PDA

View Full Version : Construction on New Trade Center Tower to Begin on July 4


King Cobra
May 5, 2004, 04:49 PM
I'm gonna do a copy and paste of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/nyregion/05CND-REBU.html?ex=1084420800&en=a772dfe0c2d6c41b&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1) before it gets sent into the "ha ha we ain't free pay up your $1.80 because you didn't check out the article the first week it came out ya slow sucka" pay-to-view section:

(BTW: No images of the new design were included with the article.)



May 5, 2004

Construction on New Trade Center Tower to Begin on July 4

By MARIA NEWMAN

Construction of Freedom Tower, the office high rise at the site of the World Trade Center that its developers say will be the world's tallest building, will break ground on July 4, Gov. George E. Pataki said today.

The governor's announcement, at a speech in lower Manhattan, was a broad signal that efforts to rebuild at the World Trade Center would not be slowed down by a major court loss suffered on Monday by the developer of the site.

"On July 4th, as we celebrate the birth of our democracy, we will also celebrate the rebirth of our city," the governor said. "We will begin to reclaim our skyline with a permanent symbol of our freedom.

"On July 4th, 2004, we will break ground on the Freedom Tower," he said.

In his speech to the Association for a Better New York today, Mr. Pataki outlined the timetable for several other projects that are part of the efforts to revitalize the lower Manhattan business district that suffered heavily from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. For example, he said that environmental studies will begin this summer for a new tunnel under the East River to be used a direct rail link connecting lower Manhattan with John F. Kennedy International Airport.

The governor said the new rail line would cut 15 minutes per trip for 100,000 daily Long Island Rail Road riders. It would begin operations in 2013, he said.

He said the new tunnel was preferred over using an existing East River crossing that carries the M and R subway lines.

"It would offer the most comfortable and reliable ride," he said. "It would provide airport passengers with the long-desired one-seat ride to JFK in just 36 minutes."

His announcement about Freedom Tower affirmed that the project will go ahead, even after a federal jury ruled on Monday that the largest insurer of the World Trade Center was limited to a single payout of $877 million, not the double payment sought by the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, in his long-running legal battle.

Mr. Silverstein has waged a 29-month campaign to collect a total of $7.1 billion from about two dozen insurance companies, but court rulings have so far limited him to a maximum of $4.68 billion and that's if he wins all of his remaining legal challenges.

These setbacks have raised questionsabout Mr. Silverstein's ability to complete four more office buildings around the site, even though financing is assured for Freedom Tower, and for 7 World Trade Center, which is currently under construction.

Building No. 7, the last tower lost after the 9/11 attack, is the first to be rebuilt and is currently rising from the devastated site. It is now 314 feet tall, and when completed it will reach 52 stories and 750 feet.

Mr. Pataki toured the building after his speech today.

The governor also said that a Con Edison power substation across from 7 World Trade Center is almost repaired. With the substation down since 9-11, half of downtown Manhattan's power supply had to be supplied from other areas, the governor said.

"I'm pleased to report that, by the end of this month, we will gather at 7 World Trade Center and will throw the switch that brings the substation back on line," he said.

PlaceofDis
May 5, 2004, 05:43 PM
is there still going to be a memorial?

rainman::|:|
May 5, 2004, 05:49 PM
Should prove interesting. The only part i really don't like so much is the name-- Freedom Tower? i suppose it'll grow on me, but it seems a bit cartoonish now. Not to mention the irony, no matter which side of the war argument you're on, you have to admit we've gotten less free because of 9/11, not more. "freedom tower" seems kind of like a cruel epitaph, in a way. Plus it instantly brings to mind memories of us going anti-france, renaming things "freedom" left and right. i don't know that this was something most people are proud of, or will be in 20 years. Not a good choice at all.

paul

wdlove
May 5, 2004, 06:53 PM
I think that "Freedom Tower" is a good name. On 9/11 the terrorists sought to take away our freedom, the way it is done in Islamic countries such as the governments of former Afghanistan & Iraq. In the war on terrorism we are fighting for our freedom. Our country was founded on freedom and we have fought many wars for the same concept.

I look forward to seeing a Tower rising again over Manhattan.

rainman::|:|
May 5, 2004, 07:16 PM
I think that "Freedom Tower" is a good name. On 9/11 the terrorists sought to take away our freedom, the way it is done in Islamic countries such as the governments of former Afghanistan & Iraq. In the war on terrorism we are fighting for our freedom. Our country was founded on freedom and we have fought many wars for the same concept.

I look forward to seeing a Tower rising again over Manhattan.

