posted
The original 1993 plot was to cause one tower to fall into the other; however, the terrorists had underestimated the strength of the twin towers, which were designed to withstand up to hurricane-force winds.
In the 9/11 plot, Osama bin Laden states on the video released a few years ago by the US government that his plan was that the top floors would collapse, and he did not expect the total destruction (or "success" as he called it) of the center.
Like it or not, any American icon can be a target, whether tall or short. Though the towers were 110 stories tall, the other target, the Pentagon, is only 5 stories tall.
As for the new "phallus" being built, it's more a half-hearted attempt, as you'll note that after the 70th floor or so, it'll just be open structure (by comparison, the Chrysler Building is 77 stories tall).
It's interesting to note that most people seem not to have a problem with the fact that they rebuilt the Pentagon, and people now work where 189 people (including 5 children on board the plane) lost their lives.
What makes one place where people died more sacred than another? When is it right to rebuild, and when is it not?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote: What makes one place where people died more sacred than another?
The media.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: What makes one place where people died more sacred than another?
The media.
TH=he families of the survivors nad their remembering the fallen make the diffrence: I just overheard (at an all-nught diner) two waitresses talking about one's upcoming vacation to tour France. One asked the other "are you going to Normandy? That's a battle site right?".
Ug.
Food was good though.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I, for one, was all for rebuilding on the site, provided that the footprints were protected. I had this idea of a more or less acute-pyramid-shaped structure (a la that building in San Francisco), taller than the towers at its center, and with open shafts where the towers stood. It would've contained the memory, and a helluva lot of office space. And, properly done, a structure like that would've taken a frickin' nuke to bring down.
But, alas, no real architects proposed anything of the sort, so far as I know. And of the many participants, I was surprised that the Freedom Tower won.
But, I figured that maybe it would grow on me eventually.
It hasn't. That's the most craptastic design ever. It fakes its height whereas the towers stood tall. It is one to try to fill the shoes of two. It is open and airy whereas the towers were skyscraping juggernauts. It radiates an air of artsy-fartsy-ness whereas the towers were bastions of strength.
But, oh well.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I do like the wind turbine thing in the upper lattice. That's kinda cool. I wonder if it will have some sort of Phalanx AA system installed to blend in with the architecture. Gargoyles w/ laser eyes, perhaps?
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
