Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Proposal for the World Trade Center Site

By adamba in Op-Ed
Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:25:20 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

As the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks approaches, many are talking about what memorial services are appropriate on that day. Looking further ahead, with the recovery efforts at the World Trade Center now complete, discussions are in progress about redesigning the World Trade Center site. The damaged part of the Pentagon was repaired, but the attack on the World Trade Center completely destroyed the twin towers, as well as several surrounding buildings - over 12 million square feet of office space.

The largest issue in the redevelopment will likely be how much of the 16-acre site is devoted to a memorial. I have a proposal that would address that issue, allowing what I feel is a proper memorial, without much impact on the space usable for reconstruction.


Although some have suggested leaving the entire site undeveloped as a memorial, this won't happen: the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, has the right to rebuild, and needs the revenue that the site generated. In fact, there is currently a three-way battle developing between the Port Authority, developer Larry Silverstein (who a few months before the attack signed a 99-year lease on the towers, which technically requires him to rebuild the site as it was) and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (created after the attacks to coordinate the rebuilding) over who gets to pick the new design.

The problem is not purely related to available space. Although the twin towers themselves were extremely tall, the rest of the buildings on the site were not; a 20-story building covering the entire site would more than replace the 12 million square feet of office space. However, it is felt that there should be some large, visible reminder of what is no longer there.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has released six concepts for redevelopment, which have generated much discussion. The plan is to pick a final design by September 2003. All the designs include between four and six towers, none taller than about 80 stories. The site would then resemble a taller version of neighboring Battery Park City. Most would include the single tallest building in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, but nothing that would be out of place in an area that also includes the 71-story Trump Building, the 66-story American International building, and the 60-story One Chase Manhattan Plaza.

The concept designs also include a memorial, open space (the old World Trade Center had a 5-acre public plaza), hotel, retail, transit terminal, and parking. Some cover the footprint of the old towers, some don't. The memorial is vaguely designated as existing somewhere on the site, usually in the open space.

My idea is to focus on the "bathtub" in which the World Trade Center was constructed, the seven-story deep pit which covers most of the site (about 70%, on the Western side). As a result of the recovery efforts, the bathtub is now exposed, and it is visually striking. As one visitor commented, "The very vacantness of this space is a memorial in itself. The nothingness memorializes the people lost."

The LMDC design guidelines state: "A permanent memorial must be the major element of the plan for the site and adjacent areas. It should be respectful, contemplative and inspirational, could be spatial or symbolic, and could function as a place unto itself or as a connector between different places." To my eye, the walls of the bathtub are a more vivid reminder of the tragedy than any park could be.

Therefore, I think the edge of the bathtub should remain visible in whatever redevelopment is done. The walls, which were damaged by the collapse and needed to be significantly reinforced and rebuilt simply to allow the rubble to be removed, could be strengthened to allow them to stand without the extra support provided by building foundations within them. The new buildings would be sited seven stories down, within the bathtub. It would not be necessary for their to be a full seven-story drop around the entire edge of the site, but at least one full wall should remain open to the full depth, and there should be at least a one- or two-story drop around the rest of the edge. Access to any buildings on the site would be on short bridges from the perimeter. Buildings could still have their entrances at street level: all the building functions normally below ground, such as parking, could still be down there, except that the walls of the building below street level would be visible.

This would satisfy the need for a memorial: the interior of the site could then be completely devoted to the functions that existed before. A large public plaza could be built at street level (on the roof of a parking garage, say), but there could also be a smaller plaza down at the bottom of the bathtub, perhaps occupying the footprint of the twin towers. Or, the space where the footprint was could be left as seven-story holes in the middle of new buildings. The shopping concourse that existed previously could be rebuilt at varying levels between street level and the bottom of the bathtub.

The PATH and subway trains could run along the bottom of the bathtub, with tracks partly visible; any street that crossed the plaza could do so on a combination of bridges and roofs of buildings that came just up to ground level (there is some sentiment to re-open Greenwich Street, which was cut off where it crossed the site when the World Trade Center was built). This sounds complicated, but since the hole in the ground exists now, anything crossing at street level is going to be on top of seven stories of something manmade, no matter how hidden it is. Having all that out in the open would present a visual excavation of how the city works, with its network of transit, roads, people, and buildings.

Developed like this, the site would remain a powerful memorial, while still keeping almost all the space available for redevelopment within a completely unique setting.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o World Trade Center
o redesignin g the World Trade Center site
o attack on the World Trade Center
o redevelopm ent
o Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
o signed a 99-year lease
o rebuild the site as it was
o Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
o who gets to pick the new design
o six concepts for redevelopment
o discussion
o pick a final design by September 2003
o Battery Park City
o Trump Building
o American International building
o One Chase Manhattan Plaza
o "bathtub"
o about 70%, on the Western side
o bathtub
o exposed
o visually striking
o one visitor commented
o LMDC design guidelines
o Also by adamba


Display: Sort:
A Proposal for the World Trade Center Site | 262 comments (253 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
What does Ground Zero look like today? (3.50 / 6) (#2)
by Echo5ive on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 02:44:31 PM EST

Curious foreigners wish to know.



--
Frozen Skies: mental masturbation.

a big hole in the ground (4.25 / 4) (#5)
by adamba on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:03:43 PM EST

A few of the "bathtub" links have pictures, like this one.

- adam

[ Parent ]

Path of least resistance. (none / 0) (#185)
by kraant on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 01:31:17 AM EST

Looks like they should make a pond, lake, or swimming pool as the memorial.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Better idea for the site (3.27 / 73) (#3)
by tombuck on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 02:56:58 PM EST

Put a gigantic metalic target smack bang in the middle of it.

Then... wait.

Wait until the next attack, this time kindly marked for the overhead planes.  

Hopefully the second time around people might actually start thinking about the world around them and the disgusting fact that whilst those who perished in the attacks shall be remembered for the forseeable future, the three thousand who died today of starvation shall not be.

Starvation. Easily preventable and yet these people are allowed to die just because they're not American.

Can anyone say that we don't deserve another attack?

--
Give me yer cash!

I must agree (2.00 / 14) (#4)
by roam on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:03:25 PM EST

Starving people are a big problem all over the world that no country wants to do anything about.  The best solution would be to kill them off... I mean, they're going to die of starvation anyway, and while they're here they're just taking up space...

Just think of all the land and resources we'd have... obviously starving people are poor and don't have much, but it would add up quickly after the first few million, leaving much more for the rest of us.

___
Are they like hamsters?
Specifically, can I tape up a chinchilla, slather him in axle grease, and shove him up my ass? - Patrick Bateman


[ Parent ]
Not to mention.. (4.33 / 3) (#10)
by Jman1 on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:43:09 PM EST

the fact that if you feed them, they'll just live to have more starving kids.

That's a joke, folks. Well, true, but we should feed 'em anyway. Maybe throw some condoms in with the care packages.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by godix on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 08:10:43 PM EST

Interesting plan. On the plus side, we could get rid of various forms of welfare, reduce overpopulation, eliminate all the materials needed to provide these people with food/water/etc., and eliminate totally street beggers and the like.

On the minus side, there's a few million starving people and one of you. I suspect you'd get your ass beat pretty badly if you tried....


Don't mind the plummeting noise, mojo always makes that sound after I post.


[ Parent ]
We don't deserve another attack. (2.57 / 7) (#11)
by klanza on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:51:55 PM EST

We didn't deserve the first one. We are not responsible for all the misery in rest of the world. It is not our fault that a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who pine for the 12th century happen to have some money, or that their envy exceeds their sense of morality.

[ Parent ]
This much is true (4.80 / 5) (#12)
by tombuck on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:55:54 PM EST

But an intelligent person would have assumed that such an attack might cause the Average Man In The Street to have a little think and wonder about what other miseries are inflicted upon hapless others.

Has this happened? Has it hell.

--
Give me yer cash!
[ Parent ]

That's fundamentally wrong (4.00 / 10) (#14)
by kphrak on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 04:23:23 PM EST

such an attack might cause the Average Man In The Street to have a little think and wonder about what other miseries are inflicted upon hapless others.

No. Suppose you're walking through a bad neighborhood, someone hits you from behind, takes your wallet, and kicks you a few times to make sure you're down.

Lying in the gutter, you're moaning in pain, and thinking..."Now I know how it feels when Cousin Elmo fell off his bike at 25mph and hit himself in the nuts!"

No. All you think about is your own pain. The human mind is wired that way. Higher-level pain is no different.

What's more, I question the idea that America "deserved" anything. America is a big place. There are good people, bad people, and mixed, just like in any other part of the world. If you mean that Americans deserve death for not contributing to the world hunger problem, other countries deserve it more; America, at the last count I saw, contributes more to foreign aid than any other country (if not, it's high on the list). If you mean that America deserved a wake-up call, it indicates a warped sense of justice, because killing people doesn't "wake up" anyone. It merely ensures that some people never wake up, and results in more killing.


Describe yourself in your sig!
American computer programmer, living in Portland, OR.


[ Parent ]
You dont have to (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by FredBloggs on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:46:54 PM EST

believe that the people who died deserved it (of course they didn't, and very few people are suggesting that they did) to take a look at what happened.

It doesnt matter how much good you do, its how much bad you do that you`ll be remembered by. Many Arabs are pretty pissed off with what they see as the bankrolling of Israel by America. They see American planes, tanks, guns being used to kill people in refugee camps (having been kicked off their property 50 odd years ago). "Oops, sorry - didn't mean to get you, we were aiming for the terrorists!".


[ Parent ]

neither did Afghanistan (3.23 / 13) (#43)
by ShadowNode on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 10:15:46 PM EST

But you felt justified in carpet bombing them for having the audacity of being a sovereign nation.