But again, we have become less free since then. It marked a turning point whereby we (whether necessary or not, i don't care right now) began shifting towards the authoritarian side of the scale, which means the people have less freedoms and liberties. Terrorists have little or no interest in the way we run our own country, they're trying to get us to stop spreading our democracy, let each country decide for itself. They've repeatedly said as much. Terrorists aren't fighting against our freedom, they're fighting against what they see as a perverted set of morals being forced on them (and i do disagree with this view of us, to show i'm being nonpartesan here). To say that "in the war on terrorism we are fighting for freedom" is kind of naive, i think... and it ignores geopolitics entirely. but the interpretation of the cause of terrorism is not my point.

So what's the message behind "freedom tower"? Is it a way of acknowledging our loss of freedoms since 9/11? Is it a celebration of our freedoms *before* 9/11 happened? Is it a "thank you" for all of the freedoms we *didn't* lose, and still have today? Or is it a poor choice of names that someone picked because "freedom" is one of a handful of ultra-patriotic words that are interchangeable, but they neglected to see the implication here?

paul

Macmaniac
May 5, 2004, 07:29 PM
I'm glad they will be starting soon, I personally would like to visit the new tower when its done, if the design is as cool as I have seen it on the Discovery channel it should be one amazing building.

King Cobra
May 5, 2004, 07:46 PM
So what's the message behind "freedom tower"?

My proposition: It means what you see "Freedom Tower" to mean.

Now last time I checked, the design of the new superstructure is going to have a 30 to 45 degree (more or less) sloped roof to it, so that one end of the top of the superstructure rises to an edge, and the other descends at an angle to a small part of the way down the tower to the opposite edge. So has anyone heard otherwise??

MacAztec
May 5, 2004, 08:00 PM
But again, we have become less free since then. It marked a turning point whereby we (whether necessary or not, i don't care right now) began shifting towards the authoritarian side of the scale, which means the people have less freedoms and liberties. Terrorists have little or no interest in the way we run our own country, they're trying to get us to stop spreading our democracy, let each country decide for itself. They've repeatedly said as much. Terrorists aren't fighting against our freedom, they're fighting against what they see as a perverted set of morals being forced on them (and i do disagree with this view of us, to show i'm being nonpartesan here). To say that "in the war on terrorism we are fighting for freedom" is kind of naive, i think... and it ignores geopolitics entirely. but the interpretation of the cause of terrorism is not my point.

So what's the message behind "freedom tower"? Is it a way of acknowledging our loss of freedoms since 9/11? Is it a celebration of our freedoms *before* 9/11 happened? Is it a "thank you" for all of the freedoms we *didn't* lose, and still have today? Or is it a poor choice of names that someone picked because "freedom" is one of a handful of ultra-patriotic words that are interchangeable, but they neglected to see the implication here?

paul

I don't think the name is representing what 9/11 brought upon this country. I think it represents the way the people acted. We have men at war fighting for our freedom, and these towers represent that.

People say that the war is worthless, but I have noticed something. All the terrorists are flocking to Iraq, and our soldiers are fighting them in Iraq. I believe that is much better than the terrorist running into our cities with bombs and killing civilians.

wowser
May 5, 2004, 08:10 PM
It is a shame that Daniel Libeskind's design has had to be compromised in order to appeal to the fat cats, too. Freedom of his idea? Hardly

virividox
May 6, 2004, 05:33 AM
freedom isnt always absolute, sacrifices, compromises have to be made. so maybe the fact that at the moment america has become less 'free' it may lead to more freedom across the globe. but there is a chance that the opposite may happen. only time may tell

but i am very pleased to see that they are rebuilding the site, it is a great thing that shows the resilience of the people as well as a memorial to those who died and those who are fighting and dying to protect the values of their country.

wowser
May 6, 2004, 08:49 AM
but i am very pleased to see that they are rebuilding the site, it is a great thing that shows the resilience of the people as well as a memorial to those who died and those who are fighting and dying to protect the values of their country.

Or it just shows that some people are getting sick of seeing 'prime real estate' go to 'waste' as a memorial.

evil
May 6, 2004, 11:13 AM
It is a shame that Daniel Libeskind's design has had to be compromised in order to appeal to the fat cats, too. Freedom of his idea? Hardly

how so? i have no idea of what you are talking about.

mactastic
May 6, 2004, 11:16 AM
It is a shame that Daniel Libeskind's design has had to be compromised in order to appeal to the fat cats, too. Freedom of his idea? Hardly

Agreed, his initial design was very powerful. However, design is all about compormise, it's just too bad the compromise was with SOM, they are very different from Liebskind.

mactastic
May 6, 2004, 11:18 AM
All the terrorists are flocking to Iraq, and our soldiers are fighting them in Iraq. I believe that is much better than the terrorist running into our cities with bombs and killing civilians.

