PDA

View Full Version : One World Trade Center 2013


Killercowz
27-01-12, 20:14
So for the past few years I've closely been following the reconstruction of ground zero. It's rising above the skyline of lower Manhattan, slowly filling the empty spot where the twin towers once stood.
I think it's making really good progress, there's still 20 floors left to go and right now it's at 90. The building is slated to open in 2013 and will be topped with a hundred foot antenna.

I would have preferred a modern reconstruction of the old World Trade Center, but I really like the style of the new building so I guess I'm satisfied. :p
I still prefer the old buildings though. I always wanted to go there at night and dine on the top floor with that exquisite view of New York City. Soon I will get to with the finishing of the building. :D
I'm very excited to see it finished, NYC's skyline feels so empty without the Twin Towers, at least something similar will be there now.

Old Design
http://www.therealpublicradio.net/images/nyc_skyline.jpg

New Design 2012(in construction)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/26/article-2091979-1173633D000005DC-730_634x384.jpg

By the way, which design do you prefer.
As I said already, I prefer the old one.

Mikky
27-01-12, 20:20
The new one looks great! :)

Ikas90
27-01-12, 21:00
It will be nice to see the new skyline. The old buildings were unique, but they're old-school tbh.

I took these about 2 and a half months ago. You can see it in more detail.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/312966_2679142701697_1350172242_3043111_130111218_ n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/320722_2679143301712_1350172242_3043112_1283411006 _n.jpg

Mad Tony
27-01-12, 21:03
I too have been following the construction closely. I remember up until about two and a half years ago there was hardly anything there. It's really come on recently which is good to see. :tmb:

Much prefer the old Twin Towers though. I really don't know why they didn't just rebuild them.

Zelda master
27-01-12, 21:06
Am I the only one that sees this as a new invite for more plane crashes..?

Ikas90
27-01-12, 21:07
I really don't know why they didn't just rebuild them.

Not really a good idea if you ask me. They weren't exactly safe or built on safe engineering laws. That's one reason why they collapsed.

Mad Tony
27-01-12, 21:09
Am I the only one that sees this as a new invite for more plane crashes..?I've heard this a lot but it's an incredibly irrational fear. It would be pretty much impossible to replicate 9/11 due to the improvements in security that have been made since then. I'm not saying there's no threat at all, just that it isn't in the form of planes flying into buildings.

Besides, I think rebuilding is the best thing you can do really. What kind of message does that send if you don't rebuild?

Not really a good idea if you ask me. They weren't exactly safe or built on safe engineering laws. That's one reason why they collapsed.Obviously they'd make improvements.

Killercowz
27-01-12, 21:13
Not really a good idea if you ask me. They weren't exactly safe or built on safe engineering laws. That's one reason why they collapsed.

Actually the buildings were an architectural masterpiece, Yamasaki the designer of the building wasn't anticipating jumbo airliners to crash into the buildings.

The impact of the planes destroyed the insulation (well blew them off really) for the buildings causing the buildings to collapse.

The towers were very safe on engineering laws.

Zelda master
27-01-12, 21:31
I've heard this a lot but it's an incredibly irrational fear. It would be pretty much impossible to replicate 9/11 due to the improvements in security that have been made since then. I'm not saying there's no threat at all, just that it isn't in the form of planes flying into buildings.

Besides, I think rebuilding is the best thing you can do really. What kind of message does that send if you don't rebuild?

Well I can get into that, but still. Alot of people (think the idiots) saw the destruction of the towers as a victory, apparently someone I know very very closely (yeah I'm not saying names :p) was cheering while being on his job and hearing/seeing the news. And their are more then enough people that still manage to find some way to get the job done again, security may have improved, but it will never be 100% safe, no matter how you look at it. A Dutch reporter already managed to get a fake bomb onto a plane three times after that incident, you tell me that an avarage extremist wouldn't be able to pull that joke off...

And not rebuilding it, well I don't know, I'll be honest. The buildings collapsed and I was untouched, and the rebuilding doesn't do anything to me either...

Mad Tony
27-01-12, 22:21
Well I can get into that, but still. Alot of people (think the idiots) saw the destruction of the towers as a victory, apparently someone I know very very closely (yeah I'm not saying names :p) was cheering while being on his job and hearing/seeing the news. And their are more then enough people that still manage to find some way to get the job done again, security may have improved, but it will never be 100% safe, no matter how you look at it. A Dutch reporter already managed to get a fake bomb onto a plane three times after that incident, you tell me that an avarage extremist wouldn't be able to pull that joke off...

And not rebuilding it, well I don't know, I'll be honest. The buildings collapsed and I was untouched, and the rebuilding doesn't do anything to me either...America certainly isn't short of tall buildings (if you'll pardon the pun). Adding one or two more isn't going to make a difference.

Of course you can't guarantee for sure that there'll be nothing like 9/11 again, but as far as terrorist attacks go you can bet that if they strike again it won't be like that. As I said, security has improved a lot and there will be easier ways for them to cause destruction and carnage.

I think rebuilding it just shows that you can come back from it. Not only that but there's always a need for office space in Lower Manhattan anyway.

Ward Dragon
27-01-12, 22:51
Visually, I think the new WTC complex looks a lot better (going by the computer-rendered image of what it's supposed to look like when it's finished).

Am I the only one that sees this as a new invite for more plane crashes..?

The terrorists can go **** themselves. Living our lives is not a provocation, and if they see it as such then that's not our problem. We can't just leave a goddamned hole in the ground in order to avoid offending the animals that blew up the building in the first place. They're going to keep trying to kill people no matter what we do, so there's no point living our lives in fear of what they'll think of us.

Actually the buildings were an architectural masterpiece, Yamasaki the designer of the building wasn't anticipating jumbo airliners to crash into the buildings.

The impact of the planes destroyed the insulation (well blew them off really) for the buildings causing the buildings to collapse.

The towers were very safe on engineering laws.

Not really. The older skyscrapers are much safer than a lot of the newer ones. For example, the design of the Empire State Building is much safer than the WTC was. The Empire State Building has structural support columns throughout the building which would prevent it from collapsing the way that the World Trade Center did. The WTC sacrificed structural integrity in order to increase the open space on the floors. The Empire State Building also has thick brick walls for fireproofing around the steel frame, whereas the WTC just had some spray-on fire retardant which was a lot cheaper and less effective. Hopefully the new WTC design is safer than the original was.

Draco
27-01-12, 23:06
There are plenty of skyscrapers that make good targets... if anyone was going to bother doing it again. No point in being scared of a maybe in any case.

benjamin_2010
28-01-12, 00:33
How did I never know they were rebuilding them? Wow that's interesting. They look cool, but it will always feel weird to me..

scoopy_loopy
28-01-12, 00:52
The one looks incredibly pretty. Almost Mirror's Edge-esque. :cln:

Ward Dragon
28-01-12, 01:14
The one looks incredibly pretty. Almost Mirror's Edge-esque. :cln:

Funny you should say that. I thought of Mirror's Edge too when I first saw the renders of the new design.

God Horus
28-01-12, 02:08
The new building looks a lot better, I've seen the concepts of the other buildings which will be built around it and I think the new WTC definitely looks more modern. I prefer this over the old buildings, even though they were iconic, architects have even said that the old buildings were flawed and were not correctly designed which is why they collapsed so easily.

lcroft_lc
28-01-12, 02:51
Let's see how long this structure can stand. :p

scoopy_loopy
28-01-12, 03:02
Funny you should say that. I thought of Mirror's Edge too when I first saw the renders of the new design.

*hi-5*

Pietras
28-01-12, 03:10
The new design is nothing special. They really should've went with Foster's design (with further improvements of course):

http://renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide33.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/WTC1202DesignFosterPartnersDay.jpg

What they're building is just a collection of towers. They all look good (some even great like Tower 2), but they will never be iconic on their own.

http://www.roomu.net/files/user10/wtc1.jpg

TRLegendLuver
28-01-12, 03:36
Let's see how long this structure can stand. :p

That's really not funny. Are you aware of how many people died because of the last two that fell? It's nothing to joke around about.

Am I the only one that sees this as a new invite for more plane crashes..?

I see it as that as well. I think it's more or less taunting them to do it again. We lost of innocent people thanks to insane extremists and the last thing we need to do is rebuild a site where so many people died at. NY is doing quite fine without the Trade Center, Been said on CNN and more from businessmen to regular citizens. Rebuilding it is making a mistake.

Ward Dragon
28-01-12, 03:37
*hi-5*

*hi-5* :D

The new design is nothing special. They really should've went with Foster's design (with further improvements of course):


http://www.september11news.com/WTC1202DesignFosterPartnersDay.jpg



That looks incredibly unstable and top-heavy. Is it seriously pinched in at the middle so that 3/4 of the building is leaning out over the base? :confused: I feel like that would topple over in a stiff wind.

