Please VOTE the new concept NOW!
http://www.wtc2002.com

*ugh* voted no. It looks like a giant wheat silo... The World Trade Center was elegant in it's simplicity - that things just a blight on the landscape.

Greg Moore

that thing is horrid...

I mean it would be nice for a new wtc, but those... No way :(

Is it me or does it look like the Shuttle?

Looks like somethin' out of Bladerunner :D

Originally posted by NetXL
Looks like somethin' out of Bladerunner :D

Actually I agree. Kind of an oppressive, bleak future. Not exactly something to inspire - more defensive battle ready structure.

Greg Moore

Originally posted by microsol
Please VOTE the new concept NOW!
http://www.wtc2002.com

I liked the loading screen ... but erm anyways

The BMW headquaters in Germany looks like that without the top bit :eek:

But aslong as the structure is strong enough

ie : wont fall like a piece on paper when hit by somethings ( eg. plane )

I'm all for it

I just hope the take into account other sceniros ( sp? )

um. they're "soundtrack" consists of the twin peaks theme song.






MY VOTE GOES NO!

I say make it smaller and harder to knock down. Never know in 30 years we may have the same issue with nutzos!

I say make it smaller and harder to knock down.

I agree!

Originally posted by phpjames
I say make it smaller and harder to knock down. Never know in 30 years we may have the same issue with nutzos! If you make it smaller; they win.
If you don't build it; they win.

There'll always be "nutzos."

Great point... How about this? We make it just a little bit smaller and not so huge but make 1000000000000's of buildings identical to the new WTC. That would drive Usama and his little cronies nuts!

:uzi: Terrorists

just put up loads of huge mirrors. millions of towers all over the place.
build it back twice as big in a big V shape. dont let them win.

or we could just kill him will all the sales phone calls i get ever day offering me

"windows" , "doors" , "credit cards"

and so on :eek:

andhow

Whats the point of rebuilding it if you don't make it big :confused:

I say YES :)

yup build it back twice the size. would be nice to have a memorial there as well, and something to celebrate the peoples lives.

Well as a person that lives with a view of NYC ( from my backyard I see the GW Bridge, Empire state building and just about everything else. I think we need a nice tall building.

but the problem is.

Whom is going to insure it.

Right now NY companies are going to be forced into some big problems. Insureance risk. Pan Am building is a nice target plus a whole lot more. Insurance companies have already stated that they will not cover certain buildings. and those buildings are the easy ones to spote. And if your within 500 feet of one of those buildings, your insurance is going up also. so what does the company owner do? They are going to move to office space in NJ, I'm in a Fort Knox type building built back in 1928, this thing is solid concrete and steel beams, plus I got bigger buildings all around me ( better targets ) I can not wait to see my rent increase.

Mike

i know 300 mill is a tiny dent in the cost but you think theyd have taken bin lids assets. as for insurance. why does overselling come to mind. insurance exists for this, kinda knocks confidence in the industry when they have to pay out then get nervous about insuring any more. altho next time, if you build two of em, insure em both. the worst can happen.

Richy, the people of the USA are overall a very Suit Happy People, and whom pays for it, the insurance companies.

want to see how bad it get's, look at the Dow-Corning suit ( silicon implants ) that took out a huge chunk of money from insurance companies.

look at the impending lawsuits that are for WTC

are you going to join an insureance pool for where the liability might be 100 times your invested amount.

Heck you got Lloyds members now buying policies for there own risk. I'm in an insurance syndicate of aircraft hulls, nice income on those policies, but everytime there is an airplane crash, I go directly on the phone and find out if we did the underwriting. so far we have been lucky. but this year I have to consider looking at even covering my risk with some asian pool underwriters ( they have tons of money and they offer some nice rates ) against something like WTC.

WTC was declaired 1 total loss insident instead of 2 for very specific reason. 2 times the liability for all parties.


Mike

As for the Dow-Corning suit, my wife was involved in that. I wont go into, but she has plenty of proof of what it did. She got out of the class action and went at it alone because if all the idits suing for such small stuff (It put a 1/4 inch scar on my arm, I want a $million$ for it! etc, etc) and ruining it for those who had serious damage done.

As for the WTC and any other skyscraper....the should have automated target rocket launchers that shoot down anything that comes within a certain amount of space to it. Rockets that would practically disentegrate a plane before it hits the ground and causing less casualties and damage. Sounds crazy, but that's about the only way you're gonna prevent it. Once terrorist know that those exist, I doubt they would ever need to be used.. A good defense makes a great deterent..

Originally posted by Webdude
As for the Dow-Corning suit, my wife was involved in that. I wont go into, but she has plenty of proof of what it did. She got out of the class action and went at it alone because if all the idits suing for such small stuff (It put a 1/4 inch scar on my arm, I want a $million$ for it! etc, etc) and ruining it for those who had serious damage done.

As for the WTC and any other skyscraper....the should have automated target rocket launchers that shoot down anything that comes within a certain amount of space to it. Rockets that would practically disentegrate a plane before it hits the ground and causing less casualties and damage. Sounds crazy, but that's about the only way you're gonna prevent it. Once terrorist know that those exist, I doubt they would ever need to be used.. A good defense makes a great deterent..

would love to discuss both points with you, but you have an emotional attachment that morally prevent's me for arguing point 1 but the second.

OK I don't know if you live around here, but flight paths to Newark ( northern approach aka "opec alley" because of the extra miles ) passes within 2 miles, the approach to Kennady and Laguardia both pass within 4 miles of the old WTC, and within 1/4 mile of my home north or south. In fog and heavy rain, it right over my home or down south about 2 miles.

