PDA

View Full Version : Freedom Tower or Twin Towers



9 Ball Girl
05-20-2005, 11:24 AM
Freedom Tower
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050512/050512_freedomTower_vmed_1p.standard.jpg

or

Twin Towers
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/images/050518trump.jpg

I actually like the idea of rebuilding the Twin Towers, (I thought about that way before Trump said anything). To me, The Freedom Tower looks kind of weird, in an asymetrical sort of way. I don't think that it's a pile of junk, like Trump said, however, I think that having Ground Zero duplicated to what it was like before would be nice. Of course, the family of the victims, IMO, have all the say in this and having it duplicated would be really tough for them.

What do you guys think?

Wally_in_Cincy
05-20-2005, 12:14 PM
I just hope our company gets the contract to do the windows /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

seriously if they are rebuilt the same way it's going to be hard to rent.

i don't think the freedom tower is as ugly as some people say.

catscradle
05-20-2005, 12:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 9 Ball Girl:</font><hr> Freedom Tower
or

Twin Towers

I actually like the idea of rebuilding the Twin Towers, (I thought about that way before Trump said anything). To me, The Freedom Tower looks kind of weird, in an asymetrical sort of way. I don't think that it's a pile of junk, like Trump said, however, I think that having Ground Zero duplicated to what it was like before would be nice. Of course, the family of the victims, IMO, have all the say in this and having it duplicated would be really tough for them.

What do you guys think? <hr /></blockquote>

I've always liked that idea too, it sends a message to the terrorists. It may be construed as a challenge by them, but I think anything built on that site will be construed as a challenge and target.

Fran Crimi
05-20-2005, 12:23 PM
Trump himself admitted that he thought it would be difficult to fill the buildings once they're built. I don't like either idea. I'd like to see it as a memorial park, with a museum and outdoor amphitheater to house plays and concerts to help raise money for worthy charities.

Fran

Chopstick
05-20-2005, 01:53 PM
I'm kinda partial to this one.

http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Osama/fingertowers.JPG

Leviathan
05-20-2005, 04:41 PM
Hi, Wendy. I think it would be more appropriate to re-establish a living, working neighborhood there, with shops, theaters, restaurants, apartment buildings, and office buildings of ordinary practical sizes, all centered on a small park that would contain a modest memorial sculpture or fountain. I think it's disrespectful to the dead to consider putting up huge buildings that are designed to "send messages."

AS

highsea
05-20-2005, 05:35 PM
Post deleted by highsea

Leviathan
05-20-2005, 07:21 PM
You seem to care less about remembering the dead and rebuilding their community than about sending childish messages of defiance to murderers. I think that's disrespectful of the dead. I think it's appropriate and respectful to give the dead simple, dignified remembrance, and to build a livable neighborhood as their monument.

AS

highsea
05-20-2005, 08:45 PM
Post deleted by highsea

Fran Crimi
05-20-2005, 09:20 PM
Highsea, I think that being respectful of the dead is not the same as saying "you win." I'm a New Yorker and I knew people who died in those buildings. One of my closest friends barely made it out alive. I'm angry as all hell over what happened. I walked through the rubble two weeks after it happened with a police escort to help my friend retrieve some of her business files in a neighboring building. I will never forget that horrible smell, or the burnt pieces of documents from Cantor Fitzgerald lying around her office, and half-burned photos of smiling co-workers.

Screw the terrorists and whatever impression they may get of what we build. I think they have a damn good idea by now how we feel about them. Do you honestly think that a memorial park will make them feel victorious? That would be a very very grave mistake on their part, now wouldn't it?

Fran

9 Ball Girl
05-20-2005, 09:40 PM
Hi Lev, I think that whatever that wind up building there will send some kind of message anyway, if any, regardless of how big or small the project is.

It's a funny thing that there is a delay in the construction because of some security concerns and then whamo! Trump voices his idea. I guess things happen for a reason.

Leviathan
05-21-2005, 04:21 AM
Wendy, hijita de mi alma, eres la sonrisa de mi corazon.--AS

Gayle in MD
05-21-2005, 06:43 AM
Hi,
I agree, and also, whatever they build, this would be a great oppotunity to include a United World Religious Organization, to establish a location in the world where religious groups and leaders could gather in order to expand peace, acceptance and understanding among one another, and work together to organize charity efforts to help those in need around the world.

Gayle in Md.

landshark77
05-21-2005, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I'd like to see it as a memorial park, with a museum and outdoor amphitheater to house plays and concerts to help raise money for worthy charities.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with Fran. IMO, some type of Memorial should be built...period.

Scott Lee
05-21-2005, 10:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Trump himself admitted that he thought it would be difficult to fill the buildings once they're built. I don't like either idea. I'd like to see it as a memorial park, with a museum and outdoor amphitheater to house plays and concerts to help raise money for worthy charities.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with you Fran! After all, doesn't NYC (like most all major metro areas) already have a gigantic amount of unrented high-rise office space already? A memorial park is a good idea!