I see it as that as well. I think it's more or less taunting them to do it again. We lost of innocent people thanks to insane extremists and the last thing we need to do is rebuild a site where so many people died at. NY is doing quite fine without the Trade Center, Been said on CNN and more from businessmen to regular citizens. Rebuilding it is making a mistake.

On the contrary. Not rebuilding it would be the mistake. If we didn't rebuild, we'd only be showing the terrorists that they can cause permanent damage every time they succeed with an attack. If they know they only have to succeed once in a blue moon in order to scar the country forever then they'll only try harder.

TRLegendLuver
28-01-12, 03:58
On the contrary. Not rebuilding it would be the mistake. If we didn't rebuild, we'd only be showing the terrorists that they can cause permanent damage every time they succeed with an attack. If they know they only have to succeed once in a blue moon in order to scar the country forever then they'll only try harder.

Whose to say they won't try harder? They literally hate us and have sworn to continue attacks when possible on us. It's not being afraid, it's being wise. Do we really need more people to die at the hand of us getting cocky and saying, "Oh we can do this because the terrorists wouldn't dare attack us again?" or saying it's only being paranoid/afraid when we should rebuild another tower(s)? We need to learn from our mistakes as a country and see it's not wise to making a bastion of arrogance where thousands of people died. It's not worth it if it does happen again. And even "if"s can happen. The people who died, during the attack and afterwards, trying to save survivors: would they really want us to build again after what happened? After we have been threatened many times since then? After all this? It's simply not worth it. You don't have to rebuild to continue society, especially when NY is doing so well at the time anyhow. You don't need to build upon a site where so many loved ones died by nutty terrorists who gave an oath to kill anyone who opposes them, meaning, they will try again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year or the year after, but they will try.

lcroft_lc
28-01-12, 04:29
That's really not funny. Are you aware of how many people died because of the last two that fell? It's nothing to joke around about.

Mr President knows that when he ordered laded to destroy it, isn't he? :pi:

CiaKonwerski
28-01-12, 05:43
It's....so...tall.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/249148_176415979079886_100001344546479_382937_5960 185_n.jpg

klona
28-01-12, 06:20
The new design looks nice. :)
Has anyone seen this building close up? :
http://www.travelweekly.com/uploadedImages/All_TW_News/Hotels_and_Resorts/2011_photos/HyattAbuDhabi-render.jpg
It scared the crap out of me last time I saw it.

TRLegendLuver
28-01-12, 09:39
Mr President knows that when he ordered laded to destroy it, isn't he? :pi:

What the hell are you talking about? The president didn't order anything to be destroyed. That's a conspiracy hypothesis or some ill-attempt at one at least. It was proven that terrorists sought it out to destroy it. Is this "laded" person supposed to be "Laden" as in "Osama Bin Laden"? If so, our president did not communicate with a terrorist to take down our towers (who we took out so it wouldn't happen again). Do some research and educate yourself.

The new design looks nice. :)
Has anyone seen this building close up? :
http://www.travelweekly.com/uploadedImages/All_TW_News/Hotels_and_Resorts/2011_photos/HyattAbuDhabi-render.jpg
It scared the crap out of me last time I saw it.

Reminds me of a giant shoe. :p

Cochrane
28-01-12, 10:23
I like the new design. The old towers, impressive as they were, were also kind of boring aesthetically. Just two big boxes. The new design is more interesting, but not as aggressive as e.g. Foster's design.

Mad Tony
28-01-12, 11:00
The new design is nothing special. They really should've went with Foster's design (with further improvements of course):

http://renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_a/slides/images/Slide33.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/WTC1202DesignFosterPartnersDay.jpgThat's hideous!

I see it as that as well. I think it's more or less taunting them to do it again. We lost of innocent people thanks to insane extremists and the last thing we need to do is rebuild a site where so many people died at. NY is doing quite fine without the Trade Center, Been said on CNN and more from businessmen to regular citizens. Rebuilding it is making a mistake.Who cares if it might look like taunting? It's not like they haven't tried to attack America in the past. They've tried and they've failed. I expect they're going to keep on trying and (hopefully) failing.

Obviously this is just my personal opinion but I would think a large majority of the people who died in the Twin Towers would've wanted them to be rebuilt. Why on Earth would they want Ground Zero to remain a lifeless crater?

On the contrary. Not rebuilding it would be the mistake. If we didn't rebuild, we'd only be showing the terrorists that they can cause permanent damage every time they succeed with an attack. If they know they only have to succeed once in a blue moon in order to scar the country forever then they'll only try harder.Exactly. People who are anxious that this will somehow increase the risk of a terrorist attack need to get a grip.

Whose to say they won't try harder? They literally hate us and have sworn to continue attacks when possible on us. It's not being afraid, it's being wise. Do we really need more people to die at the hand of us getting cocky and saying, "Oh we can do this because the terrorists wouldn't dare attack us again?" or saying it's only being paranoid/afraid when we should rebuild another tower(s)? We need to learn from our mistakes as a country and see it's not wise to making a bastion of arrogance where thousands of people died. It's not worth it if it does happen again.Rebuilding isn't being cocky. Being cocky or arrogant would be not improving security or making an effort to stop that kind of thing from happening again. I think it's pretty clear that that's not the case.

"bastion of arrogance"? :rolleyes: It's just a building for crying out loud. Do you honestly think they suddenly stopped plotting attacks on your country after 9/11? No. There have been many failed attempts. You seem to be missing one glaringly obvious thing: they're going to keep trying regardless of whether the World Trade Center is rebuilt or not.

Killercowz
28-01-12, 15:56
The WTC sacrificed structural integrity in order to increase the open space on the floors. The Empire State Building also has thick brick walls for fireproofing around the steel frame, whereas the WTC just had some spray-on fire retardant which was a lot cheaper and less effective. Hopefully the new WTC design is safer than the original was.
:eek:

Really I had no idea it sacrificed structural integrity. I watched a documentary on the WTC and it seemed pretty structurally sound, I guess I was wrong.

Ward Dragon
28-01-12, 16:32
Whose to say they won't try harder? They literally hate us and have sworn to continue attacks when possible on us. It's not being afraid, it's being wise. Do we really need more people to die at the hand of us getting cocky and saying, "Oh we can do this because the terrorists wouldn't dare attack us again?" or saying it's only being paranoid/afraid when we should rebuild another tower(s)? We need to learn from our mistakes as a country and see it's not wise to making a bastion of arrogance where thousands of people died. It's not worth it if it does happen again. And even "if"s can happen. The people who died, during the attack and afterwards, trying to save survivors: would they really want us to build again after what happened? After we have been threatened many times since then? After all this? It's simply not worth it. You don't have to rebuild to continue society, especially when NY is doing so well at the time anyhow. You don't need to build upon a site where so many loved ones died by nutty terrorists who gave an oath to kill anyone who opposes them, meaning, they will try again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year or the year after, but they will try.

I've been to Ground Zero before they started rebuilding and it was a giant freaking hole in the ground. Leaving that there would have been horrible. Rebuilding isn't about sticking it to the terrorists or anything like that. Of course they are so self-centered that they think everything is about them, but so what? They will interpret everything as an excuse for another attack no matter what we do. We can't make our decisions based around what might set them off because everything sets them off. There's no point trying to appease them. If anything, appeasement only emboldens them because they see it as a sign of weakness that they can exploit.

That's hideous!

Who cares if it might look like taunting? It's not like they haven't tried to attack America in the past. They've tried and they've failed. I expect they're going to keep on trying and (hopefully) failing.

Obviously this is just my personal opinion but I would think a large majority of the people who died in the Twin Towers would've wanted them to be rebuilt. Why on Earth would they want Ground Zero to remain a lifeless crater?

Exactly. People who are anxious that this will somehow increase the risk of a terrorist attack need to get a grip.

Rebuilding isn't being cocky. Being cocky or arrogant would be not improving security or making an effort to stop that kind of thing from happening again. I think it's pretty clear that that's not the case.

"bastion of arrogance"? :rolleyes: It's just a building for crying out loud. Do you honestly think they suddenly stopped plotting attacks on your country after 9/11? No. There have been many failed attempts. You seem to be missing one glaringly obvious thing: they're going to keep trying regardless of whether the World Trade Center is rebuilt or not.

I agree.

:eek:

Really I had no idea it sacrificed structural integrity. I watched a documentary on the WTC and it seemed pretty structurally sound, I guess I was wrong.

The whole appeal of the WTC design was that it was essentially a giant tube which allowed a lot more freedom in terms of open space and deciding where to put walls on each floor. Older designs like the Empire State Building have support columns all throughout each floor which forces the rooms to be very rigidly laid out in a grid. I'm sure the WTC designers thought their design was safe enough at the time and an acceptable trade-off to gain the extra space on each floor. I wasn't trying to accuse them of intentionally putting people at risk.

