Please vote. Comments welcome. Thx

I do think it should be rebuilt.
However, i do this think one should be like twice the size and to be built with haste so that it sends a msg back to the terroists.
A msg that we will not tollorate it, at all.

Just my thoughts

Craig

according to aol, they are planning to rebuild it

Yes, should do!

Like this (see attached)

Cheers!

Originally posted by Ericd
Yes, should do!

Like this (see attached)

Cheers! :agree:

lol

Thats rather amusing

still i dont think they would do that :]

No they should NOT rebuild the WTC, it should be turned into a memorial park to remind the world what happens when fanatics get out of hand. Let it stand as a warning to all what happens when hatred gets the upper hand. Maybe other contries will learn from this. The Irish fighting comes to mind, so does all the other ethnic/religious fighting. Let the WTC stand as a warning about terror. IT HAS TO STOP!!!!! I'm tired of reading about this bombing or that killing, so lets turn that area into a park dedicated to the victims of terrorism.

Yeh . . . . . A hundred and fifty story park.

And who would rent space there? According to the papers companies in the Empire State Building are looking to move out! (and it has been hit by a plane and survived.go to http://www.esbnyc.com/sitemap.cfm? then click on FAQ, then search for plane. it will give you the following 100%


Did a plane really crash into the Empire State Building?


On July 28, 1945, an Army Air Force B-25 crashed into the Building between the 79th and 80th floors. Fourteen people died. Damage to the Building was $1 million but the structural integrity of the Building was not affected.)

People are afraid of tall buildings right now! If they rebuid the WTC to the same height or higher, who will rent space there...?

I personally feel that WTC shd never built again in the same site; That land shd be dedicated to the innocent people died on that dark day & if possible shd be used for the children who lost parents & parents who lost their children in that tragedy.

Thats what all I can think in this moment :rolleyes:

The best possible monument to the people who lost their lilves there would be to rebuild. Bigger, stronger, better. Who will rent? I bet it will not be a problem filling the new building with tenants. Sure there are people who will never occupy office space in a highrise, but there are people who will do so in a heartbeat as well.

Build a monument in the plaza of the tower. Every time anyone looks at the new towers, they will remember. As a dominant feature of the New York skyline, it will serve as a constant reminder of the strength of the Nation - and I don't mean just the strength of our government.

It's important to never forget what happened here. The only way to stay strong and keep a vigil is to never forget.

-t

The owner of the WTC is going to rebuild -- but not as big as the WTC use to be...

In '99 he bought a 99 year lease for something like 3.4 billion dollars...

He has to make money some way...

It will probably be a couple medium size buildings - but probably nothing like the size of the two twin towers.

A memorial would probably be there as well... who knows...

I am sure they will rebuild while at the same, establish some kind of memorial also.

I do not think it should be rebuilt. But a memorial. And the question isnt if thye should but WHO would buy some spots in the new WTC?

Chris

Definitely rebuild bigger, stronger, and safer. You can rebuild these beautiful and awe inspiring structures while at the same time have a monument for the thousands of innocent people that died. We have to continue to move forward or I fear we'll lose much more...

Am I the only one bothered by discussion of whether or not they should rebuild the WTC, when there are still recovery efforts underway?

:bawling:

If they rebuild it, they should put a military base on top of it because it sure will make a nice target for future terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by Michelle69
Am I the only one bothered by discussion of whether or not they should rebuild the WTC, when there are still recovery efforts underway?. . . .We all agree it's a tragedy.
Recovery 'must' be done.
Rebuilding . . . . is open for discussion.

They should rebuild it... maybe have a park/memorial in the lobby and then some kind of garden on an upper floor. They also need better evacuation plans in there. The upper floors should have the express elevators since the bottom floors are right by the bottom. And of course a stronger structure... but I don't know if even the empire state building could have withstood the heat and explosion caused by those planes. :(

They built in 1973 and 1972 , don't think it would be right to build them, but they should make something there for people to remember the tragedy.

Originally posted by Ericd
Yes, should do!