Scott

Wally_in_Cincy
05-21-2005, 11:34 AM
What does Silverstein have to say about this? Did he get reimbursed for his $3.2 billion lease? Or is that contingent on rebuiling?

Fran Crimi
05-21-2005, 01:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> What does Silverstein have to say about this? Did he get reimbursed for his $3.2 billion lease? Or is that contingent on rebuiling? <hr /></blockquote>

The situation is a mess, Wally. Silverstein is locked into 99 years with the City and the City's not letting him off the hook. The insurance companies are paying him just barely enough to cover his rent each month and have been disputing in the courts all this time whether the attacks consisted of one or two separate incidents. After years of court battles, the court finally ruled this year that there were two incidents. That forces the insurance companies to pay double the amount they originally stated they would pay. Naturally, they're appealing, which will take more time, possibly years. In the meantime, Silverstein doesn't have the money to rebuild, which is why this is taking so long.

Enter Donald Trump who offers to bail out Silverstein but he wants to do it his way, and they would have to get the City to go along with the plan. If the courts refuse to move things along quickly regarding the appeal, Trump may get his way. It's either that or Silverstein stands to lose the property.


Fran

Rich R.
05-21-2005, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> have been disputing in the courts all this time whether the attacks consisted of one or two separate incidents. After years of court battles, the court finally ruled this year that there were two incidents. <hr /></blockquote>

Since I am far removed from NY, I haven't been following this issue, but I find this point interesting and I am curious. Other than the insurance companies having to pay more money, what were the arguments.
It seems simple to me.
2 towers + 2 airplanes = 2 incendents

landshark77
05-21-2005, 04:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> have been disputing in the courts all this time whether the attacks consisted of one or two separate incidents. After years of court battles, the court finally ruled this year that there were two incidents. <hr /></blockquote>

Since I am far removed from NY, I haven't been following this issue, but I find this point interesting and I am curious. Other than the insurance companies having to pay more money, what were the arguments.
It seems simple to me.
2 towers 2 airplanes = 2 incendents <hr /></blockquote>

Ah, yes Rich...but the towers were referred to as one unit. People (in general) never deferentiated between the different towers unless they conducted business there until the attack occurred. So yes, 2 planes but same day, same planned attack, same national icon building (The Twin Towers, the WTC). Now please understand that I don't necessarily believe that this interpretation is correct, but I can see the argument. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Qtec
05-21-2005, 10:57 PM
The 'TWIN Towers'implies two things, not one. The attacks were 18 mins apart, so i dont see that they have 'a leg to stand on'.

Why isnt this insurance comp. being put under pressure to 'do the right thing'? Why is there no action from the Whitehouse?
If the patriotic GOP would mount the same campaign against them as, they did against Kerry, this would have been resolved 3 years ago!

Who owns this Comp anyway?

You would think this subject was of national importance. I,m pretty sure it is for the people of NY.

Q

Qtec
05-21-2005, 11:03 PM
The 'TWIN Towers'implies two things, not one. The attacks were 18 mins apart, so i dont see that they have 'a leg to stand on'.

Why isnt this insurance comp. being put under pressure to 'do the right thing'? Why is there no action from the Whitehouse?
If the patriotic GOP would mount the same campaign against them as, they did against Kerry, this would have been resolved 3 years ago!

Who owns this Comp anyway?

You would think this subject was of national importance. I,m pretty sure it is for the people of NY.

Q

Fran Crimi
05-22-2005, 07:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The 'TWIN Towers'implies two things, not one. The attacks were 18 mins apart, so i dont see that they have 'a leg to stand on'.

<font color="blue">Well gee, Q, Silverstein should drop his lawyers and hire you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif The obvious argument for one attack was that it was a singly coordinated incident, acted on by members of the same group during the same period of time. The distinction that probably categorizes it as two attacks is that it was not a coordinated military attack. How many attacks do you think the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been according to your logic? Japanese planes were flying in waves of several minutes apart, yet we catagorize it as one incident. </font color>

Why isnt this insurance comp. being put under pressure to 'do the right thing'?

<font color="blue"> The "right thing" would have been for Silverstein to have the correct amount of insurance coverage on the property in the first place so that one incident would have covered his losses. However, there was no way he could have anticipated such a catastrophic loss all at once. There was probably an agreed maximum based on certain calculations that the insurance companies would pay in the event of a catastrophic incident. Two catastrophic incidents doubles that amount.</font color>


Why is there no action from the Whitehouse?

<font color="blue">Because this is an insurance dispute, not a matter of national security. </font color>


If the patriotic GOP would mount the same campaign against them as, they did against Kerry, this would have been resolved 3 years ago!

<font color="blue">This statement is illogical. It does not compute in my brain. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Who owns this Comp anyway?

<font color="blue"> There are a few. </font color>

You would think this subject was of national importance. I,m pretty sure it is for the people of NY.

<font color="blue">It is important, and your point is? </font color>

Q
<hr /></blockquote>