However the older designs are definitely structurally stronger and most engineers that I've heard in interviews have said that the Empire State Building would have survived a similar attack without collapsing. So I think going forward, we should stick with what's safest. I think the new WTC is also using a tube design, so I'm a little disappointed, but hopefully they'll at least have better insulation this time.

Sir Croft
28-01-12, 16:39
I really like the new design, can't wait to see it finished!

MiCkiZ88
28-01-12, 16:44
Love the new design as well. :D Just hope it's structurally safer.

Zelda master
28-01-12, 17:39
Just wondering but since when were the old building's structeral unsafe..? I don't think anything stays standing with a plane passing through it :p

MiCkiZ88
28-01-12, 17:46
Just wondering but since when were the old building's structeral unsafe..? I don't think anything stays standing with a plane passing through it :p
Read Ward dragons post about how they used a cheap way of building to save space. :p

Ward Dragon
28-01-12, 18:04
Just wondering but since when were the old building's structeral unsafe..? I don't think anything stays standing with a plane passing through it :p

I found an article by a Fire Chief which explains it in more detail :)

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Zelda master
28-01-12, 18:08
I found an article by a Fire Chief which explains it in more detail :)

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

TL;DR (yeah not into readin at the moment sorry) :p

Read Ward dragons post about how they used a cheap way of building to save space. :p

Ah... Missed that part :p

Johnnay
28-01-12, 19:21
Actually the buildings were an architectural masterpiece, Yamasaki the designer of the building wasn't anticipating jumbo airliners to crash into the buildings.

The impact of the planes destroyed the insulation (well blew them off really) for the buildings causing the buildings to collapse.

The towers were very safe on engineering laws.

And the fact the fire was too intense as well as the massive amounts of fuel from the planes and the fact that fire engines can't reach a level that high to extinguish it.

Oh and thanks to the fuel the fires spread through a lot of the floors and that had to be one way of the towers to collapse.

Larson_1988
28-01-12, 19:23
I was hoping they would rebuild the towers exactly as before, but this new looks does indeed look good. :) Excited to see how the final result is. :)

xcrushterx
28-01-12, 20:14
It will be nice to see the new skyline. The old buildings were unique, but they're old-school tbh.

I took these about 2 and a half months ago. You can see it in more detail.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/312966_2679142701697_1350172242_3043111_130111218_ n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/320722_2679143301712_1350172242_3043112_1283411006 _n.jpg
Omg, it's quite astonishing how they've built so much already when just a year & a half ago when I was there there was literally nothing but empty space :eek:

igonge
28-01-12, 20:18
I really like the new building. It's nice.

Cochrane
28-01-12, 20:34
It is most likely not useful to build the new tower so that it will withstand a plane crash completely unharmed. It is simply not cost effective; the fact remains that most high-rise skyscrapers will never be hit by a plane during their entire life. But better protection against major fires is probably a good idea. A tightly enclosed space with lots of people, very few exit options (most of them not usable during fires - that always has the risk of catastrophic events, even from just a plain building fire.


As for whether it should be built again: Practically speaking, office space in New York City is not too cheap right now, so there is probably enough market demand to make it worthwhile. Symbolically speaking: Had it been any medium-sized skyscraper, you could make an argument for just turning it all into a park and memorial. But given that the original towers were among the main landmarks of the skyline and a huge identification point for the city, I do believe they deserve a worthy successor. Yes, maybe terrorists all over the world will see that as a taunt. Let them. The fact is: If they want to attack the US again, then that building won't change anything. If there was a new plan to crash planes into buildings, they'd have enough available targets without a new world trade center, too.

tomee
28-01-12, 21:41
IMO the twin towers were something to remember, they looked so iconic.
But at least they replace it with something. Better than nothing I guess.

Draco
29-01-12, 04:10
I think people forget that the Twin Towers themselves were not the reason they were hit by terrorists. Sure, the WTC was the best target, but the WTC itself had no bearing on whether or not terrorists would attack.

The new building is the same on that front and the idea that it should not be built is silly and smacks of appeasement.

lcroft_lc
29-01-12, 05:40
What the hell are you talking about? The president didn't order anything to be destroyed. That's a conspiracy hypothesis or some ill-attempt at one at least. It was proven that terrorists sought it out to destroy it. Is this "laded" person supposed to be "Laden" as in "Osama Bin Laden"? If so, our president did not communicate with a terrorist to take down our towers (who we took out so it wouldn't happen again). Do some research and educate yourself.

LOL. Calm down. :D

Bush and Laden were childhood friend. Do some homework. :p

Alpharaider47
29-01-12, 07:04
That's pretty impressive. I remember last time I was out there it was still just a crater that was blocked off. Quite a testament to what people can do when they really want to. It's nice to see the area somewhat rebuilt.

RAID
29-01-12, 08:38
Am I the only one that sees this as a new invite for more plane crashes..?
Nope. I'm with you.

What about security? How will they prevent another disaster like the one from 9/11?

knightgames
29-01-12, 09:17
I think people forget that the Twin Towers themselves were not the reason they were hit by terrorists. Sure, the WTC was the best target, but the WTC itself had no bearing on whether or not terrorists would attack.

The new building is the same on that front and the idea that it should not be built is silly and smacks of appeasement.

The attack on the towers themselves was symbolic. In that respect it made them a target. If they'd have been able to wield a 767 down to Wall Street and hit the stock market they would have done that. They wanted to hit us politically (US Capital) militarily/intelligence (The Pentagon) economically (Trade Center Towers).

I personally hope the rebuilding on the site of the towers is a distinct middle finger to those who so heinously serve a malignant version of god.



Thinking about this over ten years later I wish they would have hit the Capital Building instead. Not as much a loss of life, and after the last 20 years of the politicians we have had, it would have been a tragic way to bring in new blood. In hind sight I think it would have been the better choice of the two. (Though not having it happen at all would be the best course of action, but.....)

Carbon
29-01-12, 10:44
Meanwhile in Japan sorting out the thousands (Not hundreds, so stop making 9/11 sound casualty bad) of casualties, forget about it.

Mad Tony
29-01-12, 10:57
LOL. Calm down. :D

Bush and Laden were childhood friend. Do some homework. :pI'll give you a 2/10 for persistence.

Meanwhile in Japan sorting out the thousands (Not hundreds, so stop making 9/11 sound casualty bad) of casualties, forget about it.Where on Earth did you get the idea that talking about the new World Trade Center means ignoring the Japanese Tsunami? :confused:

Also, thousands did die on 9/11. You're nuts if you think just under 3,000 dead isn't bad. Just because more died in the Tsunami doesn't mean we can't talk about anything that has a smaller death toll.

Nope. I'm with you.

What about security? How will they prevent another disaster like the one from 9/11?They've really stepped up aviation security since 9/11. As I keep on stressing, if there's another terrorist attack it won't be in the form of a plane crashing into a building.

lcroft_lc
29-01-12, 14:08
I'll give you a 2/10 for persistence.



My vocabulary is not very rich, neither my English. :p

Mad Tony
29-01-12, 14:13
My vocabulary is not very rich, neither my English. :pI wasn't rating your English. Your English is fine.

robm_2007
29-01-12, 14:23
What's this nonsense about Bush and bin Laden being childhood friends? :confused:

:vlol: Someone must be trolling.

As for the new WTC being a possible security risk, IDK what would happen if al Qaeda or anyone else attacked it. We'd prolly never leave that country with whom they are associated, or even nuke 'em :(

Carbon
29-01-12, 22:36
Where on Earth did you get the idea that talking about the new World Trade Center means ignoring the Japanese Tsunami? :confused:

Also, thousands did die on 9/11. You're nuts if you think just under 3,000 dead isn't bad. Just because more died in the Tsunami doesn't mean we can't talk about anything that has a smaller death toll.


I don't hear anyone bringing up conversations about it? Either way, the new tower can only bring good news, Airport security is higher and tighter than ever (Not to my comfort) so another 9/11 is highly unlikely to happen with horror stories of people on board a plane...


EDIT: Also to robm_2007 (Post above) I sure hope I read that wrong and that you hope to not nuke them... because I am fed up with America thinking they are the highest country in the world, you are certainly the richest... but you don't have the licence to give the rest of the world radiation and acid rain for a long period of time, putting them into a half life reality.

Mad Tony
29-01-12, 22:50
I don't hear anyone bringing up conversations about it? Either way, the new tower can only bring good news, Airport security is higher and tighter than ever (Not to my comfort) so another 9/11 is highly unlikely to happen with horror stories of people on board a plane...Actually there were quite a few threads on it when it happened.

