's other office floors were generally bereft of special appointments, and rather spartan compared to the executive area.

I can confirm that Cantor (and their associated companies, including eSpeed, Cantor Gaming, etc.) occupied floors 101-105. However, they did share floors 101 and 102 with other companies. Cantor took up approximately 40% of the 101st floor, and that floor was shared with Kidder and Peabody and a small non-profit. On the 102nd floor, Cantor occupied half of the floor, and that was shared with a Japanese bank (name escapes me at the moment), and Alliance Consulting.

I didn't go up to Windows all that much, but occasionally myself and the rest of the Marsh IT department would occasionally go up to Greatest Bar in the World for happy hour. I wasn't a huge fan of the place because it was so damn expensive, and quite honestly, I was always fine with drinking at (insert random hole-in-the-wall-bar name).

Actually, on September 7, 2001, the last day I was ever at the WTC (the day before I got on a plane to fly to San Diego to attend my dad's Navy retirement ceremony, and hence why I survived the attacks), we had dinner and drinks at Windows. And that was the last time I ever saw any of my colleagues. All but one was killed in the attack, and I suspect it was when the plane struck because their desks were on the 96th floor on the North face of the building, right where the plane impacted. Had I been there that day, at my desk on the Northwest corner of the 99th floor, well, the wing sliced through that floor, but I don't really want to speculate.

Yeah, I'm sure the place was insanely expensive. I bet it was neat to see the wide windows at WOW after working in offices with the narrow standard 18 inch windows. I've read that a ton of Cantor employees would go up to Windows after work given that they were just below it, so I was wondering if that was a habit amongst MMC employees as well.

MMC operated a small chunk of 93 on the south side, correct? The rest of that floor was occupied by Fred Alger, who had extremely lavish offices decorated with marble. I found an article from 1999 interior design magazine about the renovation of Alger's offices that includes pictures and they were indeed very impressive looking. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Chapelo]

I think 8 Spruce Street is superior to anything being built at Ground Zero.

Me too, and I'll always wish they'd rebuilt the Twins, albeit a bit more modernized.

Like so:

But I can live with what's being built, even if it's not the best use for the site.

 

[Chapelo]

Yeah, I'm sure the place was insanely expensive. I bet it was neat to see the wide windows at WOW after working in offices with the narrow standard 18 inch windows. I've read that a ton of Cantor employees would go up to Windows after work given that they were just below it, so I was wondering if that was a habit amongst MMC employees as well.

MMC operated a small chunk of 93 on the south side, correct? The rest of that floor was occupied by Fred Alger, who had extremely lavish offices decorated with marble. I found an article from 1999 interior design magazine about the renovation of Alger's offices that includes pictures and they were indeed very impressive looking. I'll see if I can find it.

93rd floor was support spaces (mailroom), and some office functions. I never did go into Alger's offices, but they were on that floor as well.

 

[AdamIN87]

Me too, and I'll always wish they'd rebuilt the Twins, albeit a bit more modernized.

Like so:

But I can live with what's being built, even if it's not the best use for the site.

I agree that rebuilding modernized twins like those in that picture would have been the best option. The only significant change I would have made is getting rid of the absurdly narrow windows in favor of regular sized ones. As long as they were at least as tall, had an antenna on 1 and an observation deck on 2, then they would have been fine in my book.

Scores were killed at the Pentagon yet that building was immediately patched up and life went on there. I think rebuilding the twins is something that most New Yorkers and Americans would have supported as the scars of 9/11 have healed over the years.

Clearly the powers in charge didn't think that rebuilding the twins was a good idea, but they should have at least made a bold architectural statement there. New York and the US is the birthplace of the skyscraper, and what better place than that sacred ground to build a fabulous skyscraper that would impress the whole world? We could have built something that was jaw-dropping there if we put the time into it. It could have been an iconic for the 21st century skyscraper. Instead, we are building something that is "decent", but it's not spectacular by any measure. You can find similar looking buildings in Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc.

The Twin Towers, whether one found them dull or not, were unique and unlike anything else in the world. For that reason, they were a symbol. What we have here will not be an architectural symbol by any means. It is an average building of which something similar could be found in many cities across the US.

We could have built a skyscraper for the ages and that opportunity was squandered.

 

[Chapelo]

I agree that rebuilding modernized twins like those in that picture would have been the best option. The only significant change I would have made is getting rid of the absurdly narrow windows in favor of regular sized ones. As long as they were at least as tall, had an antenna on 1 and an observation deck on 2, then they would have been fine in my book.