[ Parent ]
The US didn't carpet bomb Afghanistan (1.00 / 1) (#75)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:01:36 AM EST



Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]
OK, (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by FredBloggs on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:52:33 PM EST

Someone better tell CNN that Wiredog has some information they missed:
---
U.S. warplanes carpet-bomb Taliban lines

In addition to precision strikes by more than 50 jets, about a half-dozen Air Force B-1s and B-52s dropped hundreds of unguided bombs, an operation also known as carpet-bombing.
---

[ Parent ]
Nope (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:16:12 PM EST

That's not carpet bombing. CNN does need to get a better handle on the definitions.

Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]
B.S. (1.20 / 5) (#98)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:44:54 PM EST

But you felt justified in carpet bombing them for having the audacity of being a sovereign nation.

I think we bombed Afghanistan because they were being used as a base by people who had harmed us and wished to continue to do so. I suspect this qualifies as self-defense. Go back to Slashdot, trollboy.

PS: Marijuana can be used effectively for violence. Ask the Old Man of the Mountain.

[ Parent ]

By that logic... (4.00 / 4) (#113)
by ShadowNode on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:46:15 PM EST

Iran has the right to invade the US for granting asylum to the Shah. Sovereign nations have the right to grant asylum to whomever they like, regardless of how Usa feels about it.

[ Parent ]
Reality Check (3.00 / 2) (#117)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:06:55 PM EST

Sovereign nations have the right to grant asylum to whomever they like, regardless of how Usa feels about it.

While this is technically true, in the Real World they also have to deal with the fact that they might be attacked for certain actions. Might may not make right, but it's not something to be lightly disregarded.

[ Parent ]

that's beside the point (2.00 / 1) (#159)
by ShadowNode on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:43:45 PM EST

I simply said that giving asylum was not a justifiable reason to wage war, not that it wasn't expected.

[ Parent ]
Ah, but (1.50 / 2) (#129)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:11:09 PM EST

what we granted the Shah was asylum, what Afghanistan provided was a base of operations. Unless you know of training camps where the Shah was preparing for his return, I'd say the two situations aren't comparable.

(As an aside, I'd wager that many Iranian government officials were happy to get the Shah packed off and out of the way. The Shah was no Bonaparte -- once gone he wasn't likely to return.)

[ Parent ]

Your splitting hairs (3.00 / 1) (#158)
by ShadowNode on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:40:55 PM EST

Even if there where a distinction, the training was done in Usa anyways.

[ Parent ]
No hairs being split at all (4.00 / 1) (#166)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 06:51:29 PM EST

The attack on Afghanistan was made to prevent further action, and arguably should have been made back when Al Queda was blowing up embassies. The organization didn't break up on September 12. By contrast, once deposed, the Shah was no further threat to Iran.

(Oh, and just for the sake of accuracy, the US didn't grant him asylum. He was allowed to enter the country to receive some medical treatment, and then left. Egypt gave him asylum, and he died there.)

[ Parent ]

bullshit (3.00 / 2) (#239)
by ShadowNode on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 03:40:05 PM EST

Given that the Taliban had offered to have Bin Laden tried by a neutral third party (I believe they suggested Pakistan), there was no justification for the invasion.

[ Parent ]
bullshit yourself (2.50 / 2) (#247)
by Silver222 on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 01:49:01 AM EST

Seeing as how much of Pakistan's intelligence service was sympathetic to the Taliban (and one would infer that would make them sympathetic to Bin Laden's goals as well), that would be like having the board of Worldcom sit on the jury that was trying Ken Lay. Neutral my ass.

[ Parent ]
Did Usa propose an alternative? (3.00 / 2) (#248)
by ShadowNode on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 10:19:57 AM EST

No, you just got your war on. Pakistan was the most obvious choice from the Taliban prospective, as they had been brokering previous Taliban to Usa talks. Someone like, say, Belgium probably would have been more appropriate.

I agree, Pakistan is about as neutral to the Taliban as Bush and co are to Enron.



[ Parent ]
This would be (2.50 / 2) (#249)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 11:29:15 AM EST

...the same Taliban that swore up and down that they didn't know where he was? Give me a break...they were stalling for time. I don't believe for a minute that they had the slightest intention of turning him over for trial, because I don't think that their top leadership thought he'd done anything wrong. The embassy bombings didn't seem to bother them very much, did they?

[ Parent ]
They probably didn't (3.00 / 2) (#250)
by ShadowNode on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 12:05:12 PM EST

At least not right away. You're right, they're top leadership didn't think he'd done anything wrong; they had no reason to do so. Usa refused to provide any evidence against him.

Besides, Usa has bombed embassies too.



[ Parent ]
I feel I should point out... (4.33 / 9) (#96)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:38:31 PM EST

It is not our fault that a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who pine for the 12th century happen to have some money, or that their envy exceeds their sense of morality.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding here that you need to get straight if you're going to ever understand why things are the way they are in the world right now.

Islamic fundementalists (and a large section of the Islamic world in general) do not want to live in the 12th century. They just don't want to live in our western culture. We, as Americans, have a really hard time understanding this because we view our culture as being essentially better than everyone else's (which isn't unusual -- everyone thinks that their way is the right way of doing things). Islam rejects things like consumerism (note I say Islam -- I realize that many Islamic leaders are master shoppers).

That's why America is called "the great Satan" by some muslims. In Islam, Satan is seem more consistantly with the Biblican representation -- instead of a source of all evil, he's a tempter. Many muslims see the US as tempting them with the trappings of western culture, which they view as incompatible with their religion.

It's really tough for us to understand why people would reject our culture, but it's their right to do so. To chalk this rejection up to primitavism or some sort of envy is basically wrong-headed.

[ Parent ]

I used to think like that. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by FredBloggs on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:08:51 PM EST

"Islamic fundementalists (and a large section of the Islamic world in general) do not want to live in the 12th century. They just don't want to live in our western culture."

Keep an eye on Europe. We are moving from a generally left-wing culture to one which, if not right wing, is certainly rethinking its approach to immigration and foreign cultures. Expect more "paradoxical" leaders like the late Pim Fortuyn.


[ Parent ]
Rejecting our culture is one thing. (none / 0) (#149)
by klanza on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:51:56 PM EST

They are entitled to live any way they want. But that does not mean they have any right to physically attack us for the way we live. Let them take over Saudi Arabia and stop selling us oil -- I'm sure we will cope. The fundamentalists main complaint seems to be that they aren't running things in their own countries. I refuse to think that's our fault -- maybe they just haven't convinced the majorities in their own countries.

[ Parent ]
No, what we REALLY believe... (4.50 / 2) (#150)
by Scratch o matic on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:56:02 PM EST

We, as Americans, have a really hard time understanding this because we view our culture as being essentially better than everyone else...

I think the most important issue here is that what we REALLY believe is that people should be able to live as they please. True, some Americans think that American/Western culture is the be-all and end-all of happy living. While this is a somewhat ignorant stance, those thoughts are held by people who haven't seen the rest of the world, and we are no worse in that respect than any other society.

They just don't want to live in our western culture....It's really tough for us to understand why people would reject our culture, but it's their right to do so.

And our institutionalized policy says, fine, you are welcome to live without our culture. But if Western culture is appealing enough to people around the world, and their society begins to shift because of that, then we are not responsible. We are what we are, and you can be what you want to be. Don't hate us because your people want to listen to CD's and wear jeans and sneakers. This is what I think the Islamic fundementalists are up to -- or at least it's the reason they give to their people about why we are so evil.

Now, as far as our support of Israel over Palestine, I think that's a convenient issue that's used in an attemp to lend credibility to an otherwise bankrupt cause. I'm frankly a little tired of hearing how we (the U.S.) use and abuse the middle east for our own purposes. Look, that region has the good fortune to reside over a huge supply of a very valuable commodity. We need it, and so does the rest of the world. The countries in the region profit immensely from it. We deal with whomever we need to in order to get it, and much of the billions of dollars we spend at the gas pump goes to those countries. Our policies are influenced by this need, but on the other hand I think we play fair for the most part. Would we have rescued Kuwait from Iraq if we weren't worried about the oil supply? Possibly not. But the fact is that we rescued one country from a neighboring invader. Go ahead, denounce us for that. I'm so ashamed. Accuse us of picking and choosing our fights according to our needs. We need oil, but we didn't invade a country to get it. We simply picked sides in a fight.

Similarly, we didn't occupy Palestinian territory...but we have chosen to support an ally who did. Many people around the world hate us for our support of Israel, or at least that's why they claim to hate us. Yet can anyone deny that if we didn't support Israel, they would be wiped from the face of the Earth (notwithstanding the weapons we have given them, which should last a while)? Should we also abandon South Korea? Should we have abandoned Europe in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and 80's, when invasion by another superpower was not an unrealistic scenario? Should we have abandoned Kuwait? Would some violent faction of Arabs condemn us now for not stopping Saddam Hussein?

The hatred of the U.S. that I see on this site and others seems to come down to the fact that we have interests worldwide, and we take sides when necessary. Yet I do not believe, and I invite evidence to the contrary, that we always pick the bad guy. True, sometimes we meddle where we shouldn't, and we sometimes deal with some unsavory characters. But for the most part we are interested in helping when we can and intervening when we feel we must. This causes a lot of people to hate us, but I've no doubt that if we kept to within our borders, we would be villified for not using our tremendous resources to assist. No more food for people in droughts. No more medicine and doctors for needy countries. No more heavy equipment after an earthquake. No more hospital ships after a typhoon. No more Navy to ensure access to the world's oceans and waterways for every nation on the planet. No more schools and colleges welcoming people from all over the world with open arms.

A difference of opinion on policy, and even anger or rage over this or that policy, is one thing. But the wholesale hatred and condemnation is completely unwarranted.

[ Parent ]
Well, not really. (none / 0) (#167)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 07:09:53 PM EST

I think the most important issue here is that what we REALLY believe is that people should be able to live as they please.