I just don't see how talking about one disaster (or more specifically, the construction of a building) means ignoring other disasters?

EDIT: Also to robm_2007 (Post above) I sure hope I read that wrong and that you hope to not nuke them... because I am fed up with America thinking they are the highest country in the world, you are certainly the richest... but you don't have the licence to give the rest of the world radiation and acid rain for a long period of time, putting them into a half life reality.If you read his post I think you'll find that he would be against such a thing. Regardless, I think it was a tongue in cheek comment.

Carbon
29-01-12, 22:51
Actually there were quite a few threads on it when it happened.

I just don't see how talking about one disasters (or more specifically, the construction of a building) means ignoring other disasters?

If you read his post I think you'll find that he would be against such a thing. Regardless, I think it was a tongue in cheek comment.

Mhm...

Legend 4ever
29-01-12, 23:57
I think it's beautiful. And I like the fact that they haven't just recreated the Twins, that could make some people uneasy.

TRLegendLuver
30-01-12, 05:41
LOL. Calm down. :D

Bush and Laden were childhood friend. Do some homework. :p

No offense, but you're an idiot.

lcroft_lc
30-01-12, 06:55
No offense, but you're an idiot.

I don't offended cause I got it, your monitor doesn't have any brightness+contrast and it is kinda mirror that time. So you were talking to that mirror. :p

TRLegendLuver
30-01-12, 07:01
What's this nonsense about Bush and bin Laden being childhood friends? :confused:

:vlol: Someone must be trolling.

It's not trolling for him, it's called being a moron. :vlol: Just seriously read on and you'll catch my meaning.

I don't offended cause I got it, your monitor doesn't have any brightness+contrast and it is kinda mirror that time. So you were talking to that mirror. :p

:vlol: Oh my God, you really are pathetic. Next time, I might listen to - what was that, a insult? - when your English and brainwaves improve.

Lmfao! :vlol:


---

Anyways back on topic, that one design was really ugly. Glad that aren't using that one. :pi:

Cochrane
30-01-12, 08:23
While I would never want to tell others how to browse the forum, I've found that putting certain annoying members on my ignore list has increased my enjoyment dramatically, and I would recommend to anyone to at least consider it.


Re safety: In a free world, there can never be perfect security against terrorism. Nobody can guarantee that nothing bad will happen to any building in particular. Is that a reason not to build it, though? I don't think so. I think the advantages, including the symbolic parts, outweigh the risk.

On a more practical note: There haven't been any terrorist attacks of the scale of 9/11 in the US since, well, 9/11. I doubt that this is just because the terrorists are out of targets.

robm_2007
30-01-12, 08:30
Mhm...

What I was saying is, look at how the US reacted to 9/11. We sent armed militants into at least 2 countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) were the main ones. Although, they might like to say that they were looking for WMDs or Hussein or whatever. Anyways, a second attack on the US, on the same site no less, would surly make the US have a worse reaction and (at least want to) blow the associated country to bits.

Also, we are not the most richest country. A couple of years ago, Apple had more money in its reserves than the US, also considering we have a 15 trillion dollar debt. So in reality, it's more status envy that "lesser" countries have of the US, rather than us being self entitled with how much money we supposedly have.

Mad Tony
30-01-12, 09:47
Re safety: In a free world, there can never be perfect security against terrorism. Nobody can guarantee that nothing bad will happen to any building in particular. Is that a reason not to build it, though? I don't think so. I think the advantages, including the symbolic parts, outweigh the risk.

On a more practical note: There haven't been any terrorist attacks of the scale of 9/11 in the US since, well, 9/11. I doubt that this is just because the terrorists are out of targets.This is exactly m point.

What I was saying is, look at how the US reacted to 9/11. We sent armed militants into at least 2 countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) were the main ones. Although, they might like to say that they were looking for WMDs or Hussein or whatever. Anyways, a second attack on the US, on the same site no less, would surly make the US have a worse reaction and (at least want to) blow the associated country to bits.I'm sorry but you're wrong on that front. As pissed off as people would be they're not going to use nukes or carpet bomb an entire country.

Also, we are not the most richest country. A couple of years ago, Apple had more money in its reserves than the US, also considering we have a 15 trillion dollar debt. So in reality, it's more status envy that "lesser" countries have of the US, rather than us being self entitled with how much money we supposedly have.The US is still the biggest economy in the world. /pedant

robm_2007
30-01-12, 09:56
This is exactly m point.

I'm sorry but you're wrong on that front. As pissed off as people would be they're not going to use nukes or carpet bomb an entire country.

The US is still the biggest economy in the world. /pedant

I was over exaggerating about nuking that's why I added "(at least want to) blow the associated country to bits." As for the other thing about the economy, it's not really anything exciting. It's **** as is.

The Great Chi
30-01-12, 10:13
....we have a 15 trillion dollar debt. .That is such a crazy figure that can NEVER EVER be paid off, and will just keep adding more interest to the sum :vlol:

Of course we all know it is deliberate to keep us Americans in tax debt forever and reduce our standard of living, and just thinking about it means that our great great great grandchildern will never be able to pay it off either :tea:

It is totally a nonsence situation, created by a deliberate banking crisis, and should just be wiped off as an irrelivant bunch of stupid figures.

Consider what the IMF does to some third world countries to stop them going bankrupt and more importantly keep thier exports moving. They just give them a bit of breathing space by wiping out some of the dept, so they can keep bleeding their resorces dry over the next twenty years or more.

Hence, we should declare ourselves a third world country, The IMF then says lets wipe out that dept, and then we are free once again, Sorted :D

Now, What did I do with that credit card :p

Mad Tony
30-01-12, 10:15
Lol, deliberate banking crisis. http://www.audi-tt.ru/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/facepalm.gif

The Great Chi
30-01-12, 10:16
Lol, deliberate banking crisis. http://www.audi-tt.ru/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/facepalm.gifYes ;)

robm_2007
30-01-12, 10:18
Lol, deliberate banking crisis. http://www.audi-tt.ru/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/facepalm.gif

Deliberate or not, I can see the US never paying off that debt. I'm betting that we will have to let China annex us in order to pay most of it off :pi:

Mad Tony
30-01-12, 10:20
Deliberate or not, I can see the US never paying off that debt. I'm betting that we will have to let China annex us in order to pay most of it off :pi:The majority of US debt isn't actually owed to China, or any other foreign country for that matter

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/1/18/saupload_to_whom_does_the_us_government_owe_money. jpg

Funny thing about that is that I know the UK and Japan also have a lot of debt, so it's a case of everyone being in debt to each other.

Yes ;)How did you figure that one out?

The Great Chi
30-01-12, 10:21
Do you know we still have banking bosses getting massive 'Millions of dollar bonuses' each year.

robm_2007
30-01-12, 10:24
The majority of US debt isn't actually owed to China, or any other foreign country for that matter

Funny thing about that is that I know the UK and Japan also have a lot of debt, so it's a case of everyone being in debt to each other.

/I learned something today. But even still, I'm sure China would buy us, easy :pi:

Mad Tony
30-01-12, 10:31
Do you know we still have banking bosses getting massive 'Millions of dollar bonuses' each year.What and you think they weren't getting those kind of bonuses before the crisis?

lcroft_lc
30-01-12, 11:08
:vlol: Oh my God, you really are pathetic. Next time, I might listen to - what was that, a insult? - when your English and brainwaves improve.

Lmfao! :vlol:


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bush-bin_Laden_family_links
http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm (http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htmhttp://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm)
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm (http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htmhttp://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm)

TRLegendLuver
30-01-12, 15:16
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bush-bin_Laden_family_links
http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm (http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htmhttp://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm)
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm (http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htmhttp://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm)

Yeah the first link is 911myths.com for one. So I'll just stop there. <--- Meaning myths, bizarre speculations from anarchists using non-factual, opinion-based "facts". And the other links don't work, but it's from sites that are into non-factual information anyhow.

The fact remains the same, our president didn't order our towers to be destroyed from Osama, considering he said he was responsible (Osama) and we wiped him out. That would be a contradictory, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would. If you really think that after the real facts are obvious, (but then again, you don't know a lot about our country) and the responses with everything and how it was proven to done by terrorists with no ties to the US giving consent, then you really do need to get your head checked as I said previously.

Seriously, get back on topic. I was trying to get back on topic but you had to continue your "trolling" (I can't really consider it trolling, because you don't know what you're talking about anyhow). You wanna try and tell me how my president ordered the Trade Center Towers to be destroyed and have thousands of people die because anarchists need something to do with their time and make fairy tales up, you can message me, although I doubt I'll reply. You're not worth my time.

Also, we are not the most richest country. A couple of years ago, Apple had more money in its reserves than the US, also considering we have a 15 trillion dollar debt. So in reality, it's more status envy that "lesser" countries have of the US, rather than us being self entitled with how much money we supposedly have.

