9-11 monument to be biggest buidlings ever

[Guest cynicalprofit]

I dont have the article, but I read it on the front covcer of a nespaper, so I know Im not dreaming, but I read that 4 or 5 of the 9-11 monuments being considered would be super big buildings, and one was to build the tallestr structure ever for it.

 

After readings this Im now convinced inorder to be in contrrol of a comapny or big decisions, you have to be a fucking moron. Yes lets make a bigger target. Im sorry but when I read this I couldnt believe they would even CONSIDER this. Why not just paint a huge fucking bullseye on it while they're at it. This is the best these people can come up with, make a huge trarget? Morons.

 

I know they might choose not to use one of the big structure desgins, but come on, what were the designers smoking when they decided, yeah lets make it huge. And why they hell did the commity(sp) to decide what will be built even use them as possibilities.

 

Best thing to do, build a small park, in the middle have two tall towers, no windows, just towers, and have a circle of people of many different races and origins, holding hands in a ciricle around it. That would cost what, 10000 for everything.

 

Buidling some mega structure will cost millions. Which the taxpayers would probably have to pay for anyways. The scarry thing is, I can see this happening.

 

So what do you think, and someone post the artricle because its late as fuck, Im tired, and going to bed soon.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

I can see the logic in it...it'd be like a giant "fuck you" to the perpetrators, because it's a symbol of strength...you took 'em down, but we brought 'em back better then ever.

 

Yes, it does make them a target, but there is at least SOME logic in it.

 

I'm all for a number of smaller buildings around a memorial. I mean, while this may sound cold, there WAS a lot of space lost there, and I'm sure it'd help to get it back.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I saw those plans, and with the exception of one or two concepts, they looked pretty awesome. New York could use something new on the skyline to contrast with the mostly rectangular skyline (the Chrysler, Empire State, and Woolworth Buildings being contrasts off the top of my head) of Manhattan. They're refusing to build on the sites of the original towers, so why not build on the rest of the available land? We can't live in fear forever. Besides, what are the odds that they'd do the same thing AGAIN, and manage to get away with it before being shot down?

[Guest DrTom]

Besides, what are the odds that they'd do the same thing AGAIN, and manage to get away with it before being shot down?

Shooting a plane down over a metropolitan area wouldn't be pretty.

 

I think they should build five smaller buildings on the original site, with the buildings arranged in a circle. In the center of them all can be a memorial park to those who lost their lives. The land is still being used for businesses without making the buildings 100-story targets, and those who want a memorial get one.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

I dunno, but I don't think they'll easily find enough people to fill out the higher floors on this new and improved WTC / Monument building unless its super cheap (for NYC anyway)..and even then I find it hard to believe that they will get much interest in any of it considering that the place will sit where 2,900 people (some of whom were relatives or whatnot) died.

 

The idea that they are losing prime real estate in NYC that could sell for lots of money is sorta negated by this..they might as well just build a memorial park there instead, and build the tall buildings somewhere else..

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Besides, what are the odds that they'd do the same thing AGAIN, and manage to get away with it before being shot down?

Famous last words.

 

Just remember some fbi guy said "think they could fly a plane into a building?" They decided this wasnt realistic.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

But now we're very prepared for such an event, should it happen again. Does Al-Queda have a reputation of repeating forms of attack? Anyone know or heard anything along these lines?

 

I wasn't saying shoot the plane down over a metropolitan area, I meant more along the lines of shooting it down once it's clear something is wrong with it, like the one that would have been blown out of the sky had the passengers not taken control of it.

[Guest J*ingus]

It IS possible to build a skyscraper strong enough to withstand a 747 crashing into it and stay standing. It just wasn't feasible back in the 70's when the WTC was erected.

[Guest red_file]

It IS possible to build a skyscraper strong enough to withstand a 747 crashing into it and stay standing. It just wasn't feasible back in the 70's when the WTC was erected.

When the towers were designed it was actually considered that a commercial flight might go astray and crash into the building, and they were fairly certain that the towers could take the impact of a 707 (might've been a different make, I can't recall). As has been pointed out in the past, it wasn't the impact that brought the buildings down, it was the extremely high tempature of the jet fuel burning that melted the trusses. Even if the towers had been built using full supports instead of trusses there's little chance that the towers would still be standing.

 

Could they build a tower that could withstand the impact of a 747 and the heat of several hours worth of jet fuel burning? Probably. But I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

[Guest Michael Joel Benoit]

I don't seriously think that Al-Queda will go for a repeat of the 9-11 attacks again. They most likely know that we are more prepared for such an attack more than we were before 9-11. With much tighter airline security, the chances of them pulling off another such catasphophe is slim to none.

 

That being said, I like these new designs. My favorite is the one where there is a single tower seperated until the top where they "kiss". I also like the twin towers part 2 concept. The skyline looks so bleak and empty without the Twin Towers, that it would be great if they could be replace with something better. Plus its the ultimate "Fuck You!" to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

They should put those two spotlights they had on the top of them.

[Guest red_file]

With much tighter airline security, the chances of them pulling off another such catasphophe is slim to none.

Have you flown recently? The security, unfortunately, is a joke. Or, at least, it was when I flew last month.

 

Still, I'm more worried about someone parking a chevy in front of the White House with a nuclear/biological weapon in the trunk than about another suicide mission with planes.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Would you want to insure these new super-buildings?

 

(I know we as taxpayers will anyway, but still. Would you want to be these buildings insurers? I wouldn't...)

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Plus its the ultimate "Fuck You!" to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda.

Because we're stupid enough to build a bigger building to be knocked down?

 

Building a big monument is just asking for trouble.

[Guest bob_barron]

So we should just live in fear of another attack?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

It IS possible to build a skyscraper strong enough to withstand a 747 crashing into it and stay standing. It just wasn't feasible back in the 70's when the WTC was erected.

There was a piece on the Hitler Channel (History) the other day on the WTC with all kinds of interviews from back in the day (98?)

 

One building manager bragged the buildings could take multiple plane strikes. He was right. He forgot though that the heat of the explosion will melt the steel when jet fuel is involved.

 

While he talked about this, in the corner of the screen it mentioned he died in the attack.

 

Logic dictates that Tall Buildings are deathtraps, and the only people you'd get into a huge-ass building (only three plans DON'T include building the world's tallest) would be the same people who would get on a new cruise ship named after the Titanic.

 

Patriotic garbage will clash with common sense, and hopefully whatever they decide on will be best for the area financially. Someone does own that property you know, and has a right to claim some of it to make money from.

 

As for the memorial, it's said that 'll be a seperate contest that goes around the world. Bah. They ought to find the woman who made the Vietnam wall and ask her to make a tribute.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

We have to build them bigger and better. It is a sign of american strength. It says fuck you, you lost. If we do not do it than they won.

 

--Rob

[Guest nikowwf]

People seem to forget that this was a BUSINESS area. There were companies doing business there for the whole world. Do you know that there was something like 50 japanese companies in there? And thats just one country.

 

They need office space, a nice monument, and space for stores and tourist things. This needs to be rebuilt for financial reasons as well as simply to make people feel good that something is going back there.

 

People are going to bitch and whine like there is no tommorrow about this. There will be no way to make everyone happy.

 

I see nothing wrong with having huge buildings on the site before. Were the two huge buildings offensive before 9-11?

 

niko

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I think a larger problem will perhaps be that any business may be hampered by visitors to the site from around the world. Everywhere that I can think of that has some sort of monument or memorial, the structure or space isn't in the middle of the busiest island in the Western world. A glut of tourists could cause problems.