I don't need a missed missile landing in or around my area, nor do I desire the debree field around me. Yes I am saying Not in my back yard. That is the risk you have to take if you are in a skyscraper. the markets ( realestate ) will deciede if there are any new skyscrapers to be built.

I would fight this tooth, nail and with money. if it get's to the point we need armed buildings then I'll say time to move. but in the mean time, maybe it would be better that we have flight security like the airline for Isreal, I can not recall the name but I can recall that they have never been hijacked.

and for those of us whom log better than 150K miles per year, travel into the european ( some south american ) airports, all you see is armed machine gun wielding milatary. I think the last time the Italians had a problem was in 1986. they killed them right there at the airport.

Mike

As for the WTC and any other skyscraper....the should have automated target rocket launchers that shoot down anything that comes within a certain amount of space to it. Rockets that would practically disentegrate a plane before it hits the ground and causing less casualties and damage. Sounds crazy, but that's about the only way you're gonna prevent it. Once terrorist know that those exist, I doubt they would ever need to be used.. A good defense makes a great deterent..

Hmm yeah, shooting the plane down over a high population area has exactly the same effect as flying it into a building, .....if not even worse!


I would fight this tooth, nail and with money. if it get's to the point we need armed buildings then I'll say time to move.

Why wait? Let's move to Hawaii NOW! :cool: :spiny:

To be honest, it isn't going to really matter whether it is large or small, anything built to be similar in concept (a world trade center) will always be a target because of what it represents (to us, and thus to them). Places such as the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty are targets for the same reason.

Just saw the website .. I must say, I like the concept, it woudl be very strong and pleasant

webdude .. you are absolutely right .. put a damm missile louch in the rooftop if you need to, the heck with morals, there wold be probably close to 100k lives in stake here, and you need to protet them

Adehost .. yeah, we need to protect the airlines but STUPID congress says pilots cannot carry weapos .. "they need to concentrate in flying the airplane: they say .. yeah .. like having a loaded 45 in your jacket is goign ot "distract" you, trust me, having a loaded 45 pointed at your HEAD will ...

stupid lazy congress can't even come to grips with a simple solution like that .. hell how many terrorists do you think woudl kick a cockpit door if they know the pilot has a loaded gun waiting for him ? .. what best deterrent than it ?, no instead we shoudl tech pilots how to "talk" the terrorists to death...

umm as regards the rockets nice idea but a bit flawed. a rocket would not disintegrate the plane. the plane that hit the pentagon disintegrated because the explosion was confined by the building vastly increasing its intensity. the planes that hit the towers semi disintegrated because they were partially contained partially increasing the power of the explosion. we seeing a pattern:) ok no launch a rocket at a plane at 300 ft altitude over a densely populated area:) way to napalm them. your going to drop X tonnes of lit aviation fuel on the ground along with 100 tonnes of flaming debris, the plane will be destroyed inasmuch that it wont look very much like a plane and will be in many parts, but many big rather heavy building destroying parts. lesser of two evils maybe but not a prefferred route. best option is to find out who did it, prove it, find them, take them to court and slot every single last one of the sick MF's. then you need a good look at your lack of intelligence system, your security systems, and finally you need to stop pissing off so many countries lol. dont look to solve the symptons, look to solve the problem. stopping a plane flying into a skyscraper is solving a sympton, the problem is the number of countries that hate the states (im pro usa, just speaking frankly). you cant keep half interfering. if your going to go in somewhere like iraq, dont leave a job half done and dont do it for selfish reasons, try and make it so in the end the general populus are in a better position.

looks crapy

I really like what they do now with the lights, I would like to see them leave them up, but I understand there is a tremendous amount of $$$ tied up in that property.

Originally posted by richy
the problem is the number of countries that hate the states (im pro usa, just speaking frankly). you cant keep half interfering. if your going to go in somewhere like iraq, dont leave a job half done and dont do it for selfish reasons, try and make it so in the end the general populus are in a better position.

that god this is the web lounge, then anybody can take this thread off topic

Hate of the USA, inside observations from Mike:

I think that I am the luckiest guy because my father taught me to deal with all cultures at all leavels of income. so when 9/11 happened I started to contact people I knew to ask questions about this subject. I found 1 interesting answer.

Most people don't hate USA. What they do hate ( and associate it to american influence ) is, not having the access and simular contracting opertunities that the wealth or the proper religious caste has. Access to progressive growth is very limiting, mostly the ruling class and the weath class have this access.

Mike

lol sorry ill try and stay on topic next time ;)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I like it!

needs a big flag on the top :)

I think that tower looks like a sim city 3000 screenshot. I think a new WTC would be great for the american peoples sprit, but I think people would be reluctant to work there and insure it. A big ass flag that can be seen from space would also be cool. I know it sounds 'extreme' and a bit tasteless, but they I think they should seriously install some kind of AA protection on it. As it would be the biggest building in New York it could protect other buildings too. Just a thought.

BTW hi, I'm new here :)

I still think they should build this in its place...


http://www.kissmykosherass.com/

Originally posted by vigor
I still think they should build this in its place...


http://www.kissmykosherass.com/

That's a lot of office space...

But apart from that, I do not like the new WTC design (wait..is this just some guy showing what he wants it to be or is really something official?). It's ugly..and is there even much room for something like that? I think they could do much better without that top thing on it.