But of course, this isn't true in the slightest way. Western culture pressures assimilation the same way as any other culture. Since we're so steeped in it, we just take it for granted and assume it's the way that people should want to live. This is *not* the same thing as allowing people to really, truly choose.

Our culture pressures you to conform. It pressures you to be non-judgemental (this can be good or bad), it pressures you to have 3% body fat and spend all your money on consumer goods and other generally Patrick Bateman-ish behavior. Our culture pulls the content our of other cultures in the guise of "acceptance", but in reality it simple neuters and devours then so that eventally all we're left with are clog dancing and rain dances.

You could argue that Western Culture doesn't actually physically *force* a set of behaviors, but I'd counter that it applies force at a rate similar to other cultures (ask Mathew Sheppard about punishment for being different).

But if Western culture is appealing enough to people around the world, and their society begins to shift because of that, then we are not responsible. We are what we are, and you can be what you want to be. Don't hate us because your people want to listen to CD's and wear jeans and sneakers. This is what I think the Islamic fundementalists are up to -- or at least it's the reason they give to their people about why we are so evil.

Or you could view Islamic fundementalism as a basic, deliberate rejection of western culture and a return to other values. When students in Egypt in the 1970's reverted to traditional Islamic practices em masse, they were doing it in spite of the government and the wishes (or in the best interests of) those in power. They were returning to the culture (Islam) which has empowered Arabs for a millenia.

We, as Americans, can't understand why anyone would reject our culture, and as such we see them as unreasonable, scary fundementalists and religious wackos. All of our good works (and a decidedly high number of our not-so-good works aside as well), we're following the very human imperative to lump people into groups and write off behavior we find unsettling as evil, illogical and barbaric. Frankly, western culture is basically intolerant of *really* trying to figure out why people act in ways that surprise us, and instead encourages this other (more negative, IMO) reaction.

The Arab/Isreali conflict is just a symptom of this and, in some respects (along with oil), a catalyst -- the cultures could normally coexist relatively peacefully (or at least respectfully; even Richard and Saladin were able to see each other with respect), but the presence of Israel brings up nasty memories of Crusades and Imperialism for the Arabs (not to mention that the Jews have become ironically responsible for oppressing a group of people in much the same way they were oppressed during their diaspora).

[ Parent ]

Maybe we're talking about two different things (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by Scratch o matic on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 08:48:15 AM EST

But of course, this isn't true in the slightest way.

And yet it is.

Western culture pressures assimilation the same way as any other culture.

Perhaps within our own borders. But externally, western culture spreads, for the most part, due to its appeal to other cultures. Two significant exceptions are religion, which is agressively marketed by private groups, and democracy, which we often use as a litmus test to establish a need for 'intervention.' Beyond that, as I said, we try to help where we can and intervene where we feel we must. If a country such as Afghanistan wants to outlaw lipstick, clean-shaven faces, and music, as they did for several years prior to 2001, then we may see that as backward, but we will not start airdropping lipstick and razors and N'Sync CD's (I'm sure the latter would be against the Geneva Convention anyway.) We let them live as they please...until some aspect of their existence threatens us or our allies. We have the resources, the ability, and the will to protect our security interests and I make no apology for that (business interests are more open to debate, but I don't think such interventions are as prevalant today as many believe.)

On another subject, I read with interest your CIA link. Several things caught my eye as worthy of discussion, but I'll pick just one: The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. I can't help but wonder if this estimate is at all as reliable as the bogus figures about 5000 Iraqi children dying every month as a result of U.S. actions.

And finally: thanks for your reasonable discussion. I certainly don't mind hearing other opinions, but the venom and bile around here can be stifling sometimes. This was a nice departure from that.

[ Parent ]
Let me see if I can settle this... (none / 0) (#254)
by Rock Joe on Mon Sep 02, 2002 at 01:50:09 PM EST

This is probably gonna be a long one. :o)

I recognise that my opinion may not be the most educated opinion, but I think it makes enough sense nonetheless. I sincerely hope that the holes in my logic will be pointed out. We are not responsible for all the misery in rest of the world.

No you are not, but there is a major difference between your level of responsibility and that of other countries. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this whole 911 issue boils down to two statements:

"The United States of America is the most powerful country in the world."

This is fact. And anyone who doesn't recognise this simply doens't know what's going on in the world.

"The United States of America is NOT the most responsible country in the world."

Now this is where things get a little touchy. I'm not into putting words into other people's mouths, but I think that deep down, everyone who does not live in the US knows this as fact. And when looking from the outside, it's VERY easy to get the impression that americans either don't know this fact, or don't care. And those who think that you don't care will most definitely resent you for it. Now what they will do with that resentment depends on a whole bunch of factors that I won't even get into. The bottom line is that the world is ALOT smaller than it was 30 years ago, and when the global community looks at the US and doesn't feel that they're using their power responsibly, it won't spawn the same reaction as it would if, say, Jamaica decided not to make any efforts to reduce the amounts of Greenhouse gases it produces (this is only an example, no knitpicking please. :o) ).

Now I for one don't hate americans at all. I only hate american pricks. And I will admit that I hate american pricks more than I hate pricks from other countries. Why? Because each american citizen has a greater responsibility not to be a prick, and it pisses me off more to see them fail than it does in the case of a prick from Chili. ("hate" may be a strong word, but you get the idea)

That being said, I always give people the benefit of doubt. I'm not one to throw someone in the prick category just because they're americans. It would be STUPID of me to do so, and anyone else, for that matter, but you gotta understand that the idiots who DO that do so because fo mis-managed resentment, which leads back to that second statement.

It is not our fault that a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who pine for the 12th century happen to have some money, or that their envy exceeds their sense of morality.

Now THAT sentence got to me. That sentence played the envy card AND the muslim card in the same hand! Let me tell you that envy is a back door. Envy is the easy way out. Envy is the answer to the WRONG question. What's the right question? I don't know, but I know what it's not. I won't comment on the muslim card because at least you specified that they were fundamentalists, so it's all good. :o)

Anyway, that was my two cents.



Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]

You sick fuck (1.14 / 14) (#21)
by PullNoPunches on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 05:08:12 PM EST

<nt>

------------------------

Although generally safe, turmeric in large doses may cause gastrointestinal problems or even ulcers. -- Reader's Digest (UK)
[ Parent ]

Sick? (4.66 / 6) (#66)
by tombuck on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 07:00:05 AM EST

Gosh darn it, you're right, I am a truly sick individuals for actually caring for the world around me. Darn darn darn darn.

Did you know that we could cure near all worldwide ills (lack of sanitation, drinking water, basic health, basic education, food) with the money given annually in subsidies to farmers?

It's a sick, sick world.

--
Give me yer cash!
[ Parent ]

False (3.33 / 6) (#111)
by PullNoPunches on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:26:24 PM EST

Did you know that we could cure near all worldwide ills (lack of sanitation, drinking water, basic health, basic education, food) with the money given annually in subsidies to farmers?

You can't fix those things by transferring money. You're naive assumption fails to take in to account the side effects of transferring billions of dollars from more productive areas to less productive areas. I'm against subsidies of any kind, but if they're going to exist, your argument that we could feed the world by taking a subsidy away from the most efficient food producers in the world and using it some other way is childish and dangerous.

You're not a sick fuck for caring, you're a sick fuck for taking a premise that is shaky at best and following it to such an absurd conclusion while remaining willfully blind to the string of contradictions you encounter along the way.

------------------------

Although generally safe, turmeric in large doses may cause gastrointestinal problems or even ulcers. -- Reader's Digest (UK)
[ Parent ]

You don't even need to (4.00 / 1) (#169)
by abdera on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 07:30:53 PM EST

transfer the money to help developing countries. Just stop paying it to "farmers."1 This would increase the selling price for agriculture products worldwide, encourage farming in developing countries, and help the family farmers in developed nations at the same time (but not the big ag-business "farmers"). Using some of the money on foreign aid is just gravy.

1- most farm subsidies go to big agriculture businesses, not your local family farm.

#224 [deft-:deft@98A9C369.ipt.aol.com] at least i don't go on aol
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#183)
by PullNoPunches on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:11:23 AM EST

As I said, I am agaist subsidies. And I am aware that most subsidies go to big agribusiness. My point still stands that they are the most efficient food producers in the world, and subsidizing farmers other than those is worse than subsidizing them.

------------------------

Although generally safe, turmeric in large doses may cause gastrointestinal problems or even ulcers. -- Reader's Digest (UK)
[ Parent ]

I agree. Sometimes the wrong people die. (2.00 / 5) (#24)
by Noam Chompsky on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 05:51:04 PM EST

Before we raise any memorials to the WTC, we should audit the number of lives that were spared in the aftermath of its ruin. It's no secret brown people go hungry every time Dr. Greenspan carefully fiddles the rates. It's no secret capitalism destroys lives in the Third World so that teh computar admins may dress cheaply, overeat, and watch East Europeans star in pornos. It's no secret that kur0shin flourishes because raw materials are mined by syphilitic Africans wading knee-deep in mud, assembled into computers by sweaty Asians, and sold for less than dinner for two at the Ritz.

I'd like to see someone at the Economist plot world mortality in a series of colorful graphs, then interpret the pre and post 911 shapes and slopes. Then, if there must be a memorial, I suggest a nice big statue of the money shot.

--
Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
[ Parent ]

You are correct. (4.00 / 3) (#49)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:46:58 AM EST

Starvation is easly preventable. All it would take is for the 2-bit dictators to stop using food as a weapon. When other countries* turn away food while they are starving, it show that they are not interested with feeding their people.
*It also doesn't help when they destroy 90% percent of the farming infrastucture because the wrong color of people happen to own it.


The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
Fuck food aid, that's just a cop out, (4.00 / 3) (#72)
by DeHans on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 10:09:23 AM EST

We should start by looking at the ridiculous subsidies we give to our farmers (both the U.S. and the E.U.). Then we should stop dumping our excesses on the African markets thereby robbing the local farmers of income. And finally we should drop the ridiculous demands we set on third world farmers before they are allowed to export to us.