Like this (see attached)

Cheers!

Hehe, lol, i like that one. :laugh:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=157231

TOO FUNNY!!! Who created that image?

I don't know who created it, i saw it somewhere on the web, so i thought it would be great to show it :D

I got about 5-6 "pass it on" messages saying it should be built with one big tower and some small ones to resemble a middle finger... I guess someone got it and decided to make an image off it.

If the owner indeed paid that kind of money for a 99 year lease, trust me, he will rebuild, and as BIG as he can

Right now we are all morning, but this is still NY .. once the grief is gone, capitalism will walk back in ... trust me .. they will build

we will most likely see a memorial in the new building(s) somehow as well

As a New Yorker, I can say I'd love to see the skyline looking the way I've always known it -- because it's heartbreaking to see it now.

To me, rebuilding it at least similar in appearance to the original would be a sign of resiliance. But I suppose something different might be great, as well...

I just miss that skyline, so I might not be thinking as rationally as I should, but right now I'd vote rebuild it.

We can rebuild it, but who's going to want to rent there? Seriously who? At a site where thousands have died and a site that might entice terrorists again?

Yeah I know we shouldn't give in to terrorism and all, but it's not me that'll be deciding it. It'll be the market place. For sure rent will be a lot cheaper once it's rebuilt.

I think the viability of such towers will be in question. The safety considerations are much the same, it wasnt the impacts that brought them down, it was the fires, and in this respect the same risks that already existed still apply. To build a safer structure would mean more costs and less commercial floorspace, this will impact heavily on any rebuild.

I think a new site should be found, away from such dense centres of population, very possibly even a military site, where land costs are much lower and it is possible to spread out a lot more rather than vertically giving the structure a much higher survivability in human terms. I think the current site should be given over to a memorial of some sort.

Originally posted by Cyberpunk
I think the viability of such towers will be in question.
[...]
I think a new site should be found, away from such dense centres of population, very possibly even a military siteI think the viability of a huge office building, one of the world's largest, far from any population center would equally be in question. There's a practical reason why big office buildings are in big cities: that's where the people are! And an office building on a "military site" doesn't seem all that practical either. it wasnt the impacts that brought them down, it was the fires, Questionably. It's very likely that the impact of a large airplane crashing through the building, ripping out support structures and flooring, did structural damage that weakened the buildings enough that fire damage could bring it down. It's unlikely that a fire started in any "normal" way would have had the same effect -- and the 1993 bombing showed that those buildings in particular could survive some pretty spectacular damage.

To be sure, there haven't been many "skyscrapers" constructed in recent years for very real economic reasons. The WTC itself had been losing millions of dollars. It remains to be seen whether this occurance will make people tend to avoid tall buildings in general, let alone whether there'd be a tendency to avoid a particular site because of what happened there.

Yes you can go and build it, yes you can build it bigger but definetely they will do the same thing all over again but with more planes and more buildings, it is blatently obvious. There will always be people someone willing to do it. So i agree with a memorial garden or some statue or something.

Originally posted by Nick Worby
Yes you can go and build it, yes you can build it bigger but definetely they will do the same thing all over again but with more planes and more buildings, it is blatently obvious. Huh? You seem to be saying that if there is no more World Trade Center there'll be no more attacks. ("[rebuilding] it will only bring more deaths"), or by extension that if the building had never been there, last week's attack wouldn't have happened.

It made, and will make, no difference what the bulding is called or where it is, there will always be something that will be seen as a possible target for such attacks -- office building, dam, nuclear power plant, auto factory... it could be anything.

In no way would we reduce or avoid terrorism simply by building no more tall buildings; and in no way would we encourage or invite it by building more of them.

Unfortunately this don't build it because it's a target mentality will soon have us all living underground.

Rebuild, bigger and better.

