Should New York rebuild the towers?

[jiml_63]

There is talk that they are considering rebuilding the towers. Some say that would be an affront to the victims who perished. Others say rebuilding them would be a big "**** you" to the monsters that brought them down. What do you think?

 

[G-Man]

I think they should be rebuilt only if someone will design them in a way that prevents this from happenin again - Stronger structure, better escape ways.

 

[allan]

I don't know if it would be an affront--I'd like to think that the dead would have wanted it. I was thinking of this the other day, and I say yes, let's rebuild them, even higher and greater than they were before--just to taunt the f*ckers.... (But maybe mount some AA guns along the sides, or do what G-man said....)

Show the world that we're resilient--those buildings were a symbol of our greatness. Maybe call them "the Memorial World Trade Center" or something, to honor those fallen....

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: allan ]</p>

 

[floppa21]

A coworker told me that's what a Gumbel brother said. Rebuild them, don't inhabit them. Just make them as a Memorial. And a big "F*ck You" to the scum who did this to our country. I think that is a good idea, but where do these people get replaced to? I mean the ones who worked in the towers...

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Yes, put them back up. It's not an affront to the victims at all.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

They will be rebuilt, better than before, as a memorial to those who were murdered.

I knew some of them, that is what they would have wanted.

 

[G-Man]

Maybe they should build on the rubbles of all WTC buildings one huge WTC building, that'll be strong enough to stand a plane crash?

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: G-Man ]</p>

 

[dreadhead7]

I think it's important that we build it again--just make it better structually, and all. It'll show the terrorists that we aren't cowed. They did this to us in the hopes that we would be devastated, and paralyzed. This would be one practical way to show them that we won't be moved...

I've got that Elton John song going through my head... I'm still standing. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Speaking as a landlord here, who is going to rent space in a tower that will be the number one sybolic target in the world? Also, who will insure it? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

 

[jc011]

nice looking forum! anyways,
i think that they should rebuild it since we cant just stop building skyscrapers because of terrorists attacks, because there is no room to build low wide buildings, well just have to ensure that there is no more terrorism in this world.

 

[amadeus]

I say rebuild them the same way they were, but put a 5-10 story memorial to those who did die during the attacks outside of the buildings (as like a lobby to both the buildings together, not just one singular building)

 

[Magnus]

Yea, rebuild them to look like this:

 

[allan]

I LIKE it!!!

 

[VoodooAce]

Obviously some kind of memorial needs to be placed there. Still, didn't someone just shell out $3.2 billion this summer for the land there......a 99 year lease? Or was that not for the land, but for just the towers themselves?

Regardless, that little bit of real estate there is at least among the most expensive in the world, it not the most expensive. Even in our grief, I doubt they'll refrain from rebuilding in one form or another. The idea mentioned a couple of messages ago made sense, in that whatever they build should be accompanied by a memorial.

 

[starlifter]

Rebuild. But re-take the tallest building title... go for the 2,000 foot range.

Take donations from all over. Use US taxpayers dollars to assist (& distribute rents accordingly).

The look need not be the same.

BTW, long before this incident, I've studied skyscraper construction, and would just like to point out that both towers easily withstood the jetliners smashing into them.

The fire is what began to weaken the structural steel over a 1+ hour period. All modern steel buildings are constructed to survive the effects of heat in even a fierce high rise fire. And the Towers would have survived any indiginous fire. The structural steel is actually insulated to reduce the heat transfer while the fire burns out, or is put out by the suppression systems and/or firemen.

However, the WTC did not have structural steel insulation to enable it to survive 80,000 or 90,000 pounds of jet fuel in an inferno. BUT... it is quite possible to construct (or even retrofit) skyscrapers to meet even this threat. The main drawback is the cost involved. Suffice it to say, I favor adding the 3 to 4 extra layers of insulation to the structural steel of any replacement building, and we should probably retrofit other key buildings.

Something most people don't know, or don't think about is how both WTC towers stood for over an hour in the jet kerosene inferno. The "expected" time would have been about 30 or fewer minutes. Probably 10,000+ people were saved because the WTCs were probably the most redundant and structurally sound large skyscraper in the world.

 

[Archbob]

No, I don't think they should be re-built. Its too big a risk. The WTC has always been a prominent target of attacks, and if it is re-built, it will be attacked again.

About making the structures stronger--if a big plane crashes into your building, your pretty screwed no matter what.

 

[allan]

A la mierda los pisados por la puta!

F*ck 'em! If someone tries it again, we'll crush them again....

To follow your reasoning, I guess we should dismantle the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower, the Capitol, the White House, the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge... and put everybody underground?

Or should we continue to build greatness freely and defiantly, and chop off the hand that would knock it down?

Freedom is all about living openly. Which requires defense and vigilance. We will break the spirits of those that threaten it, to a whimper. Then we will carry on, with our heads high. Anything less, and they've won....

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Even if they are not rebuilt so as not to provide a target for terrorists, these terrorists will still find some other target to hit. I would say rebuild. Besides the location is pretty valuable. Sooner or later, some people will build something there.

 

[Siggy]

Rebuild them. Bigger, better stronger and richer. The west will never kneel to terrorists.

 

[Juize]

Yessir, they should be built again. But youre on the wrong lead.
You should NOT look how they could stand against terrorist
attacks. You should ask WHY against them were an terrorist attack.