And what's ironic is Carbon's avatar is Steve Jobs. :p

Carbon
30-01-12, 16:07
And what's ironic is Carbon's avatar is Steve Jobs. :p

When did I say that I didn't know about Apple still being richer? In fact, that thought crossed my mind at the time of my original post... but we are talking about the US Government, not a technology company. So what's so ironic about that? Eh?

TRLegendLuver
30-01-12, 16:14
When did I say that I didn't know about Apple still being richer? In fact, that thought crossed my mind at the time of my original post... but we are talking about the US Government, not a technology company. So what's so ironic about that? Eh?

I never said you knew. I thought it was humorous thatRob pointed out that Apple is richer and the fact that you didn't know, plus that your avatar is Steve Jobs made it ironic. :wve:

Carbon
30-01-12, 19:35
I never said you knew. I thought it was humorous thatRob pointed out that Apple is richer and the fact that you didn't know, plus that your avatar is Steve Jobs made it ironic. :wve:

I did know. That's what made your post ironic...

Zelda master
30-01-12, 22:21
Speaking about Steve Jobs and Ironic, isn't it Ironic that a guy that invented some fun gadets get's almost the entire world regenition when he passes away. But when Dennis Ritchie's, the guy who invented the C computer language, death happend and no one looked back on it...

But this is getting way to offtopic :vlol:

Cochrane
30-01-12, 22:39
Speaking about Steve Jobs and Ironic, isn't it Ironic that a guy that invented some fun gadets get's almost the entire world regenition when he passes away. But when Dennis Ritchie's, the guy who invented the C computer language, death happend and no one looked back on it...

But this is getting way to offtopic :vlol:

Not sure what's ironic about that. Ritchie invented great technology. Steve Jobs was one of the people who was most influential in turning that technology into actual products, thus really giving it any practical worth. This isn't new. People remember Carl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler, but Nikolaus Otto and Rudolf Diesel are nowhere near as well known. And both Benz and Daimler, though still important brand names, were superseded by Henry Ford, who didn't really invent anything much, except the technology to build the cars faster and more cheaply than ever before.

Before that, although not quite the same, Newcomen invented the first modern steam engine, but it was James Watt who turned it into something usable. Now the SI unit for power is Watt, while Newcomen only appears in historical texts about the development of James Watt's steam engine.

XtremeJenn
31-01-12, 01:12
How tall is the building going to be? Would jump off of, for sure. :D

TRLegendLuver
31-01-12, 04:13
I did know. That's what made your post ironic...

Mhm.

pekirock
31-01-12, 05:00
Whose to say they won't try harder? They literally hate us and have sworn to continue attacks when possible on us. It's not being afraid, it's being wise. Do we really need more people to die at the hand of us getting cocky and saying, "Oh we can do this because the terrorists wouldn't dare attack us again?" or saying it's only being paranoid/afraid when we should rebuild another tower(s)? We need to learn from our mistakes as a country and see it's not wise to making a bastion of arrogance where thousands of people died. It's not worth it if it does happen again. And even "if"s can happen. The people who died, during the attack and afterwards, trying to save survivors: would they really want us to build again after what happened? After we have been threatened many times since then? After all this? It's simply not worth it. You don't have to rebuild to continue society, especially when NY is doing so well at the time anyhow. You don't need to build upon a site where so many loved ones died by nutty terrorists who gave an oath to kill anyone who opposes them, meaning, they will try again. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year or the year after, but they will try.

Just because they are rebuilding a building doesnt mean they are taunting anyone for another attack, thats just going too far.. Its a building.
And second, they probably built it because they need more space, lets be realistic its NYC.

Yeah the first link is 911myths.com for one. So I'll just stop there. <--- Meaning myths, bizarre speculations from anarchists using non-factual, opinion-based "facts". And the other links don't work, but it's from sites that are into non-factual information anyhow.

The fact remains the same, our president didn't order our towers to be destroyed from Osama, considering he said he was responsible (Osama) and we wiped him out. That would be a contradictory, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would. If you really think that after the real facts are obvious, (but then again, you don't know a lot about our country) and the responses with everything and how it was proven to done by terrorists with no ties to the US giving consent, then you really do need to get your head checked as I said previously.

Seriously, get back on topic. I was trying to get back on topic but you had to continue your "trolling" (I can't really consider it trolling, because you don't know what you're talking about anyhow). You wanna try and tell me how my president ordered the Trade Center Towers to be destroyed and have thousands of people die because anarchists need something to do with their time and make fairy tales up, you can message me, although I doubt I'll reply. You're not worth my time.

Its funny how you call him out on "going off topic" when you are the exact one who argues back. You couldve just forgoten about it and moved on, but no you had to call him a moron and what not. Just because someone doesnt have perfect grammar doesnt make them a moron. And yes, they can believe what they want to believe.

Get off your high horse. :rolleyes:

TRLegendLuver
31-01-12, 05:20
^ It had nothing to do with his grammar if you clearly read both his and my posts thoroughly, all of them as well. And don't call me out for getting off topic about him, when you quote my post (and do it as well) and feel some need to defend some misplaced self-righteousness. I wasn't calling him a moron for his grammar. His grammar is bad, (and it's funny sometimes, like any thing can be) yes, but that's not why. But you didn't read all the posts apparently, otherwise you wouldn't be saying it. And please tell me why I should forget posts where he says my president is conspiring with a terrorist? Really? I hardly think you'd let that go if it was your country and especially if it was completely untrue. Get off your high horse. The conversation had nothing to do with you and he dropped it like I did after the post, but of course, I had to let you know the facts since you didn't seem to see them for whatever reason, so I'm back at square one because of you when it was dead. And I'll tell you the same thing I told him, want to further the ranker? You can message me instead of clogging up the thread more than it is already with this ridiculousness. Feel the need to say something, msg.*sigh*

---

Has anyone seen the memorial and the fountains that they have ground zero? They're really pretty. :)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/21/nyregion/21memorial600.jpg

lcroft_lc
31-01-12, 05:45
Its funny how you call him out on "going off topic" when you are the exact one who argues back. You couldve just forgoten about it and moved on, but no you had to call him a moron and what not. Just because someone doesnt have perfect grammar doesnt make them a moron. And yes, they can believe what they want to believe.

Get off your high horse. :rolleyes:

I have seen that picture before. People from USA loves to think they are the best in the world. They think their places are high on the pedestal. They look down when talking to other people.

They called Bin Laden, Saddam terrorist. I agree on the fact that they are terrorist. Personally I hate what Laded did in 9/11. But govt. and politician leaders of USA are much bigger terrorist. They even blame Islam because they said Laden did it in the name of Islam. But Islam is a religion of peace. What Laden did was fanaticism. Guys like Laden is everywhere, even in USA.

Let me give an example why I said govt. and politician leaders of USA are much bigger terrorist. Laden did the 9/11 job for fanaticism. But president of USA, Bush ordered to kill Laded & his partners in Afghanistan few years ago along with anyone they find. And a result USA army killed lots of innocent people in shooting and bombing.

USA even can't let the peace treaty between Palestine & Israel happen for a long time and because of it lots of people there are getting killed almost everyday. They even own UN.

And about his comment about me, I would care it if he was not from USA.

:pi:

TRLegendLuver
31-01-12, 05:49
And about his comment about me, I would care it if he was not from USA.

:pi:

It says I'm a girl on the right, so her and she, just so you know. :wve:

Mhm. ;)

---

I found another pretty picture of the memorial. :o

http://architecture-article.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/38e1d_911memorial1.jpg

TombRaiderFan.
31-01-12, 05:53
I actually liked the Twin Towers, they looked good on the NYC skyline. The new building looks nice though. :)


http://architecture-article.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/38e1d_911memorial1.jpg

That's beautiful! :eek: am I correct in assuming that hole they used for the fountain is the hole where the underground parking of the WTC must have originally been?

TRLegendLuver
31-01-12, 05:57
That's beautiful! :eek: am I correct in assuming that hole they used for the fountain is the hole where the underground parking of the WTC must have originally been?

Isn't it though? :) I think so, I'm not quite sure, can't remember exactly what each thing in the memorial does. How unpatriotic of me.
http://e.deviantart.net/emoticons/a/animesweat.gif

lcroft_lc
31-01-12, 05:58
It says I'm a girl on the right, so her and she, just so you know. :wve:

Mhm. ;)

Ohh my bad! Apology for that. :)

Mad Tony
31-01-12, 07:05
I have seen that picture before. People from USA loves to think they are the best in the world. They think their places are high on the pedestal. They look down when talking to other people.