You know, the concept that is being preached as "fair trade". Fuck food aid, help them help themselves.

[ Parent ]
That's right (4.00 / 3) (#83)
by tzanger on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:34:56 AM EST

Hopefully the second time around people might actually start thinking about the world around them and the disgusting fact that whilst those who perished in the attacks shall be remembered for the forseeable future, the three thousand who died today of starvation shall not be.

When you figure out eliminate the human instinct, install and maintain a true communism and give everyone a big happy shiny gold star for being a good person today, you let me know. Otherwise go back to sleep and keep dreaming, because that's exactly what you're proposing.

This (and a couple other) posts from you give me clear indication that you have no solid footing in the real world. Yes it's hurtful and hateful and people die every day from starvation, but that does not mean that the WTC should not be rebuilt, bigger and stronger than before. A memorial to the people who died in the WTC has absolutely nothing to do with just-as-real people who die from starvation.

Do you also carry on about the makeshift crosses and flower wreaths placed at the side of the road where people have died when they could better spend the money by putting it into a UNICEF box? I mean come on, give your head a shake. "We shouldn't spend any money on the WTC victims since we could divert that to starving others" -- but wait, what about those who are being oppressed? Those whose government is polluting their villages? Hell, what about the children in your own neighbourhood who are going to school hungry? Won't somebody please, please think of the children?

The human instinct is very real and very strong. Look after yourself, look after your own, then look after others. Obviously many people (myself included) feel that the WTC should be rebuilt, bigger and stronger than before, not only to provide closure for a tragedy but also so show those who would harm us in order to force change that such actions do nothing to help their cause.



[ Parent ]
well... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by JahToasted on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:43:35 PM EST

show those who would harm us in order to force change that such actions do nothing to help their cause.

Well seeing as how ObL's goal was to start a global Jihad between Islam and the West, I'd say the attacks has helped his cause.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately true (none / 0) (#140)
by tzanger on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:12:08 PM EST

Well seeing as how ObL's goal was to start a global Jihad between Islam and the West, I'd say the attacks has helped his cause.

You are unfortunately correct, but it is mostly to blame because the US has a half-cocked warmongering president this term. I was really hopeful when Bush was showing restraint but all this super-spending in the military sector and saber-rattling about Iraq has left me less than hopeful.



[ Parent ]
Interesting ratings (2.33 / 6) (#90)
by roam on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:28:38 PM EST

The parent calls for killing more Americans and is rated up.

I call for the killing of all starving people and I'm rated down.

So it would be agreeable to kill certain people then, right? Some deserve it and some don't?

___
Are they like hamsters?
Specifically, can I tape up a chinchilla, slather him in axle grease, and shove him up my ass? - Patrick Bateman


[ Parent ]
s/American/British (1.50 / 2) (#94)
by KilljoyAZ on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:34:14 PM EST

and your point makes just as much sense (that is to say, none). Are you going to be first in line to sacrifice yourself in order to cleanse your nation's collective soul and to "wake up" those around you?

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]
soooo (3.66 / 3) (#99)
by /dev/trash on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:45:16 PM EST

when shipments of grain to such countries that have droughts and stuff are allowed to rot in storage because the current ruler doesn't want a cup of grain to maybe feed a member of the opposition forces, this is somehow the US's fault?

Oh yeah that's right we are to blame for ALL the problems in the world.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]

another proposal (none / 0) (#7)
by xah on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:05:09 PM EST

I like your idea very much. I like how you use the space of ground zero for a memorable effect.

Okay, here's my own proposal. With this design, a memorial arch would link the two rebuilt towers, each 1000 feet high. The top of the arch would be the tallest point on any inhabited structure in the world. The towers would be farther apart than the original World Trade Center towers, and would be redesigned slightly. Link.

Is this impossible to build?

good thought... (4.62 / 8) (#9)
by Shren on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:27:21 PM EST

If we had three buildings in a line, and connected the left and middle one with one arch, then the one in the middle and the right with another arch, then painted the arches yellow, not only would we have two uber-cool arches, but we could get some corporate funding on the reconstruction.

[ Parent ]
sure it could be built (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by adamba on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 04:25:11 PM EST

But an arch above a 1000-foot high building would not be the tallest point on any inhabited structure on earth (unless it was a tall arch). The Petronas Towers in Malaysia are almost 1500 feet high (and have a bridge between them about halfway up...then there's the Umeda Sky Tower...).

The limits on tall buildings now appear related to something other than architecture. For example, the AOL Time Warner Center will now soon be the tallest twin towers in New York City. Would you want to stay in a hotel in that building now?

- adam

[ Parent ]

Sky Building (none / 0) (#28)
by Edgy Loner on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 06:25:18 PM EST

What a cool building. Here's a bigger picture.
It's not huge, but it's very interesting. It would be nice if architects showed more imagination.

This is not my beautiful house.
This is not my beautiful knife.
[ Parent ]
I built that when I was eight! (5.00 / 1) (#182)
by Greyjack on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:57:16 PM EST

Man, that looks a helluva lot like some of the buildings I made out of Legos when I was a kid.

Cool!

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
Impossible... I don't know but. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by thefirelane on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 04:49:08 PM EST

I do know that the orriginal towers were designed to sway quite a bit back and forth. I seem to recal it being somewhere around 12 feet. Any link between the two buildings would have to be able to deal with this between two buildings that might not be swaying in sync.


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Make em again (4.28 / 7) (#8)
by xriso on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 03:25:46 PM EST

Unless the reasons for putting them up in the first place are no longer valid...
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
One important reason not to rebuild them: (4.00 / 4) (#60)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:35:25 AM EST

They would have an implied "hit me again" sign. I would not like to work in such a place...
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]
That's bull (3.50 / 2) (#78)
by tzanger on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:05:43 AM EST

They would have an implied "hit me again" sign. I would not like to work in such a place...

So when you're hit in a fight you go down and stay down else you'd "have an implied 'hit me again' sign" on your body? Rebuild, and build 'em taller than last time. A big old "Fuck you" to the idea that terrorism is going to change the way America thinks and works.

And no, I am not an American, and I do not agree with much of America's foreign policy. But to think that not rebuilding is going to make anything safer is absolutely insane and cowardly, to boot.



[ Parent ]
Yeah, but.... (4.00 / 1) (#91)
by FredBloggs on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:30:56 PM EST

"A big old "Fuck you" to the idea that terrorism is going to change the way America thinks and works."

...terrorism HAD changed America, just like its changed other countries. You want quick extradition of people for crimes committed in other countries? You got it. Surveillance of emails, websites etc. Yep. I mean, I`m not a conspiracy theorist, but its beginning to sound like some of the `New world order` stuff such people have always gone on about has finally started.

[ Parent ]

Terrorism didn't change that (4.00 / 1) (#104)
by tzanger on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:02:07 PM EST

...terrorism HAD changed America, just like its changed other countries. You want quick extradition of people for crimes committed in other countries? You got it. Surveillance of emails, websites etc. Yep. I mean, I`m not a conspiracy theorist, but its beginning to sound like some of the `New world order` stuff such people have always gone on about has finally started.

Temporarily sure, terrorism changed America. But things like Carnivore, propaganda and special cases for America existed long before 2001-09-11.



[ Parent ]
Oh please... (none / 0) (#211)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:22:13 AM EST

...my life is the same as pre-9/11. We just happened to share a common catastrophe. Bad things happen all the time, just not normally to so many people, with such visibility. Most of the things that my government does are irrelevant to a (mostly) law-abiding, productive member of society like myself. What have you got to hide from John Ashcroft anyway? What makes you think he gives a flying fuck about you?
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Ask lee_malatesta (none / 0) (#215)
by Tezcatlipoca on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:31:32 AM EST

He will tell you.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0) (#232)
by jagg on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 07:52:34 PM EST

The Secret Service was like that pre 9/11. Here's a somewhat personal example of the anal workings of the Secret Service: a few years ago, a co-worker of mine got a visit from the Secret Service because he told his teacher (jokingly) that he was going to kill Clinton after the teacher talked about how the Secret Service investigates every threat. Well, my co-worker and the teacher hated each other, so the teacher decided to rat him out. A few days later, the Secret Service rolls up to where we worked, and has a chat with him out back. Nothing serious came of it, but they warned him not to do it again, or else face serious consequences. Perhaps 9/11 has made the Secret Service a bit jumpier, but from what I can see, it hasn't.

--
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. --James Madison
[ Parent ]
I agree with you in spirit, but... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by joshsisk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:57:25 PM EST

... they should at least take into account the fact that people and business might be nervous being there. What is the point of building a huge office building if they can't fill it to capacity? I could see businesses not wanting to rent offices on the high floors, for example, or workers being hesitant to work there. If they have to cut the rent significantly from what it was pre-9/11 just to get business to move in, than it might not be worth it to rebuild it on the same scale.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
I did not say don't rebuild (none / 0) (#213)
by Tezcatlipoca on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:26:27 AM EST

I said don't build the same thing.

You can be as "idealistic" as you want, there are places and things whose symbolic value is what matters and puts them at higher risk. You can't play the "fuck you" game with the safety of thousends of people, specially knowing what derided people are capable of doing. If you want to do something like that at a personal level, good luck, the only one screwed is yourself. City planners should be guided by caution and not by childish visceral feelings.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]

Israel (4.33 / 3) (#89)
by CokeBear on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:17:54 PM EST

In Israel, anytime a cafe (or any other place) is bombed, it is immediately rebuilt to exactly as it was before, as quickly as possible. Something about not letting terrorism interfere with their daily lives.

[ Parent ]
The WTC was not a little coffee shop. (none / 0) (#214)
by Tezcatlipoca on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:29:36 AM EST

Neither the US is being submitted to the same frequency of terrorist attacks.