Really? All of them? What about those who just got caught in Jordan? Or the ones in Saudi Arabia that gunned down the oil workers? Or the ones in Spain? Don't kid yourself, even our troop commanders are saying most of the resistance they are seeing in Iraq are not foreigners they are locals who don't like us (and I can't imagine why).

wowser
May 6, 2004, 11:27 AM
Really? All of them? What about those who just got caught in Jordan? Or the ones in Saudi Arabia that gunned down the oil workers? Or the ones in Spain? Don't kid yourself, even our troop commanders are saying most of the resistance they are seeing in Iraq are not foreigners they are locals who don't like us (and I can't imagine why).

This reminds me of what David Cross said about the war on terrorism "At no point in time are we gonna go "Whoo! Got em all!, Everybody loves us again" :p

Anyway, I'm glad SOM actually had the guts to go with Libeskind (there were some awful designs in the shortlist). I just feel it is a shame that an architect of his level had to compromise(and it sounds like a big compromise - to the point where the design is basically out of the architect's hands)

virividox
May 6, 2004, 12:12 PM
lets talk about the tower folks....lets not let this thread get put into a political forum or get waste landed.

i think that there were several great designs for the new wtc, but as it always is, those who are paying for it get the last word

mactastic
May 6, 2004, 12:20 PM
Ok, sorry.

MongoTheGeek
May 6, 2004, 12:30 PM
I don't think it is big enough and I always found spires to be a cheesy way to boost the height of the building. Yes they do look cool in some instances (chrysler building) but this sort of ephemeral ghost spire is an artistic affectation more than anything.

I kinda liked the spoof pick that looked like manhattan was flipping the world the bird

wowser
May 6, 2004, 03:21 PM
I don't think it is big enough and I always found spires to be a cheesy way to boost the height of the building. Yes they do look cool in some instances (chrysler building) but this sort of ephemeral ghost spire is an artistic affectation more than anything.

I kinda liked the spoof pick that looked like manhattan was flipping the world the bird

Well, if it's anything like Libeskind's previous buildings it will be superb. Just the press release pics look amazing -0 completely transforming the Skyline :)

Chip NoVaMac
May 6, 2004, 10:32 PM
It is a shame that Daniel Libeskind's design has had to be compromised in order to appeal to the fat cats, too. Freedom of his idea? Hardly

Amen to that!

Money and Special Interests rule. Maybe in some ways the name "Hero's Plaza" would have been more indicative of the history behind the site.

Juventuz
May 6, 2004, 10:39 PM
But again, we have become less free since then. It marked a turning point whereby we (whether necessary or not, i don't care right now) began shifting towards the authoritarian side of the scale, which means the people have less freedoms and liberties.

Can you please name one freedom that has been taken away from you? In what way are you less free?

Chip NoVaMac
May 6, 2004, 10:55 PM
lets talk about the tower folks....lets not let this thread get put into a political forum or get waste landed.

i think that there were several great designs for the new wtc, but as it always is, those who are paying for it get the last word

Any tower in the same site (sight) would serve me well. I live in the DC area, and have relatives in the CT. area. The WTC always sent a signal to me that I was almost home. It was also a sight that showed me what made the US great.

I might point out that I spent a weekend at the Hilton Millennium a year to the day that that the WTC collapsed. Our room looked over the plaza. I spent two work day mornings looking down and seeing people come and go. Through out the days I say how the sun played against the the land.

The day the WTC towers collapsed, my heart went out to all thoughts caught in it's wake. Yet i could not wonder if the people at the Krispi Kreme got out before the collapse - since every morning I went for for my warm Krispi Kreme's. Or the associates at the bookstore also go away before the collapse.

Or the many faceless people that I watched going into the WTC towers for their work day. From what we have been told these people were told to stay in their "jobs". And in the end to their certain deaths.



These are among the reasons that I think that "Freedom Plaza" does not fit. "Hero's Plaza" is a much better name, since everyone that died that day was a hero IMO. Some sought redemption in helping their fellow man, others saw no way out, and others perished doing one of the two.

Juventuz
May 6, 2004, 11:01 PM
These are among the reasons that I think that "Freedom Plaza" does not fit. "Hero's Plaza" is a much better name, since everyone that died that day was a hero IMO. Some sought redemption in helping their fellow man, others saw no way out, and others perished doing one of the two.

Why don't they just keep the name World Trade Center?