They called Bin Laden, Saddam terrorist. I agree on the fact that they are terrorist. Personally I hate what Laded did in 9/11. But govt. and politician leaders of USA are much bigger terrorist. They even blame Islam because they said Laden did it in the name of Islam. But Islam is a religion of peace. What Laden did was fanaticism. Guys like Laden is everywhere, even in USA.

Let me give an example why I said govt. and politician leaders of USA are much bigger terrorist. Laden did the 9/11 job for fanaticism. But president of USA, Bush ordered to kill Laded & his partners in Afghanistan few years ago along with anyone they find. And a result USA army killed lots of innocent people in shooting and bombing.

USA even can't let the peace treaty between Palestine & Israel happen for a long time and because of it lots of people there are getting killed almost everyday. They even own UN.

And about his comment about me, I would care it if he was not from USA.

:pi:The difference between the likes of Al-Qaeda and the US government is that Al-Qaeda deliberately target civilians. If you can't make that distinction then you're really foolish.

scoopy_loopy
31-01-12, 07:17
I actually find the memorials quite morbid. I saw a small feature on TV about them. Just... black holes! D:

Symbolic, yes, morbid, hell yes!

TombRaiderFan.
31-01-12, 07:24
^Maybe it's meant to look that way. It was a sad day, thus why it looks morbid?

The difference between the likes of Al-Qaeda and the US government is that Al-Qaeda deliberately target civilians. If you can't make that distinction then you're really foolish.

I gathered Al-Qaeda was originally trained by the US military or something along those lines. Is that true? I genuinely ask because I haven't really looked into it.

Mad Tony
31-01-12, 07:28
I gathered Al-Qaeda was originally trained by the US military or something along those lines. Is that true? I genuinely ask because I haven't really looked into it.The CIA trained the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviets but I think that's it. Regardless, I don't think anything justifies a terrorist attack aimed at civilians.

TombRaiderFan.
31-01-12, 07:38
The CIA trained the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviets but I think that's it. Regardless, I don't think anything justifies a terrorist attack aimed at civilians.

Of course. I pointed it out simply because it seems so ironic that'd you'd raise something to become a monster and then it turns on you. That's life I guess...

lcroft_lc
31-01-12, 12:45
The difference between the likes of Al-Qaeda and the US government is that Al-Qaeda deliberately target civilians. If you can't make that distinction then you're really foolish.

Al-Qaeda wanted to make a statement and an impact with that attack. If they wanted to kill more civilians then they wouldn't attack it with such an odd time when there were very few people on the building that time. They would attack it on some time when WTC usually full of civilians. :whi:


BTW, how is the security system in USA? :confused: I always wonder how a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda attack in the land of USA? :whi: The almighty USA doesn't have a strong security system? :eek: How can a terrorist group infiltrate their country and hijack 4 airplane then attack some EPIC landmark? USA can't monitor those airplanes? :confused: Sounds like there has to be some internal public related with the attack who let them attack such landmarks. :rolleyes: And these points made me to say "someone has to order to destroy own landmark, someone like President himself". :whi:

Draco
31-01-12, 15:21
The CIA trained the Mujahideen to fight against the Soviets but I think that's it. Regardless, I don't think anything justifies a terrorist attack aimed at civilians.

It's not about justification, it is about cause an effect.

Ward Dragon
31-01-12, 15:34
Al-Qaeda wanted to make a statement and an impact with that attack. If they wanted to kill more civilians then they wouldn't attack it with such an odd time when there were very few people on the building that time. They would attack it on some time when WTC usually full of civilians. :whi:

They definitely wanted to kill a lot of civilians. Probably the only reason they attacked so early in the morning was because that was when they could get planes that were flying near the WTC with nearly full fuel tanks.

BTW, how is the security system in USA? :confused: I always wonder how a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda attack in the land of USA? :whi: The almighty USA doesn't have a strong security system? :eek: How can a terrorist group infiltrate their country and hijack 4 airplane then attack some EPIC landmark? USA can't monitor those airplanes? :confused: Sounds like there has to be some internal public related with the attack who let them attack such landmarks. :rolleyes: And these points made me to say "someone has to order to destroy own landmark, someone like President himself". :whi:

They managed to sneak knives and box-cutters onto the planes. The airline profiling software did point out most of the hijackers in advance, but the airline let them get on the planes anyway because they didn't want to get sued for being racist :rolleyes:

So considering that the hijackers were pretty much the only people on the planes with weapons, they killed the flight crews and took over flying the planes before most of the passengers could react.

lcroft_lc
31-01-12, 17:36
They managed to sneak knives and box-cutters onto the planes. The airline profiling software did point out most of the hijackers in advance, but the airline let them get on the planes anyway because they didn't want to get sued for being racist :rolleyes:

So considering that the hijackers were pretty much the only people on the planes with weapons, they killed the flight crews and took over flying the planes before most of the passengers could react.

I watched one of the Hollywood movies which based on one of the plane hijacking on 9/11 that crash landed before hitting The Pentagon. They showed the bravery and patriotism of some American to stop terrorists plan on attacking The Pentagon. :whi:

Mad Tony
31-01-12, 17:37
Al-Qaeda wanted to make a statement and an impact with that attack. If they wanted to kill more civilians then they wouldn't attack it with such an odd time when there were very few people on the building that time. They would attack it on some time when WTC usually full of civilians. :whi:You're an idiot. I'm sorry, but you are. The Twin Towers were attacked at around 9AM on a weekday. That's peak time. If you wanted to maximize casualties then that would be one of the best times to do it. As it happens, they achieved exactly what they wanted and killed nigh on 3,000 people, which is no small number.

So please, explain to me how they're not worse?

BTW, how is the security system in USA? :confused: I always wonder how a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda attack in the land of USA? :whi: The almighty USA doesn't have a strong security system? :eek: How can a terrorist group infiltrate their country and hijack 4 airplane then attack some EPIC landmark? USA can't monitor those airplanes? :confused: Sounds like there has to be some internal public related with the attack who let them attack such landmarks. :rolleyes: And these points made me to say "someone has to order to destroy own landmark, someone like President himself". :whi:They weren't particularly secure prior to 9/11. At the time US security was still focused on protecting the country from outside threats. That's why none of the planes were shot down, that and the fact that before then plane hijackings almost always resulted in the plane landing safely somewhere and the terrorists putting forward ransom demands. US security was still stuck in the Cold War. Thankfully security has come on in leaps and bounds since then and that's why there's been no successful terrorist attack on the US since 9/11.

I watched one of the Hollywood movies which based on one of the plane hijacking on 9/11 that crash landed before hitting The Pentagon. They showed the bravery and patriotism of some American to stop terrorists plan on attacking The Pentagon. :whi:The plane wasn't headed for the Pentagon. The plane you're referring to was most likely headed for the Capitol. Did you actually watch this movie?

But yes, what you described actually happened. Just because they made a film about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

lcroft_lc
31-01-12, 17:45
^ OK OK, now I get why Tony Blair helped Bush. :pi:

Mad Tony
31-01-12, 17:46
Come on, answer my post.

Ward Dragon
01-02-12, 00:17
I watched one of the Hollywood movies which based on one of the plane hijacking on 9/11 that crash landed before hitting The Pentagon. They showed the bravery and patriotism of some American to stop terrorists plan on attacking The Pentagon. :whi:

That was Flight 93, the last of the hijackings. After the pilot was killed, the passengers called their families and heard about the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. They knew that the plane was going to be crashed into a building and they were going to die, so they had nothing to lose by fighting back. On the other hand, the passengers of the first three flights were told by the hijackers that the planes were going to land at another airport and they didn't realize that the planes were going to crash into buildings until it was too late to do anything about it.

knightgames
01-02-12, 02:49
You're an idiot. I'm sorry, but you are. The Twin Towers were attacked at around 9AM on a weekday. That's peak time. If you wanted to maximize casualties then that would be one of the best times to do it. As it happens, they achieved exactly what they wanted and killed nigh on 3,000 people, which is no small number.


Relatively speaking, the number is small when compared to how many people could have potential been inside and trapped. Each tower had the capacity to hold ~ 20,000 people. I remember watching thinking we were going to have Hiroshima - Nagasaki type numbers of deceased.

I have no idea how many were inside at the time of impact, and I know many escaped before the towers fell, but I'm glad the numbers weren't higher. It could have been much worse. If I were planning an attack like this I'd probably have done it at the same time. Congestion from traffic in NYC around 9 AM is significant.

Mad Tony
01-02-12, 06:08
Relatively speaking, the number is small when compared to how many people could have potential been inside and trapped. Each tower had the capacity to hold ~ 20,000 people. I remember watching thinking we were going to have Hiroshima - Nagasaki type numbers of deceased.