If this was one of many (many meaning many) then perhaps the same attitude would be more understandable.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]

They weren't an optimal solution (4.50 / 2) (#105)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:04:46 PM EST

A shocking amount of the space in the Trade towers was wasted with elevators, supports, transfer areas, etc. It could take a long time to get to the top, esp. during busy times of the day.

More, smaller buildings would be much more effective given the amount of real estate involved (if less impressive).

That said, I'd like to see something rather breathtaking there, but personally I know how I'll always remember it regardless of what ends up there.

[ Parent ]

How do you figure... (none / 0) (#210)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:19:34 AM EST

...since the WTC was lauded as a revolutionary design for moving support elements out of the workspace and onto the exterior shell? Also, it took me about two minutes to get from the ground floor to any point in a single tower, including Windows on the World. That's real first hand experience. What's supporting your position? Once again, I question your credibility.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Deranged proposal (3.87 / 8) (#13)
by CodeWright on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 04:06:30 PM EST

Your proposal would "memorialize" by permanently enshrining an open pit mine / garbage dump in downtown Manhatten???

That's absurd!!!

New York is all about excess in the face of extravagance -- the entire sixteen acres should be used as the footprint of a single massive structure, like Frank Lloyd Wright's Mile High Tower, the Tryell Corporate Pyramid, or even a Space Elevator!

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --
I agree, but (none / 0) (#33)
by tebrow on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 07:50:37 PM EST

aren't Space Elevators in space?

[ Parent ]
99%, yes (none / 0) (#34)
by CodeWright on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 08:10:12 PM EST

But you have to put the bottom somehwere.

I think that a 100,000km tower extending geosynchronously from the WTC site, serving as humanity's first real bridge to the stars, would be a fitting thumb of the nose to both those who would kill civilians and those who abhor the mercantile spirit that the WTC and New York represent.

The base of any space elevator / beanstalk is likely to extend at least 1600 feet if not more (making it a WTC challenging structure in any case).

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
uh, wouldn't work (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by ceejayoz on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 09:47:37 PM EST

Space elevators, by design, need to be anchored to the equator so they're stable.

[ Parent ]
Got it covered (5.00 / 6) (#118)
by cpt kangarooski on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:21:13 PM EST

That's why we also tow Manhattan to the equator. In comparison to the feat of building a space elevator, that ought to be a piece of cake.

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]
Good idea (4.66 / 6) (#16)
by Simon Kinahan on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 04:28:12 PM EST

Why don't you try to develop it further, and submit it to the competition ? It can only be better than the six bland office blocks currently suggested. A big hole in the ground seems like a very fitting memorial, and definitely fits with the trend towards memorials more interesting than statues and phallic symbols.

There is an obvious difficulty for any redevelopment plan that wants to accomodate a striking memorial that the real estate is tremendously valuable, and the port authority wants the money. My only quibble with your plan is that the bathtub used to be filled with a underground offices and shops (IIRC). Unless the new buildings are bigger, or more excavation is undertaken to dig down further (which might not be feasible, givem how close the site is to water), your plan will mean losing some office space.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate

Not a chance (none / 0) (#241)
by volkris on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 04:27:31 PM EST

I really wish there WAS a chance that anything other than a "statue or phallic symbol" would be chosen as the memorial. It says a lot about American culture, but I'd say any symbol that couldn't be "gotten" in less than four seconds will be thrown out as, perhaps rightfully, too deep for the average citizen. "What the hell is this hole? Where's the tower? I thought a tower got hit, where is it? When are you going to build it?"

[ Parent ]
Well, ... (none / 0) (#245)
by Simon Kinahan on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 06:21:35 PM EST

America actually has several memorials I find quite moving, and which seem to be popular, that aren't either statues or phallic symbols. The Vietnam war memorial is one. The list of the names of immigrants at Ellis Island is another. Boston also has a holocaust memorial, that consists of a corridor made out of sheets of glass with the prisoner numbers of the dead printed on them.

Now I come to list them, they all actually have something in common: they include lists of the people affected, without any particular central point. Seems more appropriate somehow. More demotic, possibly.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]

It's a good idea (3.20 / 5) (#20)
by PullNoPunches on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 05:04:01 PM EST

It reconciles the desire for a memorial with the need to efficiently use some of the most valuable real estate in the world. And putting the site on the memorial is a very clever twist on the idea of putting a memorial on the site. If you so inclined, it would be worthwhile to make some sketches or a scale model.

One thing that seems missing from all the proposals is the use of that one jagged piece of skeleton that was always shown on TV. Maybe the proposals on the site you link just don't go to that level of detail.

I'd like to see buildings as high or higher than the originals on the site. Anything less just seems like <horrible_cliche> giving in to the terrorists. </horrible_cliche>. I know it might sound like some kind of horrible cliche, but I really mean it.

This time, the roofs get anti aircraft missile batteries.

------------------------

Although generally safe, turmeric in large doses may cause gastrointestinal problems or even ulcers. -- Reader's Digest (UK)

Missiles (4.00 / 4) (#23)
by wji on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 05:31:23 PM EST

I was actually thinking earlier about how that might work, defending buildings with missiles / CIWS (that's a radar controlled gatling gun).

You can't really "avert disaster" this way, as a large amount of flaming shrapnel is going to fall on your city either way. But diverting the attack from a very densely populated vertical target to a sparser one makes good sense.

You've got to be able to decide to fire at quite a distance, or else use something with a huge warhead. Otherwise the plane, or most of it, will still hit you. But I don't think there are any missiles with large warheads and decent enough minimum range. That leaves a gun system, which would be doable. But I have to wonder how much 30mm you need to put into an airliner to really break it up. (Then there's the matter of the shells that miss going and landing in Mrs. Johnson's family room...).

Maybe you need to combine short-range SAMs, like converted AAMs, with the CIWS batteries to make sure of things. You blast the engines with the SAMs, which will be heat seeking, and then break up the plane with cannon fire.

Heh. Even then, you're dumping white-hot burning jet fuel and sharp metal at near-sonic speeds into the crowded streets of a metropolis. Hell, it might even be worse than what happened to the WTC.

I guess you have to interdict the aircraft well before it is over a populated area. To my mind, that means theatre SAMs like Patriot in every major city. But for some reason, while they'll fill Wall Street with barricades and Nat'l Guard troops, they won't put up air defense within America. I've often wondered why, while the Soviets defended individual targets like cities, America stuck its defenses along the frontiers. At least that's my understanding of it.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]

Bad idea (5.00 / 4) (#44)
by NoBeardPete on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 10:24:45 PM EST

It might make sense to scatter missile systems over the roofs of non-military buildings, if the major threat we had to worry about was definitely going to come from aircraft. This would be the case, for example, if there was another organized nation that was going to attack us with its air force.

This is no where near the case with terrorism. In fact, putting missiles all over the tops of a bunch of non-military systems just makes us more vulnerable to terrorists. Now there would be a bunch of missiles already placed in major cities, designed to fire at other locations in those cities. All they need to do is take control of some of these.

The extra risk you are introducing here is far greater than any safety against future airliner attacks that you may gain.


Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
[ Parent ]

I doubt it (none / 0) (#226)
by wji on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 02:36:22 PM EST

Please tell me how a bunch of terrorists are going to get on the roof of a building, overpower armed US army guards, fire sophisticated missile systems which they have *no idea how to use* in an unconventional way (assuming it's even possible to fire them command guidance or locked on to radar/IR returns from buildings -- remember missiles are designed to ignore such returns).

The terrorists would need to do a lot more than go and push a button. SAM systems don't work like that. (Well, maybe shoulder-fired SAMs are almost that simple, but they're designed for "dumb grunts" anyway.)

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]

how about the predator? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by droobie on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:23:43 PM EST

instead of having costly F-16's and what-not patrolling the skies over major cities, why not have a squadron of unmanned aerial vehicles aloft? they could be modified with an air-to-air missile, perhaps. muchly preferable to having a small cadre of ordinance at the top of civilian buildings...

[ Parent ]
From here they look like ants. (none / 0) (#196)
by Brett Viren on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 09:13:06 AM EST

This time, the roofs get anti aircraft missile batteries.

Great, so now you have the rich WTC II dwellers safe and protected with AA missiles. Don't worry about the poor down at streat level, they can absorb the missiles which miss their target and build shelter in the wrecks left when they hit.

[ Parent ]

Maybe (3.60 / 5) (#22)
by resquad on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 05:18:27 PM EST

I dunno about the actuall desgin itself.  I really dont care too much what they do with the space, but the article was very informative.  Lots of little details in there that I didnt know.

+1 FP


-----------
"I WIN THE END!" -Me

use editorial comment next time (none / 0) (#47)
by tealeaf on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:18:47 AM EST

"+1 FP" in a topical comment?

[ Parent ]
Personally (4.36 / 22) (#26)
by jabber on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 06:08:59 PM EST

Every once in a while, I come across a discussion of what ought to be done with the WTC site. I've seen the 6 proposed rebuild plans, and they all nauseate me. They convey no meaning, no sense of defiance or commemoration of the loss. I'm not big on statues or memorial walls or symbolic mementos of people of places or events.

I can't think of a better memorial of what was there than rebuilding it exactly as it stood. Two beautiful towers, tall and phallic. Measuring exactly 110 floor, plus the radio mast. What better memorial? What better way to tell those responsible that they didn't make that much of a difference.

Yes, learn the lessons of the collapse, and make the new buildings resistant to the (physical and otherwise) forces that brought down the originals. Yes, refine and repair the infrastructure that allowed the planes to get that close. Yes, wipe al Qaeda off the face of the planet. But put the skyline back as it was. Perhaps make the vertical ribs of the buildings gold rather than silver this time, but geometrically, make the place identical.

