World Trade Centers

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » May 19th, '05, 07:28

I didn't feel this was of the political nature so I placed it here....feel free to move it if you disagree.

If some of you missed it....Trump proposed rebuilding the WTC...but this time they will be more modern, look the same, and be 1' higher than the original.

Personally, I like this idea.

On the other hand, I really liked the memorial that was in place to be built at the WTC site....I did not however, like the new freedom tower. I think the freedom tower would have been nice if the top glass pinnacle was offices rather than glass.

E

pizzamoose · Post by **pizzamoose** » May 19th, '05, 07:30

that freedom tower is a timid response to what happened..

"we'll make it higher, but we'll make it fake, too!"

i don't know one person who likes it

Post by **SkiDork** » May 19th, '05, 07:36

actually Trumps proposal is something like 100' higher, not 1'

Here's the problem:

NOBODY is going to want to work that high up in any replacement towers.

So they have to come up with a solution for that, somehow.

Actually, now that I think about it I wonder whats gone on with the tenants of the top floors of the Sears tower, and the Empire State bldg for that matter. Maybe I'm wrong.

Stormchaser · Post by **Stormchaser** » May 19th, '05, 07:49

SkiDork wrote:actually Trumps proposal is something like 100' higher, not 1'

Here's the problem:

NOBODY is going to want to work that high up in any replacement towers.

So they have to come up with a solution for that, somehow.

Actually, now that I think about it I wonder whats gone on with the tenants of the top floors of the Sears tower, and the Empire State bldg for that matter. Maybe I'm wrong.

And the rumors fly...I heard it was supposed to be 1 story taller.

Ski-N-Sail · Post by **Ski-N-Sail** » May 19th, '05, 07:52

I head one story too, but this article says 100 ft.

The design put forward by Trump and his structural engineer Kenneth Gardner, essentially offers a modified version of the original twin towers, erected in the early 1970s.

The replacements would be at least 1,475-feet (449.6 m) tall, more than 100 feet (30.1 m) higher than their previous incarnations. The new North Tower would also boast a 383-foot (116.7 m) communications mast.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... 0519003224

But this article says 1 story:

The towers he advocates would be 111 stories tall - one floor taller than the lost towers.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fi ... sec=Latest

Post by **SkiDork** » May 19th, '05, 07:53

Stormchaser wrote:
SkiDork wrote:actually Trumps proposal is something like 100' higher, not 1'

Here's the problem:

NOBODY is going to want to work that high up in any replacement towers.

So they have to come up with a solution for that, somehow.

Actually, now that I think about it I wonder whats gone on with the tenants of the top floors of the Sears tower, and the Empire State bldg for that matter. Maybe I'm wrong.
And the rumors fly...I heard it was supposed to be 1 story taller.

here's the quoted rumor from the CNN website:

"Trump's alternative would be replicas of the original 110-story towers, only a bit taller. The design and model by architect Ken Gardner, embraced by Trump, offered buildings that would be 1,474 feet -- more than a hundred feet taller than the original towers, once the world's tallest buildings."

Bling Skier · Post by **Bling Skier** » May 19th, '05, 08:03

Now if they put a tram 2 the top/summit and blow snow on the north face of the building then and only then I may show some intrest in the towers....just keeping it ski related here folks.....

Stormchaser · Post by **Stormchaser** » May 19th, '05, 08:13

Bling Skier wrote:Now if they put a tram 2 the top/summit and blow snow on the north face of the building then and only then I may show some intrest in the towers....just keeping it ski related here folks.....

Nothing like a 110-story, 70 degree slope. Woo hoo, ballz out!

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » May 19th, '05, 08:39

Sorry...the guy on the radio must have mis quoted.

But like SkiDork said....I wonder if people in the top floors in other big city skyscapers are having problems? I'd think if they were we would have heard about it by now.

I guess if you want to be bold...you can say it doesn't matter what floor you're on....when a tower falls it falls....it doesn't just spare the first 50 floors. When looking at it this way....I see no problem in occupants filling the 110 story WTC's

E

Post by **spanky** » May 19th, '05, 08:50

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I guess if you want to be bold...you can say it doesn't matter what floor you're on....when a tower falls it falls....it doesn't just spare the first 50 floors. When looking at it this way....I see no problem in occupants filling the 110 story WTC's

E

Sorry dude, but this just screams ignorance. Think about how many people were trapped above the impact zone on September 11.

As a matter of fact, a quick google yielded these statistics... http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/rele ... cation.htm

LINYbob · Post by **LINYbob** » May 19th, '05, 08:55

It doesn't matter if it is 1 foot or 1 story or 100 feet taller. The point is that his towers would be bigger and stronger than the old WTC.

The "Liberty tower" looks lame to me - it is a building only up to 50 floors or so then it is empty space the rest of the way. How they can hype it as the tallest building in the world or whatever is beyond me. It is a short building with an empty tower stuck on top of it filled up with windmills and gardens. How bizarre.

If they're worried about getting people to work in a new WTC in the upper floors, why not make them condos and let people buy them and move in voluntarily? Then only people who are comfortable being there would be there.

Of course this would be a target, but so is the White House and Capitol in DC and they're protected. I'm sure they could come up with some sort of good security around this new WTC - no fly zones, etc. like what they have now in DC.

yeti · Post by **yeti** » May 19th, '05, 08:55

Base jumping!

Stormchaser · Post by **Stormchaser** » May 19th, '05, 09:02

Thanks for the mammaries! (.)(.)

Those look like teeny nipple saggers...

(@)(@) is more like it

yeti · Post by **yeti** » May 19th, '05, 09:06

No way - I like em like pellets. Love raisins.

Now, the pepperoni's are OK and I wouldn't turn them away, but if I had to pick I am going with the buttons everytime.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » May 19th, '05, 10:14

spanky wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I guess if you want to be bold...you can say it doesn't matter what floor you're on....when a tower falls it falls....it doesn't just spare the first 50 floors. When looking at it this way....I see no problem in occupants filling the 110 story WTC's

E
Sorry dude, but this just screams ignorance. Think about how many people were trapped above the impact zone on September 11.

As a matter of fact, a quick google yielded these statistics... http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/rele ... cation.htm

But then what about 90 stories....you have a possible 10 stories of trapped people...what about 50 stories....you might have 10 stories of trapped people...what about the White House...it's a target with a possible one story full of people trapped...or the pentagon...I could go on and on.

My point? I don't think all our big skyscrappers should not use the last 15 floors because of some crazy middle easterns....we should live life how we always have...free and proud

E