Chip NoVaMac
May 6, 2004, 11:03 PM
Can you please name one freedom that has been taken away from you? In what way are you less free?

The Patriot Act is truly an affront to the liberties that our founding fathers had seen for us.

It allows greater freedom in looking for terrorists, and hoe they work, but in the end, a greater limitation to the personal freedoms that the USA was founded upon.

Chip NoVaMac
May 6, 2004, 11:14 PM
Why don't they just keep the name World Trade Center?

Historically in the US we have not named places after historical events. Hence we have never had the USS Alamo, or the USS Pearl Harbor. This does not hold true for the USS Enterprise.

Also in the politically correct society, renaming the old WTC site as the new WTC site would note make people happy.

Maybe it is a an American ideal, that when there is massive death - not to use the same name.

MacAztec
May 6, 2004, 11:18 PM
Really? All of them? What about those who just got caught in Jordan? Or the ones in Saudi Arabia that gunned down the oil workers? Or the ones in Spain? Don't kid yourself, even our troop commanders are saying most of the resistance they are seeing in Iraq are not foreigners they are locals who don't like us (and I can't imagine why).

Ok I am sorry mactastic. Not 'all' the terrorists. Many of the terrorists. I am just happy to see that they are fighting the troops, rather than the civilians.

But many people disagree with the war, and I see points on both sides. I do believe this war was imminent even if Bush wasn't in office (which is the argument of many...intelligent.....people).

I think if something like this would have happened 50 years ago, we would be at total war. Take pearl harbor for example. I know that it was war with another country, but this is war (in my opinion) with another religion. The extremists of that religion. Islam.

Chip NoVaMac
May 6, 2004, 11:27 PM
Ok I am sorry mactastic. Not 'all' the terrorists. Many of the terrorists. I am just happy to see that they are fighting the troops, rather than the civilians.

But many people disagree with the war, and I see points on both sides. I do believe this war was imminent even if Bush wasn't in office (which is the argument of many...intelligent.....people).

I think if something like this would have happened 50 years ago, we would be at total war. Take pearl harbor for example. I know that it was war with another country, but this is war (in my opinion) with another religion. The extremists of that religion. Islam.

And that is the wisdom of Solomon.....

~Shard~
May 7, 2004, 12:27 AM
Ok I am sorry mactastic. Not 'all' the terrorists. Many of the terrorists. I am just happy to see that they are fighting the troops, rather than the civilians.

But many people disagree with the war, and I see points on both sides. I do believe this war was imminent even if Bush wasn't in office (which is the argument of many...intelligent.....people).

I think if something like this would have happened 50 years ago, we would be at total war. Take pearl harbor for example. I know that it was war with another country, but this is war (in my opinion) with another religion. The extremists of that religion. Islam.

Kay, once again, let's keep the posts on topic and not get into a big debate on terroism, war, Bush, etc. - or else this thread will get wastelanded and shut down pretty quickly. Save your political discussions for elsewhere.

I think the new Freedom Tower will be a nice addition to the New York skyline, and will at least somewhat fill in the void that currently exists there. But for me, seeing the original towers, and just being in New York again 2 weeks ago and seeing, well, the void their absence has created, I don't think downtown Manhattan's skyline will ever be the same, Freedom Tower or no Freedom Tower.

MongoTheGeek
May 7, 2004, 06:52 AM
Historically in the US we have not named places after historical events. Hence we have never had the USS Alamo, or the USS Pearl Harbor. This does not hold true for the USS Enterprise.

Also in the politically correct society, renaming the old WTC site as the new WTC site would note make people happy.

Maybe it is a an American ideal, that when there is massive death - not to use the same name.

USS Alamo commissioned 1954 decommissioned 1990 given to the Brazilian Navy.
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52) commisioned 1998

If the new building isn't going to be called the world trade center whatever What are the remaining buildings of the world trade center going to be called? 1,2 and 7 fell.

MongoTheGeek
May 7, 2004, 07:00 AM
I think the new Freedom Tower will be a nice addition to the New York skyline, and will at least somewhat fill in the void that currently exists there. But for me, seeing the original towers, and just being in New York again 2 weeks ago and seeing, well, the void their absence has created, I don't think downtown Manhattan's skyline will ever be the same, Freedom Tower or no Freedom Tower.

It will be an okay addition. You really need something big, crass and gaudy. Everyone said they hated the design of the old buildings, that they were too plain they were too mechanical etc. The thing is that deep down everyone knew they were right and that they were symbolic of the town.

People love the new design it doesn't belong though. i think people will say that they love it but actually hate it.

Mr. Anderson
May 7, 2004, 07:17 AM
Everyone said they hated the design of the old buildings, that they were too plain they were too mechanical etc.

