9/11 Memorial Hijacked

[geni]

You're suggesting that the twin towers be rebuilt to withstand the onslaught of a 747 fully loaded with fuel? I cannot imagine the engineering that would accomplish such a feat. Or, if it could be done, what the costs would be.

It's doable. The twin towers were desighned to withstand strikes from smaller aircraft. Withstanding the intial shock is clearly not a problem which just leaves the issue of being able to withstand the heat.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9/11 Memorial Hijacked

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

1) What gives YOU the right?

What gives you the right to ask what gives me the right to ask what gives you the right to ask what gives me the right to ask what gives you the right to ask what gives me the right?

2) IN America, the First Amendment gives us the right to proclaim that our vision for the memorial is the only accepted and legitimate one.

It also gives other people the right to ask where on earth you got the idea that yours is the only accepted and legitimate view.

3) (and most importantly) Pepto didn't say that his opinion was the only one that mattered - you're putting words in his mouth.

To an extent. I assumed he agreed with the article he linked to, or he would have stated otherwise.

Instead of criticizing him, why don't you tell us what your opinion is of the issue he raised? Especially since you appear to agree with Pepto.

My opinion is that nobody owns 9/11, so no one has the right to claim that the memorial has been "hijacked", and that was really my sole point.

Personally I do not mind what the article proposes nor do I mind a minimalist memorial, and I am sure you could find alternative proposals that I also did not mind. I'm not even a US citizen though, so my opinion is not terribly important.

As I said, my point was just that grandstanding about the memorial being "hijacked" is ridiculous and inappropriate.

 

[clarsct]

Well, petty bickering over semantics is appropriate, don't you think?

I agree with geni. I did watch some PBS stuff on the fall of the towers that went into the architecture. They made some mistakes when they built it.

Personally, I would like to see them rebuilt ten stories taller. I think it would be the greatest monument we could give. It would be a symbol of the greatest sort of victory: Victory in defeat. That, even though they hit us twice, we aren't giving up and will not give in. They can't HURT us, because we have the will to not allow it. We will stand tall, no matter what.


I would rather see a large monument set up for the people in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. These people, businessmen and lawyers, stood up to armed terrorists and said 'NO!'. Even if it cost them their lives. That, my friends, is courage.

 

[Daylight]

You're suggesting that the twin towers be rebuilt to withstand the onslaught of a 747 fully loaded with fuel? I cannot imagine the engineering that would accomplish such a feat. Or, if it could be done, what the costs would be. Then, after it is built and stands as a challenge to every anti-American nutjob, why any company would pay the exorbitant rents to occupy the space. Or, if that did happen, why any employee would agree to be housed there.

The twin towers came down. They will never rise again.

Somehow I doubt an airliner will be hijacked so it can be flown into a tower. With what we have to go through to just to get on the plane now “pay back” will be high on every passengers list, especially right after takeoff. I can see it now. “We’re taking the plane over for (name your god)”. The next scene would be from the movie “Airplane” with all the passengers lining up to beat the snot out of them.

Of course that new Super big Airbus has hijack me written all over it

I also really think rebuilding the towers would be a better memorial to the 9/11 victims and a better “kiss our donkey” to the terrorists.

 

[SezMe]

It's doable. The twin towers were desighned to withstand strikes from smaller aircraft. Withstanding the intial shock is clearly not a problem which just leaves the issue of being able to withstand the heat.

Oh, I have no doubt that it is "doable" but that is not my point. My point is that it is not practical on economic grounds.

Personally, I would like to see them rebuilt ten stories taller. I think it would be the greatest monument we could give. It would be a symbol of the greatest sort of victory: Victory in defeat. That, even though they hit us twice, we aren't giving up and will not give in. They can't HURT us, because we have the will to not allow it. We will stand tall, no matter what.

I quite agree. But I think it is a symbology we cannot afford.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Well, petty bickering over semantics is appropriate, don't you think?

I agree with geni. I did watch some PBS stuff on the fall of the towers that went into the architecture. They made some mistakes when they built it.

Personally, I would like to see them rebuilt ten stories taller. I think it would be the greatest monument we could give. It would be a symbol of the greatest sort of victory: Victory in defeat. That, even though they hit us twice, we aren't giving up and will not give in. They can't HURT us, because we have the will to not allow it. We will stand tall, no matter what.

I would rather see a large monument set up for the people in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. These people, businessmen and lawyers, stood up to armed terrorists and said 'NO!'. Even if it cost them their lives. That, my friends, is courage.

I like the way you think.