Scores were killed at the Pentagon yet that building was immediately patched up and life went on there. I think rebuilding the twins is something that most New Yorkers and Americans would have supported as the scars of 9/11 have healed over the years.

Clearly the powers in charge didn't think that rebuilding the twins was a good idea, but they should have at least made a bold architectural statement there. New York and the US is the birthplace of the skyscraper, and what better place than that sacred ground to build a fabulous skyscraper that would impress the whole world? We could have built something that was jaw-dropping there if we put the time into it. It could have been an iconic for the 21st century skyscraper. Instead, we are building something that is "decent", but it's not spectacular by any measure. You can find similar looking buildings in Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc.

The Twin Towers, whether one found them dull or not, were unique and unlike anything else in the world. For that reason, they were a symbol. What we have here will not be an architectural symbol by any means. It is an average building of which something similar could be found in many cities across the US.

We could have built a skyscraper for the ages and that opportunity was squandered.

The narrow windows were probably one of my biggest gripes with the buildings, especially working on the 99th floor where you had to use multiple windows to take in the view. After a while though, the novelty of working that high up wore off, but it was still awesome to take guests up to the office and show them the view, and see parts of the buildings that most people never got to see.

I went to NYC a couple of months ago (first time since I left in 2002), and every time I looked towards Lower Manhattan, the first thing my eyes always did was look for the Twin Towers. Like my brain was still programmed to look for those buildings, because not only was it where I made my livelihood, it was a visual marker if I ever got lost and couldn't find my way, especially back in 1996 when I first moved to the city. While I think the new One World Trade Center will in some ways return that "marker" to the skyline (mainly because it looks somewhat like the North Tower), nothing will ever compare to two giant towers gracing the prow of Manhattan.

Granted, they weren't very attractive buildings aesthetically, but they were designed and built in an era where functionality and technological prowess were more important than aesthetics. And as far as I'm concerned, they didn't need to be pretty; their size and stature made them iconic, and they can NEVER be replaced.

Like my signature says, 110 stories, 1,368 feet, and one step closer to heaven. It was the closest to heaven I've ever been.

 

[AdamIN87]

Rodin Sculptures in the Cantor Fitzgerald offices:

You can see the narrow WTC windows in the background of the first one.

This is the firm's founder. B. Gerald Cantor.

http://www.cantorfoundation.org/content/view-all-images

 

[Vanity_Fair]

thought I'd share this with everyone

I just met this girl named Michelle the other night..
after a few hours of conversation had passed by, she commented on my collection of ny prints/posters and paintings..
It turns out she was working in the City, & living in Jersey thru 9-11.. we stayed up all night long and swapped stories
about how it had affected us, and where we stood today..
Friends.. let me tell you.. I thought I knew what happened that day...
Some of the things she shared with me will haunt me for the rest of my life..
The images have been burned into my brain w/out even seeing them to begin with..

Having said that.. on to the reason I'm posting..

...at one point during the night she pulled an image from her purse and handed it to me..
upon seeing the date, chills shot thru my body like shit thru a goose...

It's been in her purse since its developing...
there was something about seeing this particular moment in time that still,
days later fucks with my head and makes me wanna heave...
If only I could warn them type feelings begin to take over..
much like they do when watching TAXI or old SNL re-runs...
...seeing the world thru innocent eyes, oblivious to what lies ahead...

This is a very strange photograph. Measuring the tower on the left against the one on the right and
we see that the tower on the right is HALF as deep as the one on the left.

 

[meh_cd]

It's called perspective.

 

[Vanity_Fair]

It's called perspective.

I am an artist and a photographer and its my professional opinion - something else is going on. The two buildings are very close to one another and are virtually in the same plane.

Compare

 

[Chapelo]

I am an artist and a photographer and its my professional opinion - something else is going on. The two buildings are very close to one another and are virtually in the same plane.

Compare

The image on the right is not oriented correctly. It's backwards (or mirrored, whatever you want to call it). From the angle this shot was taken (from the Hudson), the North Tower would appear on the left, not the right, and it's definitely the North Tower because you can see the antenna.

Also, the buildings were similar, but not identical. The North Tower had its core oriented east-to-west, while the South Tower's core was oriented North-to-South. Additionally, one of the mechanical floors in the North Tower(I believe 108 or 109) was made a "tall" floor, thus making it six feet taller than 2WTC.

 

[Vanity_Fair]

The image on the right is not oriented correctly. It's backwards (or mirrored, whatever you want to call it).

OK - I flipped it horiz., but the point remains the same I think.......

