Rebuilding the World Trade Centre

How Should they Rebuild the World Trade Centre (center)

  • The Freedom Tower Design

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Rebuild the Twin-Towers

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Do Not Rebuild the WTC

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Your own design (please could you explain in the thread)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    10
C

Cat-Man

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
The Other Day in class we were Having A debate about weather they should scrap the freedom tower idea and rebuld the World trade centre in the Samge design so i would like your opinions aswell as ur ideas

I would just like to say that i am not trying to cause any controvosie with this thread and it is not ment to offend anyone

Thanks
Cat-Man
 
I have Just thought of somthink kinda expanding on the fredom tower name on the twin towers, how about rebuild the towers with the nems of (WTC1) Freedom Tower and (WTC2) Independence Tower.
 
i do think that in the origional re-building Twin-Towers plan their was to be a memorial garden around were the origional towers once stood
 
I think they should build the highest building ever at this site. So even higher than the burj dubai. Just to show america ( an the rest of the free world) doesn't bow for terrorists.
 
i think it should definatly be at least the tallest building in the western hemisphere
 
Surely that'd just be setting a challenge for a repeat of the tragedy.

A memorial gardens is much more peaceful and respectful to those who were lost.
 
And because the USA must not bow for terrorists, they should ignore the fact it would be a challenge for terrorists. With a taller building they would show they're not afraid, and that al-qaida will not and cannot win.

A memorial park, surrounding the new building would indeed be nice though.
 
Johnny said:
And because the USA must not bow for terrorists, they should ignore the fact it would be a challenge for terrorists. With a taller building they would show they're not afraid, and that al-qaida will not and cannot win.

A memorial park, surrounding the new building would indeed be nice though.
Click to expand...

yes a memorial park would be nice

and i stongly doubt that the disaster could happen again with airport securtiy being tighetend since that tradgic day
 
Johnny said:
And because the USA must not bow for terrorists, they should ignore the fact it would be a challenge for terrorists. With a taller building they would show they're not afraid, and that al-qaida will not and cannot win.

A memorial park, surrounding the new building would indeed be nice though.
Click to expand...

And lets just ignore the fact that you're putting at risk thousands of lives for the sole reason that america can say "I've got a bigger tower than you" to the middle east. Still, if they do get flattened again I suppose it would allow you to build the memorial garden as well!

Cat-Man said:
and i stongly doubt that the disaster could happen again with airport securtiy being tighetend since that tradgic day
Click to expand...

Just like on this thread, if someone wants to do it enough, you won't be able to stop them.
 
I really feel rebuilding the towers is just asking for trouble, and as RedPanda states, puts thousands of lives at risk needlessly, again.
 
And that's bowing! You cannot let a terrorist win, it is as simple as that. Let america show it's greatness by building even a bigger tower, and be reminded that the person responsible for bringing down it's predecessors has to hide in caves, to avoid capture, while americans can enjoy a magninficent strucure in the centre of manhattan again.
 
Johnny said:
And that's bowing! You cannot let a terrorist win, it is as simple as that. Let america show it's greatness by building even a bigger tower, and be reminded that the person responsible for bringing down it's predecessors has to hide in caves, to avoid capture, while americans can enjoy a magninficent strucure in the centre of manhattan again.
Click to expand...

So if it's as simple as that, answer me this. Suppose we go along with your plan and actually build a pair of ten-mile high towers on the site of the WTC, who would fill the floor-space? Just three years after the only crash in concorde's forty year history, the planes stopped flying due to lack of passengers. I would be prepared to bet that even if the WTC was rebuilt (still can't believe we're having this conversation on here but still) people would not feel comfortable working there. And if people don't want to work there, then businesses won't base themselves there and you'll be left with two whacking great towers with massive construction costs and nobody in them!

Actually, that does sound pretty American after all!
 
Is this a serious comparison? People still fly with airplanes, allthough these were hijacked and used to fly in the towers. And if people still do that, you would still think they would not want to work in a new WTC-building? How about the people working in the other skyscrapers of new york city? They must have been feeling pretty vulnerable since the attacks, but still work there.

And by the way, concorde stopped flying because the level of maintenance could not be guaranteed. If one accident were enough reason for people to stop flying, there wouldn't be commercial airtravel anymore...
 
Johnny said:
Is this a serious comparison? People still fly with airplanes, allthough these were hijacked and used to fly in the towers. And if people still do that, you would still think they would not want to work in a new WTC-building? How about the people working in the other skyscrapers of new york city? They must have been feeling pretty vulnerable since the attacks, but still work there.

And by the way, concorde stopped flying because the level of maintenance could not be guaranteed. If one accident were enough reason for people to stop flying, there wouldn't be commercial airtravel anymore...
Click to expand...

Yes this is a serious comparison. And before I begin I will point out that 9/11 resulted in a significant reduction in the number of people travelling by plane. There are numerous examles of companies going under after being associated with major disasters, concorde is one as is pan-am after Lockerby. This has nothing to do with whether or not the fear is valid, but if a brand gets damaged in such a way people will, rightly or wrongly, be scared to use it.

And yes, concorde could not continue to maintain their planes - this was because they did not have enough passengers to pay for it. As I have already pointed out, a number of plane companies have gone bust as a result of notable crashes. Indeed, airships stopped being used as commercial air-craft because of just two crashing: the R100 and Hindenberg.
 
Well, another massacre on that scale and for what? For pride? Sometimes its not about bowing to terrorists, it's about putting the safety and well being of it's citizens first. It is a ridiculous idea to build a taller tower just simply to say 'Nur nur nur nur nur, Im not listening'. Yes, America shouldn't bow to terrorists, but there are other ways to do this other than basically challenging them to repeat the tragedy!

What a seriously ridiculous thread, that has gone on long enough. I think the respect for the people who died in the tragedy is seriously being jeopardised, being a talking point in a general chit chat section of a forum. Do not expect another reply from me in this thread.
 
Im sorry catman amigo , but i have to tell you this thread is so foolish and im begining to think it was deliberately provocative , it will just provoke more arguments on zoochat of which i dont want to be drawn into yet again (although it looks that i already have). You are a young fellow so its sometimes easy to make these kind of mistakes , but try to think before you put such things on zoochat. (Not that i have been a very good example to you , with some of the things ive started here on zoochat in the past)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top