To me, that is the best memorial and reconstruction. To put things as they were, because they were right the first time around. Any change is validation of the crime that brought the towers down. And if a more personable memorial is called for by those who lost loved ones, name the dead on the walls of the lobbies.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

The one change I would make... (3.75 / 4) (#27)
by _Quinn on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 06:20:26 PM EST

... more to shut the "footprint" people up than anything else, would be to put memorial gardens on the roofs.  Actually, what I would prefer to do is add enclosed memorial gardens, and rebuild the towers a story higher: that which does not kill us makes us stronger, and all that.  (And/or, rebuild them to be the tallest.  That would be neat, too.)

-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
[ Parent ]

WTC towers weren't so great (3.75 / 8) (#108)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:11:18 PM EST

Really, the WTC towers were pretty ugly. No style. Plus, as office space, they really weren't the more effective solution given the size of the area involved. Besides, just rebuilding them seems sort of basically denying that anything had happened there.

Personally, I'd rather see a memorial with a moving acknowledgement of the loss. The "footprint" idea does it for me.

Unfortunately, 2000 lives weren't the only things lost there. I suppose a truthful memorial would have to include and automated John Ashcroft in the center, repeatidly setting fire to the Bill of Rights. Maybe he could do it every 15 minutes for the tourists.

[ Parent ]

What?! (none / 0) (#206)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:10:23 AM EST

Have you even been to New York? I lived in TriBeCa for years, and all over downtown. The towers were fucking cool looking in person. We used to call them the "Deathstar", which seems inappropriate now. I know everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm pretty sure you've only seen the WTC on TV or on a weekend trip to the City. If you lived in New York (esp. within view of the WTC), you loved the towers. They were gorgeous, by modern, sophisticated standards.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

totally right (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by tuj on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:27:52 PM EST

The towers should be rebuilt.  Maybe redesigned to look better, improved structurally, better design.  

I don't know why people are afraid to be ambitious.  Rebuilding a pair of twin-towers isn't denying that anything happened.  Rather, it shows that no matter how many fucking planes or bombs they try use, we'll always keep rebuilding them.

Rebuilding the towers is the strongest message America can send.  Sure, its not practicle; that's the point.  

[ Parent ]

Yes!! (none / 0) (#204)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:06:45 AM EST

Rebuild the towers. Mount easily visible surface to air missile batteries on the tops. The message should be a giant "fuck you". *That's* New York!
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Right!! (none / 0) (#253)
by tlaclair22 on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 11:59:47 PM EST

I agree, build them back, but at least 1 story taller. Defiance rules.

[ Parent ]
Not quite accurate (4.33 / 12) (#30)
by X-Nc on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 07:14:39 PM EST

The damaged part of the Pentagon was repaired

This isn't quite true. The work is still going on and should be done next week. All of the construction workers have been working 24/7 on this. They have worked overtime for no pay. Weekends & holidays, again no pay. They have been working to finish the entire thing before Sep. 11th. I think they are to be commended for this.

There have been many "hero's" since Sep. 11 outside of the Police & Fire/Rescue. A little recognition would be nice.

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.

This is great + they should be payed (3.33 / 3) (#39)
by marc987 on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 09:31:50 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hero my ass... (4.11 / 9) (#52)
by mrjacobjames on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:00:15 AM EST

What a diluted word 'hero' has become. I always thought I would have to accomplish some amazing feat to be deemed a hero, but it seems I'm now a hero after pulling those 20 hours of overtime. Bow to me, I am the lord of overtime.
--
Will you marry me? - Rachel Ellis
[ Parent ]
You have no idea (3.33 / 3) (#142)
by Idioteque on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:12:37 PM EST

Many of the people working at the Pentagon now, were doing the same thing a year ago, they were finishing up years worth of renovations. The area that got hit was just about finished, they had to start all over. Some of the people they worked with were either killed or had to fight for their lives to get out. I don't think in your job you deal with fire balls coming down the hallway very often. Well the people that were working at the Pentagon last year did, and then they came back and started re-building. Maybe not heroes to you, but definitely to me, especially since one of those workers is a close relative.


I have seen too much; I haven't seen enough - Radiohead
[ Parent ]
Yep... (3.00 / 2) (#207)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:12:51 AM EST

...you ought to try a day's hard work sometime, you cubicle-jockey wimp. Your petty sarcasm only makes you look petty and weak.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Just like Dubya (2.66 / 3) (#54)
by 8ctavIan on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:24:42 AM EST

They have worked overtime for no pay. Weekends & holidays, again no pay

Yeah, just like Dubya down there at the ranch, working 24/7! Except he's the one who we shouldn't have to pay.


Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. -- H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]

Dubya is a salaried employee (none / 0) (#74)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 10:57:15 AM EST



Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]
I'd say... (none / 0) (#208)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:14:53 AM EST

...~200,000 bucks for doing his job is a bargain for the taxpayers. That's nearly what I get paid, and I'm sitting here posting to Kuro5hin from work!
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Trolling begets trolling (4.00 / 1) (#243)
by volkris on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 04:37:03 PM EST

Yeah, we oughta bill Clinton for some sort of banquet to thank those workers working volunteering to work at reduced pay. Worthless ex president didn't get the job done back then and now makes tens of millions of dollars a year on the lecture circuit...

[ Parent ]
At heart of capitalism (none / 0) (#179)
by Wulfius on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:41:34 PM EST

I am very confused.
The US is the heart of the modern captialistic
society.

1- Los Angeles olympics. The Olympics make a profit. The Volounteers get paid nothing (yeah I know they didnt want any).

2- The workers work for no OT to build the pentagon an organisation with the budget greater than the Moon shot missions.

3- Its considered 'good work ethic' to work unpaid OT.

Someone assure me please that is not exploitation.
---

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
[ Parent ]

We are... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:15:56 AM EST

...capitalists derived from Puritans. It's a masochism thing; you wouldn't understand.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Don't worry, it's not (3.00 / 1) (#242)
by volkris on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 04:33:23 PM EST

When you allow someone to do work for you for free it is NOT exploitation. It's simply a situation that is good for you. Those workers aren't being forced to work, those volunteers aren't being forced to volunteer. So you're profiting off of their generousity, what's the problem?

[ Parent ]
a couple of sketches (4.50 / 4) (#31)
by adamba on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 07:14:42 PM EST

Someone asked for sketches, so I whipped a couple up (disclaimer: I'm not an artist). The first shows the view from the south looking north, the second the view from the east looking west. I'm just trying to give an idea of what I am talking about, in reality I think the space would need to be filled in more densely to accomodate all the functions and space needed.

- adam

P.S. Looking at those again, I noticed there should be a bit of a gap in the second picture between the left (north) side of "New Tower A" and the north wall. Ah well.

hmm... (4.00 / 1) (#126)
by utexaspunk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:46:28 PM EST

I wonder where the terrorists will put bombs in the future when they see the "ROAD SUPPORT"...

[ Parent ]
in fact... (none / 0) (#127)
by utexaspunk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:48:23 PM EST

this would make it pretty easy to cut off any escape from the buildings with a few well-placed bombs, and then fly a couple more airplanes in or take down the buildings with some more well-placed truck bombs...

[ Parent ]
something to be concerned about, but... (none / 0) (#145)
by adamba on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:18:07 PM EST

you would need to design emergency exits of some sort, it's true. But the bridges wouldn't need to be the only way out. There could be stairs up from the ground level (7 floors below street level I mean) out to the street. And if someone is looking for road supports to blow up, there are many of those in and around New York.

- adam

[ Parent ]

Osama Bin Laden's Tomb (2.30 / 10) (#32)
by Bad Harmony on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 07:43:01 PM EST

Red Square has Lenin's Tomb. The redeveloped WTC site could have Osama Bin Laden's Tomb.

54º40' or Fight!

Yea right, as if we could possibly catch him.. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by mrjacobjames on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:47:20 AM EST


--
Will you marry me? - Rachel Ellis
[ Parent ]
As if you can judge (none / 0) (#131)
by Peaker on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:38:13 PM EST

Do you have any clue of what the capabilities of the US are? He can be caught, and almost any screwup on his side would result in his fall.

[ Parent ]
MacArthur (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by drquick on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:56:29 AM EST

General MacArthur already has his tomb the way he designed it himself. Wouldn't it be better to have King Dubya Master of Social Darwinism resting in a monkey cage suspended 25 meters above ground.

This debate is just a manifestration of Bush administations usage of WTC as propaganda. The site is really not so important. What's so important about an excuse to kill Arabs? All in all I'm tired of morbid 911 pornography in it's perpetuation of revenge. Now there will be a memorial. Remembering the dead but only your own dead.

Just tying to balance it a bit. A mausoleum would at least be honest!

[ Parent ]

Try this idea (2.90 / 11) (#36)
by paxtech on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 08:49:07 PM EST

Personally, I like the WTC 2002 (very flash heavy) idea a lot. Five round towers with a huge pyramidal hotel atop it all, and an enclosed biosphere with memorials at ground level. Not to mention it would be the world's tallest building.

It's hella ambitious, which is what everyone should want.
--
"Eggs or pot, either one." -- Ignignot

yee gods! (4.33 / 3) (#37)
by xah on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 09:21:42 PM EST

It's hideous. It looks like some kind of sci-fi-gothic-cathedral-medieval-postpostmodern-fortress from Hell. What's the idea of crowning the thing with a hotel? That's so base, to put a fantasy land for the rich at the highest point of a memorial to thousands of innocent victims.

[ Parent ]
It is horrible... (none / 0) (#193)
by squigly on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 06:36:51 AM EST

But it's also an interesting design.  It's tall, and it dominates the skyline.  It has some unique features.  It's not just another building.  It has prescence.

The other desings are simply a few towers.  Nothing striking about them.  Nothing to show that the US has recovered from the attacks, no defiance, just a few towers.

[ Parent ]

well.,.. (none / 0) (#225)
by xah on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 01:11:50 PM EST

Well, what about mine?.