I have no idea how many were inside at the time of impact, and I know many escaped before the towers fell, but I'm glad the numbers weren't higher. It could have been much worse. If I were planning an attack like this I'd probably have done it at the same time. Congestion from traffic in NYC around 9 AM is significant.I know the relative casualties were small and that they could have been much worse but if they wanted to maximize casualties (and I think there's no doubt that that was indeed the case) then attacking when they did was a good way to go about it.

Remember, when you're in a job routine you leave at the right time so that you'll get to work on time. 9AM in Lower Manhattan certainly isn't some sort of quiet time of day when nobody is about. The only reason the casualties weren't much higher is because it took a while for the towers to collapse.

This is all besides the point though. Even if they had decided to attack at a certain time so as not to cause too many casualties, how does that not make them worse than the US government? It's the deliberate targeting of civilians that makes them worse, something our friend here who knows nothing about the event in the first place seems to be conveniently forgetting.

knightgames
01-02-12, 06:10
I know the relative casualties were small and that they could have been much worse but if they wanted to maximize casualties (and I think there's no doubt that that was indeed the case) then attacking when they did was a good way to go about it.

Remember, when you're in a job routine you leave at the right time so that you'll get to work on time. 9AM in Lower Manhattan certainly isn't some sort of quiet time of day when nobody is about. The only reason the casualties weren't much higher is because it took a while for the towers to collapse.

This is all besides the point though. Even if they had decided to attack at a certain time so as not to cause too many casualties, how does that not make them worse than the US government? It's the deliberate targeting of civilians that makes them worse, something our friend here who knows nothing about the event in the first place seems to be conveniently forgetting.

Agreed.

Carbon
01-02-12, 17:47
Mhm.

Sorry... you're right. I'm a massive Apple fan but somehow that major iconic time in their timeline I just happened to miss. :eve:

EDIT: And since you enjoy being cocky i'll just let you know that your gender is on the left, not the right. (Reference to an earlier post)

Zelda master
01-02-12, 18:04
If they wanted a higher casualty number, then wouldn't it have been more logical to have let the planes fly into the buildings much lower then they did..? Then again the entire WTC situation is overblown.

3000 Innocent people die in a terrorist attack downtown New York: "The world is coming to an end! Those freaking idiotic muslim terrorists!!!"
Ten's of thousants of innocent people in Iraq and Afgahnistan get brutely murdered by the US millitary: "It was for the greater good and to bring peace to those countries."

I'm sorry, but to some extend saying that the WTC attack was the most horrible thing that has happend is just way to much of an overstatement.

Ward Dragon
01-02-12, 20:07
If they wanted a higher casualty number, then wouldn't it have been more logical to have let the planes fly into the buildings much lower then they did..? Then again the entire WTC situation is overblown.

There are other tall buildings in NYC. The bastards hit as low as they could without flying into another building first.

3000 Innocent people die in a terrorist attack downtown New York: "The world is coming to an end! Those freaking idiotic muslim terrorists!!!"
Ten's of thousants of innocent people in Iraq and Afgahnistan get brutely murdered by the US millitary: "It was for the greater good and to bring peace to those countries."

Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorists blowing up public places and using civilians as human shields. The terrorists have no respect for human life, regardless of whether their victims are American, Iraqi, or any other nationality.

knightgames
01-02-12, 20:10
Flying an airliner at almost 400 mph (maybe more) isn't as easy as aiming at a certain point and hitting it. It takes lots of practice and simulation hours to acheive that kind of accuracy. These terrorists worked simulators, but had never been in the cockpit of a real 767. Sometimes I'm amazed they hit the building at all. If the weather had been a factor I certainly think they would have missed or called off the attack.

Despite what has transpired with WMDs in Iraq, if Hussain had allowed unfettered UN inspections the speculation that lead to the war in Iraq wouldn't have been necessary. I'm not legitimizing the war, but there was a causal effect. Another aspect that no one mentions is money funneled from Iraq to Al-Quaida.. It was discussed early in the efforts, but haven't heard that mentioned in a while...

I agree whole heartedly with the comparison of atrocities.. We DO have it rather good here and we haven't had the same level of destruction and death as other nations. We escaped WW2 unscathed (except for Pearl Harbour) - Korea and Vietnam too. Iraq Patr 1 was a veritable cake walk. Meanwhile, many other countries have been ravaged by man's inhumanity toward itself. This was our first homeland attack, and the methodology was horrendous... Who is evil enough to have thought of driving 4 planes into symbolic landmarks -killing possibly tens of thousands? It was witnessed live on TV.

This event hit the psyche of the US quite hard, and damaged us very deeply.... not just in body count but in legislation that has passed since 9-11. It is one of the biggest events in recent history, and has damaged the direction, growth, and political climate of this country like none other. That's why it's such a big deal. It has caused a divide that may not recover for quite some time.

That's why it's the most horrible thing to happen. The United States is no longer UNITED. It's divided that we will fall.

TRLegendLuver
01-02-12, 21:39
Sorry... you're right. I'm a massive Apple fan but somehow that major iconic time in their timeline I just happened to miss. :eve:

EDIT: And since you enjoy being cocky i'll just let you know that your gender is on the left, not the right. (Reference to an earlier post)

I was teasing about the avatar. It wasn't meant for you to get all offended over. Jesus. :rolleyes:

I enjoy being cocky? Now, I can truly say that's ironic considering you're the one getting petty over an avatar joke. You seriously feel the need to correct me on something that didn't have to do with you as well? I think you need to calm yourself over things that are of no big importance.

Ward Dragon
01-02-12, 21:43
Both of you stop fighting. There's no need to get personal and attack each other.

TRLegendLuver
01-02-12, 21:44
Both of you stop fighting. There's no need to get personal and attack each other.

I wasn't fighting with him. I told him it was ironic that Rob brought up that Apple had a lot of money (he was debating with Carbon) and I said it was ironic that he has a Steve Jobs avatar and he got all offended.

I was just letting him know he didn't need to be angry over something that was supposed to be amusing/funny.

But I agree with you. :)

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 00:35
If they wanted a higher casualty number, then wouldn't it have been more logical to have let the planes fly into the buildings much lower then they did..? Then again the entire WTC situation is overblown.Given that their aim was to kill civilians, why on Earth would they deliberately not aim for maximum casualties?

3000 Innocent people die in a terrorist attack downtown New York: "The world is coming to an end! Those freaking idiotic muslim terrorists!!!"
Ten's of thousants of innocent people in Iraq and Afgahnistan get brutely murdered by the US millitary: "It was for the greater good and to bring peace to those countries."

I'm sorry, but to some extend saying that the WTC attack was the most horrible thing that has happend is just way to much of an overstatement.Get over yourself. No one is saying the world is coming to an end, and nobody is saying 9/11 was the worst thing to ever happen in history. You like certain other people in this thread seem to suffer from the problem where you think talking about one disaster equates to ignoring everything else.

Alpharaider47
02-02-12, 01:52
Get over yourself. No one is saying the world is coming to an end, and nobody is saying 9/11 was the worst thing to ever happen in history. You like certain other people in this thread seem to suffer from the problem where you think talking about one disaster equates to ignoring everything else.

While I believe you're correct there, from experience I have seen that a lot of Americans believe that it is one of the worst things to have happened- at least in their lifetime. That said, I'd attribute it to the bubble of "safety" we had prior to 9/11. It shook a lot of people and destroyed that idea that US couldn't be attacked on that scale again. And, yes, I know it wasn't the first major bombing, nor the first attempt to take down the WTC.

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 08:18
Yet there are also people (some in this thread even!) who don't seem to regard 9/11 as that bad, so it works both ways.

Draco
02-02-12, 16:02
9/11 could have killed nobody and yet still had an incredible effect on the American psyche. It forever altered our perception about how the rest of the world views us and left a void that could have been filled by a number of things, but we chose revenge through war.

It is undeniable that 9/11 was the most significant terrorist action on domestic soil in our history. Which has nothing to do with how many people were killed or who perpetrated the act.

Were there worse terrorist acts? Absolutely, but those were all lower profile or just plain detached from the general public. New York City is a place we all are familiar with, even if we haven't been there. Between being the world's most recognizable skyline and the world's most filmed city, it is a place we all love even without necessarily knowing it. Just saying New York City elicits an emotional reaction of some sort on some level. Can't really say that about Seattle... or Newark.

patriots88888
02-02-12, 16:13
Were there worse terrorist acts? Absolutely, but those were all lower profile or just plain detached from the general public. New York City is a place we all are familiar with, even if we haven't been there. Between being the world's most recognizable skyline and the world's most filmed city, it is a place we all love even without necessarily knowing it. Just saying New York City elicits an emotional reaction of some sort on some level. Can't really say that about Seattle... or Newark.

I believe because we were all given the opportunity to see it unfold before our eyes (whether live or replayed to us a zillion times through the media) it made for an even stronger emotional impact. We were able to see things in real time as they were unfolding as opposed to the usual only aftermath. We got to see the reactions of those affected up close and personal... there can't be a stronger emotional attachment than that.