-t

You misunderstand, i dont mean deaths will stop everywhere but in that spot, that if you built it would be a 1500ft bullseye for US whole International policy setup and ideology. It does actually make a difference where it is, they want to hit the globes capitalist base, what better place than the worlds richest nation's financial district. And if US airport security was up to code with the EU e.t.c. it probably wouldn't have happened. But this is my opinion, what will ACTUALLY happen is a modernised version of the complex will be built, maybe a bit bigger than now but it will happen. And there probably wont be a problem working there for most companies as from what i have heard the demand is too great for it not to be there.

And Yes, there will always be terrorism.

The US must change its international policy or expect this kind of thing to happen more often.

Apologies if this went a bit off topic.

It's too bad that some companies are still using pictures in their advertising :(

You would think that ads like this would be removed in respect of those who were killed, wounded and affected by the tragedy.

An example is located here at

McData Corporation (http://www.mcdata.com/nwc/)

rebuild... rebuild... rebuild....

Make it big and strong and show everyone how resiliant the US is and so are the people.

I am not saying we should forget what happened. I just think we need to make a statement that you can knock down our building but not our faith or our strength.

And Make the new building a memorial!!!

Jut my opinion :)

They have entirely too much money tied up in that space not to rebuild (anyone ever checked the price of an aparment in Manhattan), of course they will build a memorial attached to the new building, however I would assume that the building wouldn't be as tall ($400 million 30 years ago, anyone know how much that would cost today??)

Originally posted by Nick Worby
[clip]The US must change its international policy or expect this kind of thing to happen more often.
And just how would you change that policy to protect the U.S. from terrorism? Do you support isolationism? How about ignoring other countries when they ask for our aid (aka Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) or simply letting the stronger nation overrun the weaker?

The policy change that would have kept this attack from happening is more linked to a stronger response to prior terrorist acts, not a weakening of our position on human rights and terrorism. If we had eliminated bin Laden and his terrorist network with extreme prejudice when he bombed the U.S. embassies in Africa, we would not be having this discussion today. Instead, we proved that he and his followers can get away with terrorist acts, and so they acted again - this time with much deadlier consequences.

-t

http://www.tripleauction.com/images/rebuilding_the_wtc.jpg


They should be rebuilt just like this!

James :angry:

Originally posted by Nick Worby
You misunderstand, i dont mean deaths will stop everywhere but in that spot, that if you built it would be a 1500ft bullseye for US whole International policy setup and ideology. It does actually make a difference where it is, they want to hit the globes capitalist base, what better place than the worlds richest nation's financial district. Exactly the point; exactly while rebuilding shouldn't be expected to "cause more deaths." If, in fact, the target was "the globe's capitalist base," that base will be there whether a similar building someday stands at the same spot or not, and surely you don't think that hitting a 1500-foot "bullseye" is so much easier than hitting a smaller building that populating the Financial District with anonymous-looking low buildings will mean there'd be no more terrorism there? Surely you don't think that hijacking airplanes and crashing them into the tallest buildings around will always be the attack method of choice?

It'd be a mistake to think that because this attack was made in a particular way against a particular kind of target, similar targets are the only ones to worry about -- the same kind of mistake, in fact, that let this happen so easily even though all sorts of defenses were taken in the area to make a repeat of 1993 truck bomb more difficult.

Originally posted by phpjames

They should be rebuilt just like this! Somebody didn't read the whole thread...

Look closer... the buildings aren't just bigger but they are a middle finger!

The point isnt to rebuild bigger. The point would be to show those who hurt and attack our country that killing innocent people wont be tolarated!

Ok thats my two cents...

CHECK OUT THE FINGER!

James :angry:

JayC noticed the finger. His point was that it was posted in this thread already (a similar enough picture, though not the *exact* same).

Ya ya gotcha... i had a brain fart. Sorry for the not reading the post! I should read more often! :eek:

It's actually an Australian company who owns the lease, and knowing their history, I'd say you can count on a great big mother of a building going up... as it should.. although it might be harder to populate than imagined, even by staunch patriotic supporters...

and they didn't pay billions for the lease either.. :) still it was a LOT of money....