The buildings were too large to ignore. And with time they became part of the city because you couldn't avoid them. I remember windsurfing out in Long Island Sound in Darien, Ct. and you could just see the top of them - pretty weird....

The new building will fit in nicely - be a bit different, but 10 years from now it will be synonymous with NYC.

D

wowser
May 7, 2004, 08:45 AM
It will be an okay addition. You really need something big, crass and gaudy. Everyone said they hated the design of the old buildings, that they were too plain they were too mechanical etc. The thing is that deep down everyone knew they were right and that they were symbolic of the town.


Fisrtly, Libeskind's design is certainly NOT crass and gaudy if this is what you mean - it is delicate and modern - the first truly modern building to go up in New York since... if you don't sount the Science Museum planetarium, about the 1930s. Secondly, the old World Trade Centre was hideous, Mies's dream gone sour and stale. Rather like the terrorist bombing on Machester in the UK, at least the destruction has allowed for the city to grow back even stronger (physically and emotionally)

MongoTheGeek
May 7, 2004, 08:49 AM
Fisrtly, Libeskind's design is certainly NOT crass and gaudy if this is what you mean - it is delicate and modern - the first truly modern building to go up in New York since... if you don't sount the Science Museum planetarium, about the 1930s. Secondly, the old World Trade Centre was hideous, Mies's dream gone sour and stale. Rather like the terrorist bombing on Machester in the UK, at least the destruction has allowed for the city to grow back even stronger (physically and emotionally)

My argument was that it wasn't crass and gaudy and should have been. :) The design would be perfect for Chicago or San Francisco. New York needs a heavier hand though.

Chip NoVaMac
May 7, 2004, 08:56 AM
USS Alamo commissioned 1954 decommissioned 1990 given to the Brazilian Navy.
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52) commisioned 1998

If the new building isn't going to be called the world trade center whatever What are the remaining buildings of the world trade center going to be called? 1,2 and 7 fell.

Thanks for the update.

Did not know that they named the LSD (Landing Ship Dock's) after such events or places.

wowser
May 7, 2004, 09:00 AM
My argument was that it wasn't crass and gaudy and should have been. :) The design would be perfect for Chicago or San Francisco. New York needs a heavier hand though.

Ah :) , which design would you have picked from the shortlist?
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp

Chip NoVaMac
May 7, 2004, 09:01 AM
It will be an okay addition. You really need something big, crass and gaudy. Everyone said they hated the design of the old buildings, that they were too plain they were too mechanical etc. The thing is that deep down everyone knew they were right and that they were symbolic of the town.

People love the new design it doesn't belong though. i think people will say that they love it but actually hate it.

I don't know who everyone is.

Any building that had the stature of the WTC would certainly have critics. In the end as Mr. Anderson points out they became a part of the skyline of NYC. So will the new building.

wowser
May 7, 2004, 09:08 AM
Well, yes, it will become part of our image of what the skyline' is', but it will always stick out. And this is a good thing. I think the only other building of worth in that area is the Woolworth building - the new building will bring some life to the skyline - at the moment it looks rather dead.

Mr. Anderson
May 7, 2004, 09:12 AM
at the moment it looks rather dead.

That's just because you're used to seeing the WTC - if they had never been built you wouldn't find anything wrong with the skyline and pic out the Chrystler Building and Empire State Building, etc. as what makes NYC unique.

Its all a matter of perspective :D

D

Chip NoVaMac
May 7, 2004, 09:15 AM
That's just because you're used to seeing the WTC - if they had never been built you wouldn't find anything wrong with the skyline and pic out the Chrystler Building and Empire State Building, etc. as what makes NYC unique.

Its all a matter of perspective :D

D

The WTC site defined the sky line in many ways. From the NJ Turnpike, to the Village that the WTC overshadowed.

mactastic
May 7, 2004, 09:19 AM
It'll be ok. The Eiffel Tower was panned by critics initially, now it's the symbol of Paris. The WTC was originally panned as well, but people grew to like it. The same will happen to the new tower. My experience is that architectural critics really like to hear themselves talk.

wowser
May 7, 2004, 09:20 AM
That's just because you're used to seeing the WTC - if they had never been built you wouldn't find anything wrong with the skyline and pic out the Chrystler Building and Empire State Building, etc. as what makes NYC unique.

Its all a matter of perspective :D

D

Yes, and you are right, and I suppose what we now have is the pre-70s skyline.

MongoTheGeek
May 7, 2004, 11:30 AM
Ah :) , which design would you have picked from the shortlist?
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/default.asp

United Architects, maybe the Foster one. I like the Foster one but its too crooked.

