New York's lost Twin Towers

[Ryan²]

OK, like many others round the world, I was devasted to see the 2 World Trade Center towers in New York fall on September 11th, not only because I have sinced investigated in-depth the causes and destruction, but because in July/August 1999 I visited New York city and went up one of the towers. I'm just thankful I wasn't there on September 11th, and/or anyone I know wasn't either too. If anyone here did have a contact that was lost, then you have my upmost gratitude and sincere apologies, plus respect.

I am, in my heart and will always be devastated at what happened on that awful day as New York city became my favourite city 2 years prior to the attrocities. I would've love to have visited them again, but for many that will never be, even if 2 new stylish towers will be built on the old site. Rudolph Guilani, mayor of NYC, handled the situation in the city brilliantly after 9/11, but for many months, up until at least the 2nd anniversary, New York wasn't the same since, although normality had returned.

And it will always probably stay how it has become now, since 9/11.

People say those towers were ugly.

I say they were modern.
I say they were smart.

But the fact that 2 new towers could be built on the old site is wrong.

And now the fact that they wanna put 2 swimming pools in exactly the diameter plots of where the towers were is a good idea, but a mick-take.

Keep the area flat and safe, and most of all, memorial.

[Sharni]

I agree....the site should stay as is

[musketeer]

One of the much cliche'd sayings used about these things is "Lest we forget" but the sentiments are exactly right - a memorial is needed.

[jseal]

ukG²,

The debate – to rebuild or not to rebuild – has been, and continues to be, hotly debated.

[musicman]

agreed jseal - but do you think it is truly smart to build replacements as tall or taller than the originals?

[jseal]

musicman,

I guess that would depend on the criteria used for the discussion. Should buildings be built which are taller than the full extent of the fire truck with the longest ladder? If so, what type of and how many emergency escapes should be provided?

In this instance, as any replacement structures are obvious targets for a repeat performance, for what type of stresses and to what degree should the designs be assessed? Should these replacements be economically justified, or are they to be chauvinistic statements of American resilience?

Given the unavoidable political aspects of either decision - to build, or to not build – I would guess that a decision to not rebuild, or to replace the destroyed buildings with modest structures would be represented as a success for terrorism. It would inevitably be argued that "the reason they didn’t replace the Twin Towers with another skyscraper is because they knew we’d knock it down again".

I have a difficult time believing that replacement skyscrapers can be economically justified. The economics of building such structures in New York City today are dramatically different from those that existed forty years ago.

[musicman]

I see all your points - but what about building new buildings to match the heights of the buildings around the site?

[kinkyfairy]

i think that we shud rebuild them (it might say im in england but i aint english) i say make a point. do a double, new building that is a memorial. klist everyones names on the building however u know just dont let them win. by us not rebuilding it shows that they won the battle. screw that rebuild. kepe it safe tho , maybe not bigger but def better. make it a tribute to the ppl who lost thier lives.

[Catch22]

Two towers not higher then 7 lvls. That is as high has firefighing gear can reach.

[CunningLinguist]

<sarcasm>I say build a 50 ft. statue of George W. Bush. </sarcasm>

Actually, it was my understanding that the two pools were to not be used for swimming. I liked the idea of two beams of light where the towers onces stood. A holographic twin towers would be cool to, but not practical.

[Vigil]

I think that how whatever is built will be received, will depend upon what they are built to symbolize.

I wouldn't advise anything that could be misconstrued as provocative, rather a symbol of hope for humanity, whatever that may be.

[Nice Guy]

Well a new tower is going up at ground zero. It will be the tallest in the world at 1776 ft. There will also be a memorial at the site, not quite sure what it will be yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/26/wtc.finalist.ap

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2003-09-18-wtc-plans_x.htm

[Ryan²]

Two new towers taller than the old ones are being constructed. So why the press are reporting all these crappy ideas I do not know.

[Nice Guy]

They are constructing just the one. I have heard nothing about two new towers going up. There was a competition to design the new tower or towers and the first link I posted is of the winning design. It is what will be replacing the twin towers.