[ Parent ]
Sounds fine. (none / 0) (#227)
by squigly on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 03:49:48 PM EST

It's an interesting enough idea, as long as the arch served some sort of purpose (even as just an observation point)

[ Parent ]
Llama (4.66 / 6) (#53)
by Perianwyr on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:04:13 AM EST

We should name the whole thing the New York Llama Arcology. With the Llama Dome on top. Llama references are very important to proper city planning.

[ Parent ]
Good thinking. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
by squigly on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 08:10:33 AM EST

While we're at it, it might be a good idea to switch of disasters.  We can even afford it by typing FUND a few times.

[ Parent ]
That is the ugliest thing inthe history of the wrl (none / 0) (#64)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:53:01 AM EST

yup.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Did LMDC reject the 6 designs? (none / 0) (#73)
by adamba on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:31 AM EST

That WTC2002 site claims that the LDMC rejected the six designs. I hadn't heard that on any of the sites I looked at...for example here is an article dated two days after that one which doesn't mention that (and the LMDC site says nothing). Any ideas?

Anyway I don't have the time/energy/ability to whip up a fancy flash site on my design, but if anyone else wants to, go right ahead!

- adam

[ Parent ]

Twin Peaks soundtrack (none / 0) (#82)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:34:15 AM EST

The WTC 2002 flash presentation has the Twin Peaks theme.

Nice!

[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0) (#256)
by benzapp on Tue Sep 03, 2002 at 12:17:50 AM EST

Personally, after seeing the first few wretched memorials which seemed to have official support, I was unable to tolerate anymore.  The pathetic whining of the masses in this country will probably force some touchy-feely feel good piece of crap onto us all, but for the love of humanity, I hope these structure is built.

This is definitely a link to pass on to one's friends

[ Parent ]

Federal Court House (3.77 / 9) (#40)
by Merk00 on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 09:31:55 PM EST

I've always felt that adding a Federal Court House to the sight would be a good memorial. First of all, the September 11 attacks were a symbolic attack against the American system of government. What better way to respond to the attacks then to build something that symbolizes the system that was under attack? Even better would be to try the terrorists in that very court house (assuming we ever get around to it).

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission

"attack against the american system of govern (4.54 / 11) (#46)
by emad on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:14:42 AM EST

From my understanding, the attack wasnt so much against democracy or a constitutiona republic or whathaveyou so much as it was against the foreign policy of america.

You didnt seriously buy into that "they hate us because of our freedom" do you?

[ Parent ]

What do you mean? (2.83 / 6) (#48)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:44:24 AM EST

What exactly is wrong with American foreign policy?


The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
Funny (4.00 / 2) (#55)
by SanSeveroPrince on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:45:07 AM EST

Best joke I read in a LONG time. You're a comic genius.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Nothing. (3.00 / 3) (#59)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:33:44 AM EST

It is the greatest tool for the advancement of democracy and freedom.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]
Nothing, go back to sleep (4.72 / 11) (#63)
by Rogerborg on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:51:19 AM EST

It's obvious that the terrorists were lying when they said that US foreign policy was the reason for the attack.  They threw away their own lives on a cunning game of deception.  Their real agenda was that they were simply jealous of US freedom and democracy.

Now, to you and me, this might seem utterly nonsensical and pointless.  I mean, if you believe in your cause enough to die for it, why would you lie about what that cause is?  And if you were jealous of something, why would you die trying to stop it in another country rather than to achieve it in yours?

However, we know that this must be true, because the President said so, and he was in a room with a US flag in it at the time.  As we all know, that means that Baby Jesus would have smote him dead if he were lying.

US foreign policy is working just fine.  Yup, just fine.  Only firm enemies of the US would believe otherwise, like those raghead commies in the UK, who are currently voting Bush as a bigger threat to world peace than Hussein.  Damn them all, we can find a new best friend, one that understands that freedom and democracy means not questioning the words of God's annointed President.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

But you didn't answer the question. (none / 0) (#65)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 06:08:05 AM EST

You didn't answer the question.
About they British and polls, didn't they just did a poll of the British and over 50% said if they could they would leave their country?
Yes they did, Source - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002391427,00.html


The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
answering the question (4.60 / 5) (#71)
by Shren on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 09:51:50 AM EST

What exactly is wrong with American foreign policy?

It seems to require a military base in every single country on the planet. This is extremely expensive and an is in-your-face statement of Pax Americana, both of which can add up to long term trouble.

Imagine that I live next door to you, and present you with the following ultimatum: unless you let me build an robotic 35mm turret in your back yard, I'll call the grocery and make them not sell you food anymore. Would you think that I am a good neighbor? Would you buy the argument that the nifty engine of destruction in your back yard keeps burglars away from both our houses?

[ Parent ]

Where? (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by Merk00 on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:08:17 AM EST

Where has it happened that the US has demanded bases for a country and threatened to embargo food against them if they don't allow it. I'd like to hear about one instance of it.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

you're being intentionally obtuse. (3.50 / 2) (#86)
by Shren on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:49:13 AM EST

New US Military Bases: Side Effects Or Causes Of War?

And that's only the first thing that comes up under a google search. The rest are more damning. Here, have some titles. CNN - Thousands rally against US bases - Oct. 21, 1995. Beena Sarwar, US Military Presence Still Rankles. Expansion of US military base slammed. Okinawans Fight for End to US Occupation. Recent Rape and Anti-Base Uprisings.

Did you really not know any of this or did you just think I was too lazy to swing over to google for 5 seconds? The cold war is over. Most places do not need a US military base, and at least a few places do not want one.

[ Parent ]

No Evidence (3.75 / 4) (#87)
by Merk00 on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:49 PM EST

And none of the links you provided even start to back up your claim. You claimed that the US threatened countries to get bases. You have shown that perhaps the US starts wars to get bases but the idea wasn't particularly well supported in the article (beyond a "look, they have bases where they used to not have them!" so they must start the wars to get them). You also show that some bases aren't particularly appreciated by the local inhabitants. None of this is evidence of the US threatening countries into giving it bases.

------
"At FIRST we see a world where science and technology are celebrated, where kids think science is cool and dream of becoming science and technology heroes."
- FIRST Mission
[ Parent ]

where did you get the word "threaten"? (4.66 / 3) (#97)
by Shren on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:38:50 PM EST

I never used the word threaten in this thread. Will the US threaten someone to get a military base? Why threaten out loud when the implied threat will do?

[ Parent ]
What you said (3.66 / 3) (#141)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:12:22 PM EST

"unless you let me build an robotic 35mm turret in your back yard, I'll call the grocery and make them not sell you food anymore."
That is a threat! You can't be that thick as to not understand that. You implied that the US issues threats to get bases and when you where called about it you tried to play word games claming that you never used a particular word.
I just love it when someone makes a baseless charge then refuses to back it up with some evidence.


The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
Perhaps a better analogy is required (none / 0) (#222)
by Maurkov on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:35:07 PM EST

"Your building manager said I could build a robotic 35mm turret in your apartment building commons." It's still not a perfect analogy, but it addresses your point. There is no threat, but no choice either. I guess it's their own fault for not living in a direct democracy. Oh, and we're also sending some military aid to help opress^H^H^H^H keep the peace. Maurkov

[ Parent ]
strawmen (none / 0) (#257)
by Shren on Tue Sep 03, 2002 at 10:35:49 AM EST

That is a threat! You can't be that thick as to not understand that. You implied that the US issues threats to get bases and when you where called about it you tried to play word games claming that you never used a particular word.

I just love it when someone makes a baseless charge then refuses to back it up with some evidence.

There are US military bases all over the place, and these bases are often disliked by the country that they are in. That's all I set out to indicate - some reasonably well known facts. I'm not interested in playing word games with analogies (which are always by nature somewhat vague) or joining another K5 strawman pinyata fest. I don't care exactly how the military bases got there. They are there, despite the fact that they don't really stop wars or defend thier client states all that well, and quite clearly they make a lot of people unhappy.

You're trying to pressure me into saying something a lot more specific than I care to say. If I knew how America spread it's net so wide I'd be pulling down 6 figures for the state department. I don't. You wanted to know what people percieved as being wrong with US foreign policy. I've told you. It's viewed as agressively expansionist, which people take offense to when it's your territory they're determined to expand into. Go argue with somebody who cares about the nits.

[ Parent ]

Ah! (none / 0) (#95)
by FredBloggs on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:38:18 PM EST

A link to Richard Littlejohn! How amusing! To think that people around the world are going to learn anything from him.

Heres another link featuring him:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

"they just did a poll of the British and over 50%"

...of the people asked!!

[ Parent ]

Tsk tsk (none / 0) (#119)
by Rogerborg on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:25:34 PM EST

    You didn't answer the question.

I answered it in the very first paragraph.  Go back and read it again, very slowly.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Oh, my mistake, it was in the post SUBJECT (none / 0) (#120)
by Rogerborg on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:27:02 PM EST


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0) (#92)
by FredBloggs on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:32:38 PM EST

check out how much money you`ve given the Israelis. I mean, even if you think its money well spent, why do you think that all the other Arab states are suggesting the US puts off attacking Iraq until the Palestinian issue is sorted out?

[ Parent ]
The Palestinian issue (3.00 / 3) (#138)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:05:32 PM EST

Why doesn't one of the Arab states offer them some land for them to start a Palestinian state? Oh yea, Jordan tried that and if I remember correctly they where expelled from Jordan when they tried to overthrow the goverment.


The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
They already have (none / 0) (#191)
by FredBloggs on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 05:10:46 AM EST

a `Palestinian state` - Palestine!   They want their old country back, not some space in a new one.

How would it shake out if someone decided to invade part of America, kick out most of the Texans, then 50 years later said `hey, calm down, stop killing civilians (ie the people illegally occupying Texas) - we can offer you some land in Mexico if you like!`?