The one that was withdrawn was cool too.

None of them really struck my fancy.

jxyama
May 7, 2004, 12:27 PM
kinda funny. there's a "WTC - World Trade Center" in many cities in Europe, usually near the airport. there's one in Geneva, Munich and Vienna, as far as i know, and i'm sure there are many more.

Freedom Tower is quite tacky, imo. There's too much Patroit-this, Freedom-that. it kind of "cheapens" the noble ideas those words represent, i think.

wowser
May 7, 2004, 12:28 PM
The worst one was the Richard Meier & Partnerone. Considering how many great people were involved with the design, how did it end up looking so awful?

rainman::|:|
May 7, 2004, 12:51 PM
Can you please name one freedom that has been taken away from you? In what way are you less free?

Ah yes, gladly. It's important to remember the dead, even if they're dead liberties.

I cannot protest the president or his policies during his visits. Only those in support of the president are allowed to demonstrate or assemble (This is a violation of the 1st amendment). All political dissidents are removed to "free speech zones", in some cases miles from the event location. I witnessed this firsthand a few weeks ago.

I am not allowed to have privacy on telephones or electronic communication. Several government agencies have started programs that eavesdrop on citizens, sometimes at random, looking for "terrorist intelligence". Police are no longer required to obtain warrants to tap phone/internet lines. Any intelligence gathered can be used against me for any reason, not just terrorist-related charges.

I am not technically allowed to have a container of household bleach under my kitchen sink. Such items are "chemical weapons of mass destruction". Of course, they're obviously not such weapons, but under the definition of "chemical weapons of mass destruction", most household chemicals could result in federal terrorism charges. That the government has not persued such a case does not matter, they could do so with no hinderances.

I am not allowed access to an attorney if I am ever charged with terrorist-related crimes (such as the aforementioned bleach). Right now, I believe they're simply allowed to withhold attorney access for longer, but it's very fuzzy.

I am not allowed to donate to a variety of charaties because the government could claim that they fund terrorists, meaning I would be directly responsible for supporting terrorists. This one *has* happened before.

There are more, but I think this makes the point well. This is why I don't like the name "Freedom Tower".

paul

cornboy
May 7, 2004, 04:15 PM
I think that "Freedom Tower" is a good name. On 9/11 the terrorists sought to take away our freedom, the way it is done in Islamic countries such as the governments of former Afghanistan & Iraq. In the war on terrorism we are fighting for our freedom. Our country was founded on freedom and we have fought many wars for the same concept.

I look forward to seeing a Tower rising again over Manhattan.

As a European that lives pretty much in the shadow of the WTC site (quite a short shadow right now) I feel bound to take issue with this perspective. Aside from the fact that most terrorism is a reflection of the extreme views and machinations of relatively few individuals, there can be little doubt that whoever was responsible for the WTC atrocity it was certainly not done for the purpose of removing 'freedom' from Americans or anyone else. The Christian and Jewish agenda has been visited upon the world for several centuries now but there are now many millions that feel that there is an excessive obsession with and influence exerted by the pursuit of wealth instead of harmony.

It is almost certain that the ill-judged reaction of the 'coalition of the willing' (i.e. Bush and his puppy Blair) will again destabilise the middle east, despite the warnings of the unfashionable but well-informed political elite. The West needs an enemy to justify its freedom-crushing invasions of privacy and excessive military expenditure. The real 'freedom removers' here are those businessmen and politicians that know that the money that fuels this conflict comes from Saudi Arabia, New York and Israel but refuse to grasp the nettle, because to do so would mean losing the money and influence whose pursuit begat the hatred and mistrust in the first place. If you are in any doubt then check out the miserable, 2-faced actions of the US in Ethiopia and East Africa during the Cold War. This was the emotional anvil on which so many terrorists were hewn.

cornboy
May 7, 2004, 04:18 PM
Kay, once again, let's keep the posts on topic and not get into a big debate on terroism, war, Bush, etc. - or else this thread will get wastelanded and shut down pretty quickly. Save your political discussions for elsewhere.

I think the new Freedom Tower will be a nice addition to the New York skyline, and will at least somewhat fill in the void that currently exists there. But for me, seeing the original towers, and just being in New York again 2 weeks ago and seeing, well, the void their absence has created, I don't think downtown Manhattan's skyline will ever be the same, Freedom Tower or no Freedom Tower.

well the new York skyline is certainly a lot prettier without them. tragedy that it took such an atocity to accomplish something so aesthetically necessary.

wowser
May 7, 2004, 05:49 PM
well the new York skyline is certainly a lot prettier without them. tragedy that it took such an atocity to accomplish something so aesthetically necessary.