 

[Chapelo]

OK - I flipped it horiz., but the point remains the same I think.......

I'm still not seeing it. What exactly is off?

 

[redbaron_012]

The comment about perspective in the various photos is quite simple. Any photo can be cropped and enlarged so from a distance the two towers would present as near identical. The faces and one side would be very similar. As you get closer in real life if lined up nearer the south wall of tower 2 that face would be hardly visible yet the south wall of tower one would be seen as a broader facade. Many photos exist of the WTC and many are taken from New Jersey or where ever but the perspective situation remains the same as you get closer......if you understand any of this ?

PS Chapelo is correct about the core orientation of each tower but this would have no effect visually to the exterior which had 4 equal sides on each tower.....and the height difference is marginal to the human eye at that scale.

 

[Vanity_Fair]

I'm still not seeing it. What exactly is off?

Core oriemtation is not an issue here although I have made use of those same images to prove other points in the past.

The issue I am addressing is the difference in size and proper visual orientation of the two buildings. The building on the right looks more like the United Nations building than it does one of the twin towers. Its flat and very thin in comparison.

The building on the right is only 1/2 as deep as the on on the left. It is a very strange image. I have been looking at images of these Towers for ten years and this is the first time I have seen this anamoly. it does not seem to me an issue of perspective though.

 

[Vanity_Fair]

Help finding PBS Documentary series on WTC

double post sorry

 

[AdamIN87]

Also, the buildings were similar, but not identical. The North Tower had its core oriented east-to-west, while the South Tower's core was oriented North-to-South. Additionally, one of the mechanical floors in the North Tower(I believe 108 or 109) was made a "tall" floor, thus making it six feet taller than 2WTC.

I thought the North Tower was taller because it had two floors with ceilings that were raised three feet for Port Authority Cafeterias.

 

[Chapelo]

I thought the North Tower was taller because it had two floors with ceilings that were raised three feet for Port Authority Cafeterias.

Not sure about that, it's possible. I always heard from building engineers that it was a mechanical floor that was taller.

Here's a picture of the Port Authority Cafeteria and Lounge, circa 1975. This was on the 43rd floor of the North Tower. The ceilings here were slightly higher than on the office floors, so this may illustrate your point.

For comparison purposes, here's a shot showing the low office ceilings.

In addition to the narrow windows, this was my other big gripe with the buildings. When I started working at Marsh, I had a cubicle towards the center of the building, right next to the core, and the low ceilings and lack of natural light made it really claustrophobic. I couldn't take it anymore, so I waited and waited until an empty cube by a window opened up. I got lucky and was able to get a cubicle in the NW corner of the 99th floor, overlooking the Hudson, WFC, 7WTC, and the West Side Highway. Now that was a view! Later taken from me when they moved everyone during a renovation.

The rest of the set can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/3kqworf

 

[Chapelo]

Core oriemtation is not an issue here although I have made use of those same images to prove other points in the past.

The issue I am addressing is the difference in size and proper visual orientation of the two buildings. The building on the right looks more like the United Nations building than it does one of the twin towers. Its flat and very thin in comparison.

The building on the right is only 1/2 as deep as the on on the left. It is a very strange image. I have been looking at images of these Towers for ten years and this is the first time I have seen this anamoly. it does not seem to me an issue of perspective though.

Okay, I can see it now. I'm not sure what that is. I want to say light, because the Twins had a way of playing with light that hit them, but I honestly can't say for certain.

 

[Vanity_Fair]

Sprinkler System - Where are the nozzle heads?

I very much appreciate this Forum for all of the pictorial information it offers. One thing I have noticed in my research efforts here is that of all the many thousands of pictures of the interior of the Twin Towers posted in this Forum why is there not one photograph that shows the existence of a sprinkler system?

Its important to me because I am researching the subject of the alleged installation of more adequate fire protection systems throughout the buildings following the 1993 bombing incident..........Can anyone here assist me in my efforts?...........Thank you very much......VF

PS - they look like this and should be evident if they have been properly on the ceiling of an average office.

A glass bulb type sprinkler head will spray water into the room if sufficient heat reaches the bulb and causes it to shatter. Sprinkler heads operate individually. Note the red liquid in the glass bulb.

 

[meh_cd]

I have a video that is over an hour long documenting the renovation of the south tower's 85th floor in the summer of 2001. They have the drop ceilings taken off, and you can see the piping and the sprinkler heads. It looks like some of the sprinkler heads themselves had white caps on them. I think they were all recessed. Chapelo might know for sure.