Originally posted by JayC
Questionably. It's very likely that the impact of a large airplane crashing through the building, ripping out support structures and flooring, did structural damage that weakened the buildings enough that fire damage could bring it down. It's unlikely that a fire started in any "normal" way would have had the same effect -- and the 1993 bombing showed that those buildings in particular could survive some pretty spectacular damage.

The buildings were in fact designed to survive the impact of a 707 - and that they did indeed. From what I understand, the buildings had an internal steel structure and a line of concrete column supports around the perimeter of the structure.

The problem was indeed the fire. Steel's structural integrity is compromised at 700 degrees (Celsius I think). The fires reached 1600 degrees (not sure whether than was Faranheit or Celsius, but its greater than 700 degrees [whatever] anyway). Essentially what happened is that the initial impact was withstood. Them the fires weakened the steel supports which virtually removed them from the equation.

That just leaves the concrete columns - damaged but holding nonetheless. Concrete has high compressive strength (pushing together), which is why it's used in buildings. Unfortunately, it has low tensile strength (pulling apart). Without the steel, the columns start to bow - and when the tensile strength is exceeded - bam, down they go.

To build a building that high, you need steel. Unfortunately, that comes with its problems, as we've witnessed. I don't think things have changed much today. A better structure could certainly be built, surviving the impact of much larger planes, but I'm not sure whether the steel/heat problem has been overcome.

Originally posted by felix220
and they didn't pay billions for the lease either.. :) still it was a LOT of money....

According to CNN, a 99-year lease was purchased for $3.2 billion.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.wtc.rebuild/

This article also happens to cover the topic of this thread.

To those who think we should build it bigger and badder, I suggest once it's built you rent the top floor for yourself when it's done and move your entire family into it.

I'm not saying we should become isolationists, but at the same spot?

Originally posted by JG


According to CNN, a 99-year lease was purchased for $3.2 billion.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.wtc.rebuild/

This article also happens to cover the topic of this thread.

Yes apologies.. Westfield, the Australian company took a 99 year lease on the 'retail component' of the WTC a couple of months ago for somewhat less than a billion.. and Silverstein Properties leased some 10m sq ft of the balance of the building. Westfield had the naming rights to the building as part of its deal..

I would have to agree with the majority.

In its place, twin towers, of identical or greater size, they should remain a monument to the success of the free world.
Lest we forget the terrorists attacked the pentagon, this is by no means a huge multi-storey building. True it is a monument, but it simply proves that the height doesnt matter when it comes to terrorist attacks.

Plans are in place to protect aeroplanes from this kind of disaster, personally I don't understand why people could gain entry to the cockpit of an aircraft, why could it be let to happen? this should be the main question being asked. I feel the pilots should be confined they enter the aeroplane and the moment they take off the door is locked, it may not be unlocked until the aeroplane lands or a security code is punched in.

No other object could be created to create such a disaster with launched unhindered into a building, even the American military have admitted that they do not have armoury that can cause this amount of devastation with a single shot, they admitted that not even a cruise missile could do this.

So to agree, build them, build them better, parachutes if required, if it were the fire that caused the damage then build a system to "water" the building, huge water tanks at the top of the building to put the fire out, nothing is impossible in this world when civilised and knowedgeable people come together for a single overwhelming cause.

Originally posted by Lawrence


The buildings were in fact designed to survive the impact of a 707 - and that they did indeed. From what I understand, the buildings had an internal steel structure and a line of concrete column supports around the perimeter of the structure.

The problem was indeed the fire. Steel's structural integrity is compromised at 700 degrees (Celsius I think). The fires reached 1600 degrees (not sure whether than was Faranheit or Celsius, but its greater than 700 degrees [whatever] anyway). Essentially what happened is that the initial impact was withstood. Them the fires weakened the steel supports which virtually removed them from the equation.

That just leaves the concrete columns - damaged but holding nonetheless. Concrete has high compressive strength (pushing together), which is why it's used in buildings. Unfortunately, it has low tensile strength (pulling apart). Without the steel, the columns start to bow - and when the tensile strength is exceeded - bam, down they go.