HAHA Yes! I stand what i said about Manchester - It gets city planners arses into gear!

MatMistake
May 7, 2004, 06:47 PM
the new tower is a lovely building, the Chrysler building is still the best looking in the city though.
its a shame this new tower got ********* with though. from what I've heard the owner of the site wanted the main tower nearer the subway station, as that somehow makes it worth more. its only like a couple of hundred feet or something, and it manages to screw up the design. americans have really got to get this walking thing figured out :p

I'll keep my views on the name to myself...

wowser
May 7, 2004, 08:21 PM
the new tower is a lovely building, the Chrysler building is still the best looking in the city though.
its a shame this new tower got ********* with though. from what I've heard the owner of the site wanted the main tower nearer the subway station, as that somehow makes it worth more. its only like a couple of hundred feet or something, and it manages to screw up the design. americans have really got to get this walking thing figured out :p

I'll keep my views on the name to myself...

Here here!

Frohickey
May 7, 2004, 08:37 PM
What are the designs? The ones I've seen were modern art-deco, and not a functional bad-@ss building that says "If I were a man and not a building, I would have a set of brass ones!" :D

I think the new design should have culverts every 100 stories or so for a functional Phalanx system.

wowser
May 7, 2004, 09:05 PM
What are the designs? The ones I've seen were modern art-deco, and not a functional bad-@ss building that says "If I were a man and not a building, I would have a set of brass ones!" :D

I think the new design should have culverts every 100 stories or so for a functional Phalanx system.

Art Deco? This is the 21st centruy - I very much doubt that was one of the designs :p Basically, i'm glad you didn't sedign the building. You have seen the wiining design havn't you?

Frohickey
May 7, 2004, 09:16 PM
Art Deco? This is the 21st centruy - I very much doubt that was one of the designs :p Basically, i'm glad you didn't sedign the building. You have seen the wiining design havn't you?

I have. Its that crystal looking thing.

~Shard~
May 7, 2004, 09:21 PM
well the new York skyline is certainly a lot prettier without them. tragedy that it took such an atocity to accomplish something so aesthetically necessary.

The void left by the towers has definitely opened up the area more, I'll give it that. Regardless if the towers were nice or ugly though, the skyline doesn't seem to the same to me.

And it's funny how things work - my brother-in-law is a big real estate dude in New York, and when I was there a couple weeks ago he mentioned to me that he can now charge more for some apartments/condos in the vicinity of the old WTC site. And you know why? Because with the towers gone, some apartments now get more sunlight, so he can charge more for them. Fuunny how things impact each other that you wouldn't initially think about!

wowser
May 7, 2004, 09:46 PM
The new design should at least let more light in than those awful 1970s concrete things.

Earendil
May 7, 2004, 10:21 PM
I am not allowed to have privacy on telephones or electronic communication. Several government agencies have started programs that eavesdrop on citizens, sometimes at random, looking for "terrorist intelligence". Police are no longer required to obtain warrants to tap phone/internet lines. Any intelligence gathered can be used against me for any reason, not just terrorist-related charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe the government has been taping telephone conversations with automated computers since the dawn on the computer chip. Whether they put more money into the program, and now actually have a chance at listening to you specifically, I don't know. Computers were auto recording specific words over the telephone long before 9/11.

I am not technically allowed to have a container of household bleach under my kitchen sink. Such items are "chemical weapons of mass destruction". Of course, they're obviously not such weapons, but under the definition of "chemical weapons of mass destruction", most household chemicals could result in federal terrorism charges. That the government has not persued such a case does not matter, they could do so with no hinderances.

I think, unless my study of law and history proves wrong, that you aren't allowed to "make" anything with your household chemicals. I think the law you are referring to came about long before 9/11 to deal with bomb makers. It is also an often misunderstood law. You are allowed to go to a garden supply store and purchase legal chemicals, but as soon as they are mixed they become illegal.

Bleach is not illegal. Bleach along with other chemicals, mixed with the intention to due ill, *IS* illegal.

Tyler
Earendil

latergator116
May 8, 2004, 12:25 AM
I agree that the name "Freedom Tower" is corny and has sort of a blurry meaning (which several people have already pointed out). I think "Sep. 11 memorial tower", "Memorial Building" or something along the lines of that would be more suitable.

MongoTheGeek
May 8, 2004, 11:19 AM
What are the designs? The ones I've seen were modern art-deco, and not a functional bad-@ss building that says "If I were a man and not a building, I would have a set of brass ones!" :D

I think the new design should have culverts every 100 stories or so for a functional Phalanx system.