Zelda master
02-02-12, 16:34
Given that their aim was to kill civilians, why on Earth would they deliberately not aim for maximum casualties?
I'm just saying that it could have been much higher if they had hit either of the towers lower. Yes it's still a high number, could have been higer however...

Get over yourself. No one is saying the world is coming to an end, and nobody is saying 9/11 was the worst thing to ever happen in history. You like certain other people in this thread seem to suffer from the problem where you think talking about one disaster equates to ignoring everything else.Yet there are also people (some in this thread even!) who don't seem to regard 9/11 as that bad, so it works both ways.
Well it's not that I think like that, that's what you make of it. It's just every year it's the same story on 9/11, I need to be reminded through the media that there was an attack in New York, same goes for the memorial service of the Second World War. I'm sorry but I think it's over and done, I don't need to be reminded of things that happend in the past each and every year, while there are things happening at this exact moment of typing and reading that should be resolved.

With these new buildings people should leave the past in the past and look forward to a new chapter in the future, the old buildings are gone, and the attack can not be undone. Learn from it and move on, but don't keep shoving these story's down my throat.

TRLegendLuver
02-02-12, 16:47
9/11 could have killed nobody and yet still had an incredible effect on the American psyche. It forever altered our perception about how the rest of the world views us and left a void that could have been filled by a number of things, but we chose revenge through war.

It is undeniable that 9/11 was the most significant terrorist action on domestic soil in our history. Which has nothing to do with how many people were killed or who perpetrated the act.

Were there worse terrorist acts? Absolutely, but those were all lower profile or just plain detached from the general public. New York City is a place we all are familiar with, even if we haven't been there. Between being the world's most recognizable skyline and the world's most filmed city, it is a place we all love even without necessarily knowing it. Just saying New York City elicits an emotional reaction of some sort on some level. Can't really say that about Seattle... or Newark.

:tmb: Couldn't agree more.

Poke Warrior
02-02-12, 16:47
I had no idea that they were planning to build somthing where the Twin Towers once stood.... Im abit half and half on it....

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 16:55
I'm just saying that it could have been much higher if they had hit either of the towers lower. Yes it's still a high number, could have been higer however...I'm not so sure if it would've been possible for them to hit that much lower. Regardless of that, what point are you trying to make here?

Well it's not that I think like that, that's what you make of it. It's just every year it's the same story on 9/11, I need to be reminded through the media that there was an attack in New York, same goes for the memorial service of the Second World War. I'm sorry but I think it's over and done, I don't need to be reminded of things that happend in the past each and every year, while there are things happening at this exact moment of typing and reading that should be resolved.

With these new buildings people should leave the past in the past and look forward to a new chapter in the future, the old buildings are gone, and the attack can not be undone. Learn from it and move on, but don't keep shoving these story's down my throat.Oh woe is you, how ever will you cope?

Zelda master
02-02-12, 18:38
I'm just saying that 3.000 isn't as much as the 10.000 it could have been, if the bombing of the WTC would have gone as planned back in the day one of the towers would have gone to the ground from the base, just imagin how many then would have been killed with no time to evacuate...

And cope with what, an event that didn't effect me the slightest..? People should look forward into the future with the new buildings instead of dwelling and dreaming about the old ones...

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 18:43
I'm just saying that 3.000 isn't as much as the 10.000 it could have been, if the bombing of the WTC would have gone as planned back in the day one of the towers would have gone to the ground from the base, just imagin how many then would have been killed with no time to evacuate...

10,000? Where on Earth did you get that figure from?

I stress again, what exactly is your point? 3,000, 5,000, 10,000. Why does it matter how many could've died? The fact is 2,977 innocent people died as a result of a terrorist attack. That's 2,977 too many.

I just don't understand why people are saying things like "it could've been more". What, does this somehow excuse what happened?

And cope with what, an event that didn't effect me the slightest..? People should look forward into the future with the new buildings instead of dwelling and dreaming about the old ones...Cope with the memorials. Same goes for WWII. Considering you live in the Netherlands which was under German occupation for several years I'd expect you'd have a little more class.

Well, originally this thread was just about the new building until certain people hijacked (no pun intended) the thread with conspiracies and terrorist sympathizing (I'm not referring to you here).

Zelda master
02-02-12, 18:53
10,000, where on Earth did you get that figure from?

I stress again, what exactly is your point? 3,000, 5,000, 10,000. Why does it matter how many could've died? The fact is 2,977 innocent people died as a result of a terrorist attack. That's 2,977 too many.

I can't disagree on that one, but if the buildings weren't evacuated or collapsed emediatly the number could just as easily have been anything up untill the 10,000 considering the capacity that the building had.

Cope with the memorials. Same goes for WWII. Considering you live in the Netherlands which was under German occupation for several years I'd expect you'd have a little more class.
I do cope with them quite easily, I just take the bike out for a spin. And about WII it's been 67 years since the war stopped and peace was restored, I'm sorry but isn't it time for people to move on..? I respect the people that fought in the war, but I'm not dwelling on it. Hell my Greatgrand Mother who lived through both world wars, as my grandmother who lived through the second world war share the same opinion. They respect the people who fought and dies, but the people should move on and look into the future.


Well, originally this thread was just about the new building until certain people hijacked (no pun intended) the thread with conspiracies and terrorist sympathizing (I'm not referring to you here).
Guess that jumping in halfway into a Steve Jobs and plane hijacking discussion wasn't the best timing :p

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 19:00
I can't disagree on that one, but if the buildings weren't evacuated or collapsed emediatly the number could just as easily have been anything up untill the 10,000 considering the capacity that the building had.Again, so?

I do cope with them quite easily, I just take the bike out for a spin. And about WII it's been 67 years since the war stopped and peace was restored, I'm sorry but isn't it time for people to move on..? I respect the people that fought in the war, but I'm not dwelling on it. Hell my Greatgrand Mother who lived through both world wars, as my grandmother who lived through the second world war share the same opinion. They respect the people who fought and dies, but the people should move on and look into the future.Pausing for a moment to remember those who fought for YOUR freedom doesn't mean you can't also move on. People have moved on.

The Great Chi
02-02-12, 19:21
Since 911 there has been many concerns how to get people out of a high building safely. Here are some invensions that may make there way into skyscraper design (eventually).

External temporary lifts (a bit on the slow side)
hkcPWNGxs8g

External concealed ladders (you would need to be strong of limb for this one)
n4SfRxqmq4o

Self rescue :eek:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/911-Inspires-New-Self-Rescue-System-120832069.html

Internal staggered escape shute (definately more pratical)
http://www.celtic-lines.com/Escapaid-Marketing-27.11.pdf

There are many more, if you search the internet.

knightgames
02-02-12, 20:19
I just don't understand why people are saying things like "it could've been more". What, does this somehow excuse what happened?

I hope that's not what you thought I meant when I mentioned that I believed the death toll could have been Hiroshima or Nagasaki levels. I was just exclaiming that we were fortunate enough to not have had a higher death toll just because of the proximity of so many people.

One is too many.

It doesn't excuse what happened.

(Just in case I was misunderstood.)

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 20:23
I hope that's not what you thought I meant when I mentioned that I believed the death toll could have been Hiroshima or Nagasaki levels. I was just exclaiming that we were fortunate enough to not have had a higher death toll just because of the proximity of so many people.

One is too many.

It doesn't excuse what happened.

(Just in case I was misunderstood.)I wasn't referring to you. :)

Carbon
02-02-12, 21:46
I doubt 9/11 could have ever been as high a casualty number as an Atom bomb :')

But isn't this thread about the new tower? 9/11 has been, gone, and the death toll is what it is. boom.

Legend 4ever
02-02-12, 21:59
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not the only skyscraper that's going to be made. I saw a picture of another two skyscrapers around it.

Draco
02-02-12, 22:05
Just to note, the casualty count of 9/11 is technically more than 2977. Many people have died or will die from the complications due to the asbestos that saturated the air afterward.

Mad Tony
02-02-12, 22:08
Just to note, the casualty count of 9/11 is technically more than 2977. Many people have died or will die from the complications due to the asbestos that saturated the air afterward.Very true, although I'm not sure if the true death toll has ever been calculated?

Draco
02-02-12, 22:56
I havent found any official information on the subject.

The Great Chi
03-02-12, 11:45
Some more escape methods for high buildings.....

Undignified escape in a bag, but it saves your life....
http://highriseescapesystems.com/Products.html

Inside building Sock style shutes, which slow your decent.....
http://www.escape-chute-systems.com/

Evacushute...A paracute system for use as a last resort.
http://www.a2boffice.co.uk/office-escape/