To build a building that high, you need steel. Unfortunately, that comes with its problems, as we've witnessed. I don't think things have changed much today. A better structure could certainly be built, surviving the impact of much larger planes, but I'm not sure whether the steel/heat problem has been overcome.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Thats what I was referring to in my earlier post, its somewhere between 600 and 700 degrees that the steel goes soft and those higher tempratures dont do concrete much favours either. Additionally the distance from the core to the skin was spanned in a single lattice beam with no additional support, as the heat began to deform the steel they all started to drag downwards, that coupled with about 1/3 of the buildings plant on the top floors was too much for the core to take in "shear forces".

The physical properties of the materials are the same and the limitations on any structure will therefore be the same.

Watching it all I was aware of these risks and I was extremely saddened when the towers collapsed so quickly, I knew they were intended to take a plane impact but I hoped they would withstand the fires longer.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As a lifelong New Yorker, one of the last people to see the towers standing while on flames (I work a few blocks away), was one of those people you saw on the news running when the buildings collapsed (which I didnt know had happend for about 6 hours until I got home), AND volunteered in one of the shelters for the dislocated residents of the area, EVERYONE I have spoken to wants them to be rebuilt. People are scared of tall buildings, thats crap, dont believe everything you read on the Internet. There are tall buildings around the world forget about just in NYC. Life must go on, and New Yorkers are doing just that. Planes have been targets of hijackings for decades, yet people still fly. There was the attack on the Japanese subway system several years ago, does that mean we just stop building subways? Of course not. NYC has enough memorials. Oklahoma has a memorial, they did what they felt as the right thing to do and I praise and respect them for that.

The towers were built to withstand an impact, and they did just that, which saved thousands of lives alone, dont forget that! The buidling fell straight down, which saved even more lives, dont forget that either! Everything should be considered a target....I hate to say that, but that is the case, whether you are in NYC or in a small town in Idaho....

So will we live in a nation with a new memorial in NYC or in a nation with a new building in NYC which memorializes the event?

Fred, its not often I say this in such short terms:

I wholly agree with your opinion on this matter.

Dont forget that about 10 years ago a bomb exploded in the basement of the same exact building, yet I dont remember hearing about any high levels of of occupancy rates.

Originally posted by Fred
. . . . . .So will we live in a nation with a new memorial in NYC or in a nation with a new building in NYC which memorializes the event? I vote for the latter.

Xtstrike: "personally I don't understand why people could gain entry to the cockpit of an aircraft. I feel the pilots should be confined they enter the aeroplane and the moment they take off the door is locked, it may not be unlocked until the aeroplane lands or a security code is punched in. "


How can you be that naive, do you honestly believe that a locked door will stop a determined terrorist. Please :rolleyes: . For one thing how do you propose that the pilots get out mid flight if they need to, say there was a problem in the cockpit (heart attack to pilot etc) or they just needed to take a piss. There are other long term ways to gain access to the cockpit, they could either have afalse pilot identity or actually train to be one, the legal way and then crash the thing. You wouldn't even need to be an airline pilot a half dozen business jets could do just as much damage if not more and it would be easier to gain access to them.

There are so many loop holes, the only short term measure is better security in US airports.

The buildings were chosen as they are symbols of America's government and financial machine. It was designed to humillate your system and policies. I am not suggesting that you go isolationist, far from it, but maybe if more diplomacy and tact was used on the world stage so you seem more impartial.

Dont get me wrong i am disgusted by these actions but these are the facts.

Originally posted by Nick Worby
. . . . .maybe if more diplomacy and tact was used on the world stage so you seem more impartial. . . .:eek:

Have you heard of a cpuntry called Israel and the slight problem *sarcasm* that they have had for the past 30 years to name one incident. In simple terms sometimes the US has put its foot in it when it comes to International Affairs over the years more than once.

yea .. underground .. DEEPLY underground (with a fat dozen ft. deep concrete, rebar, and titanium (with kevlaron top :))