:) I am not sure I want 3600 20mm DU shells raining down in the tristate area indescrimantely.

A couple of the MTHEL systems they are developing might be a good idea though.

As for the name Freedom Tower I take full blame.

take a look at what I wrote back in october of 2001

http://www.livelys.com/NYC.txt

rainman::|:|
May 8, 2004, 01:28 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe the government has been taping telephone conversations with automated computers since the dawn on the computer chip. Whether they put more money into the program, and now actually have a chance at listening to you specifically, I don't know. Computers were auto recording specific words over the telephone long before 9/11.

Not legally, they weren't. Which means none of the evidence could be admissible in court, which means it would be utterly pointless to listen to us. Tho i would not doubt the government has had some nefarious techniques for intelligence gathering in the past, it's never been sanctioned like this, and couldn't be used against citizens.

I think, unless my study of law and history proves wrong, that you aren't allowed to "make" anything with your household chemicals. I think the law you are referring to came about long before 9/11 to deal with bomb makers. It is also an often misunderstood law. You are allowed to go to a garden supply store and purchase legal chemicals, but as soon as they are mixed they become illegal.

Bleach is not illegal. Bleach along with other chemicals, mixed with the intention to due ill, *IS* illegal.

As I just said, this is the law as specified in the patriot act, and the new definition of "chemical weapons of mass destruction". Yes there were bomb-making laws, and if you had, say, a detonator, the 500 lbs of fertilizer in your garage could certainly be used against you. I'd go out on a limb and say that's pretty reasonable. But we're not talking about specific bomb-making or anything, they defined as contraband a lot of household chemicals that the average American would have. Normally such a law wouldn't have ever been passed, they have to be very carefully worded to avoid such conflicts. But the patriot act was passed anyway.

What i'm saying is, if the government wanted to arrest you (say, for dissidence), this would be a great reason to do it.

paul

Earendil
May 8, 2004, 07:54 PM
Not legally, they weren't. Which means none of the evidence could be admissible in court, which means it would be utterly pointless to listen to us. Tho i would not doubt the government has had some nefarious techniques for intelligence gathering in the past, it's never been sanctioned like this, and couldn't be used against citizens.

As a law abiding citizen, I don't give a flying hooha if they can legally use it against me in court, I only care that they ARE listening. If the only difference between now and before 9/11 in this case, is that they can now legally use the incriminating evidence against criminals, than what's the big deal? They aren't doing anything they weren't doing before...


As I just said, this is the law as specified in the patriot act, and the new definition of "chemical weapons of mass destruction". Yes there were bomb-making laws, and if you had, say, a detonator, the 500 lbs of fertilizer in your garage could certainly be used against you. I'd go out on a limb and say that's pretty reasonable. But we're not talking about specific bomb-making or anything, they defined as contraband a lot of household chemicals that the average American would have. Normally such a law wouldn't have ever been passed, they have to be very carefully worded to avoid such conflicts. But the patriot act was passed anyway.

What i'm saying is, if the government wanted to arrest you (say, for dissidence), this would be a great reason to do it.

As far as I know, it's basically the same law as before, conerning personally owned chemicals. The only real difference is that they added a few more chemicals to the list. There for, now not only are the gardeners at risk, but so are the janitors :eek:
[/sarcasm] ;)

Unless you know something specific to the contrary? I'm all up for enlightenment :D

Tyler
Earendil

wowser
May 8, 2004, 08:00 PM
but getting back to the tower...

rainman::|:|
May 8, 2004, 09:28 PM
My point was that we've lost freedoms because of 9/11, and I believe I proved my point well. If you'd like to continue discussing the technicalities of one of the points that I made, feel free to PM me, because you are indeed incorrect on the chemical weapons laws. But, let's let them get back to discussing the tower... :)

paul

wowser
May 9, 2004, 08:02 AM
My point was that we've lost freedoms because of 9/11, and I believe I proved my point well. If you'd like to continue discussing the technicalities of one of the points that I made, feel free to PM me, because you are indeed incorrect on the chemical weapons laws. But, let's let them get back to discussing the tower... :)

paul

For the record, you're spot on with what you say, too :)

Will the tower still let the dawn light through on every morning of the 11th of September?

StealthRider
May 9, 2004, 04:04 PM
These are among the reasons that I think that "Freedom Plaza" does not fit. "Hero's Plaza" is a much better name, since everyone that died that day was a hero IMO. Some sought redemption in helping their fellow man, others saw no way out, and others perished doing one of the two.

Wasn't the plaza already named Liberty Plaza?