[ Parent ]

They why? (none / 0) (#220)
by DAldredge on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:23:40 PM EST

Then why is it wrong for the Jews to want a Jewish state?


The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
I Fail to See (3.66 / 3) (#135)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:50:54 PM EST

I fail to see why the comment I made above is worth two 1 raitings. I just love it when people rate you as a 1 just because they don't agree with you. For all the talk about "the other site" quite a few of the people who rate comments on this site are just as bad, if not worse, than the mods on /.

The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
yes, but... (none / 0) (#139)
by joshsisk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:11:28 PM EST

...k5's moderation system works better because everyone gets to moderate, and the moderations are public.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
No it doesn't. (none / 0) (#144)
by DAldredge on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:16:21 PM EST

Just because the moderations are public does not make it a better system, it just makes it a more transparent system. If people do not use the systems in the way that it was intended to be used it can and will break. Asking a valid question should never get 1 much less 2 mods of 1, should it?

The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
Thus the OTHER part of my comment... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by joshsisk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:21:07 PM EST

...that you neglected to address.

Namely, the fact that everyone gets to moderate. This way people can redress aggressive moderation, if they feel the need.

Asking a valid question should never get 1 much less 2 mods of 1, should it?

Last time I checked, anyone could moderate anything whatever they wanted, there is no control to prevent it. I could go down every post and moderate every comment to 1, if I had the free time and the desire. That's why you open moderation to everyone (among other differences in the k5 system), to balance it out.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]

A fox wearing a troll skin? (5.00 / 2) (#219)
by X3nocide on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:16:24 PM EST

Given the ultra liberal and often anti "USian" (whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean), the original question of "whats wrong with American foreign policy?" looks much like a blatant troll. If the question was legitmate, then the answer is fairly straightforward.

For reasons not totally understood (I like to believe the "sphere of influence" concept) the US has played a role in maintaining and creating the nation of Israel. You can't deny that the US has an interest in maintaining the peace, given the large number of tactical nukes in Israel. The Arabs might not be so pissy about this if the Presidents wouldn't keep trying to play Arbiter of Peace.

Couple this with the untold interferece with middle eastern affairs, and you have people who can easily portray the US as the Evil Empire to their friends. Whatever the real cause of the attacks, Osama claims to wage war because of occupation of Saudi Arabia. Maybe he's really on a war to remove the infidels from the world. But then, maybe Bush Sr.'s main motive for preventing Iraq from invading was to keep the oil providing nations divided.

Anyways, the whole problem seems to extend from a violation of the ideals of Englightement from a nation that once claimed to inherit from those ideals. Interfering with the sovergnty of other nations, to replace leaders with "American alligned" ones, and to admit no wrong doing of allies is a good way to stifle the progress towards Englightenment.

pwnguin.net
[ Parent ]

Motivation vs Effect (5.00 / 4) (#114)
by Sloppy on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:51:17 PM EST

From my understanding, the attack wasnt so much against democracy
If you're talking about the motivation for the incident, you're probably right.

But if you're talking about the effect of the incident, I think that it really was an attack on Democracy and Freedom. Dubya told the truth on TV, but it was a truth dripping with irony.

If it weren't for the incident, there would be no PATRIOT Act. The incident helped to justify increased surveillance of citizens by government, increased government opaqueness, reduced civil accountability by the government to the people, reduced fiscal accountability by the government to people, war, and a bunch of other undesirable things. Every anti-democracy and anti-freedom agenda got a windfall second chance and reconsideration. And with that second chance, some of them got through. p. Maybe Atta wasn't aiming at Freedom and Democracy, but that's what he hit.
"RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."
[ Parent ]

That was not being addressed (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by emad on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 10:52:38 PM EST

The comment I responded to stated: "September 11 attacks were a symbolic attack against the American system of government"

By his use of symbolic, it suggests that he for some strange reason believes the terrorists were attacking "the american system of government".  I felt I should make it clear that, as far as their intentions were concerned, they were motived by something other than a dislike of the system of government. Whether or not their actions affected this system of government is another matter.  

On the whole, I do agree with you though, since these attacks, the government has made a rush to get unprecedented powers that many people would argue are at opposition with the concept of freedom.

[ Parent ]

Some USians will never learn.... (3.80 / 5) (#58)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:32:03 AM EST

ObL and their followers had made abundantly clear what they want (hint: they don't care about the US system of goverment).

It is incredible that after the attacks and the media coverage there are still people unable to understand what the attacks where all about.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]

What they want (3.66 / 3) (#67)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 08:02:10 AM EST

One of the things they want is to recover the areas (Spain, parts of Eastern Europe) that were lost to Islam, and to restore their version of the Shari'a Law to those areas. Then they want to extend Islam, and the Shari'a, to the rest of the world.

Since the US system of governmental system is hostile to that, they are opposed to it as well.

Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]

Not true. (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 08:39:25 AM EST

Their ideas and beliefs are crazy enough. You don't need to exagerate them.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]
Not exaggerating (4.00 / 3) (#70)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 09:02:16 AM EST

There have been many reports on that. In one of Bin Laden's videos he talks about reversing the 'Tradgedy of Andalusia', and other Muslim militant groups have had that as a long-term goal.

Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]
In that case (4.00 / 3) (#76)
by krek on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:03:22 AM EST

They should just build a giant bank.

[ Parent ]
Best pick-up line (1.12 / 25) (#45)
by medham on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:02:45 AM EST

"Ever fuck your window-sill?"

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Comment revived! (none / 0) (#262)
by vile on Tue Nov 26, 2002 at 06:09:07 AM EST

0 for all or no trusted users!

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Who cares? (2.47 / 19) (#51)
by mrjacobjames on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:55:23 AM EST

Who cares what they do with it? They could fill it with urine for all I'm concerned. Personally, I'd rather not see a memorial, as it will be a constant reminder of how we fucked up and how Americans are just a bunch of bandwagon jumpers.
--
Will you marry me? - Rachel Ellis
It's important but... (4.33 / 6) (#62)
by drquick on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:51:00 AM EST

...but for whom. If a great accident happens - or as in this case a terror attack - you want to remember and discuss it. If you had a connection to the victims or the community where it happened then, these things will concern you greatly.

But, the issue is: What does it matter for the rest of us?

US propaganda claims that their conflict with the Islamic world concerns us all but, US support for Israel and partisan discrimination of Palestinians is Americas resposibility. US support for dictators like Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, House of Saud, etc is done and decided by Americans, not by the rest of the world. Military training to Mujaheddins like Osama bin Laden and others is given by America.

Yet, perpetual claims everyone must take "responsibility" for US foreign policy are thrown in our face. Europe has become a supplier of support and resources without getting influence. We listen to US complaints about not doing enough, paying enough, obeying enough.

All of the publicity around WTC, the design and purpose of the memorial site, is a way to perpetuate the Bush administrations foreign policy, specifically it's military pre-emptive strike doctrine.

I don't support that!

[ Parent ]

i agree (1.70 / 10) (#79)
by Xcyther on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:07:42 AM EST

we dont have a 'memorial' for pearl harbor. we dont have some neat snazzy monument there to remind us all of that day in history. we didnt need one then, and we dont need one now. Pearl harbor wasn't forgotten and either will this.

_________________________________________
"Insydious" -- It's not as bad as you think

[ Parent ]
Actually we do (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Sabbac on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:39:01 AM EST

USS Arizona

[ Parent ]
Reason for the "1" (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by virg on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:10:16 PM EST

My reason for giving you a 1 rating is that if you go to Google, type in "Pearl Harbor memorial" and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky", you get the U.S.S. Arizona web page. Do your homework.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
If they fill it with urine... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by Josh A on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:46:22 PM EST

...I hope they let Andres Serrano put a big cross in it.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Send a clear signal (2.10 / 19) (#57)
by alfadir on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:25:06 AM EST

<humor needed="yes">

Why not send a clear signal to Al Quaida and build something like this...
    ___
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
____| |____
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

</humor>

because it would be incredibly unorigional? (3.50 / 6) (#61)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:50:27 AM EST

I think that's why.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
i think you forgot (2.66 / 3) (#77)
by Xcyther on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:05:23 AM EST

the <humor needed="yes"> tag

_________________________________________
"Insydious" -- It's not as bad as you think

[ Parent ]
no... (3.50 / 2) (#143)
by joshsisk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:15:23 PM EST

even with that on, it's still unoriginal.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
Someone did a mockup of this (4.00 / 1) (#88)
by adamba on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:07:00 PM EST

Soon after 9/11, here (among other place I am sure).

- adam

[ Parent ]

Ok, I didn't know.. (2.00 / 1) (#93)
by alfadir on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:33:01 PM EST

...but the joke does not seems to be appreciated anyway..

I guess this is too sensitive to joke about. Or it is so old that it is unoriginal, as was posted. Sorry, I'll creap back to the stone from under I crawled and hide the <humour> tag.


--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

[ Parent ]
Cultural differences (2.50 / 2) (#178)
by Wulfius on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:36:07 PM EST

How like a USian to assume;
a) That the symbol means what it means in Arabic.
b) That they have watched enough American cultural imperialism to understand it.

http://travel.boston.com/columns/sl/110101_gestures.html

Yeah yeah, I know humor blah blah blah.
Still, fact remains.
---

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
[ Parent ]

Those plans are not final, more to be considered.. (4.00 / 3) (#81)
by jholder on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:27:53 AM EST

Those plans are not final. Five more firms are no involved, more site plans being sought.

swimming pool? (3.44 / 9) (#101)
by 5pectre on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:50:46 PM EST

i don't know about you, but this looks like it would make a pretty sweet outdoor swimming pool.

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

Emperor Pataki has decreed... (3.66 / 3) (#103)
by Ruidh on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 12:52:46 PM EST

...thou shalt not build on the footprint of the towers. Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a dictatorship ruled by two emperors (the governors of New York and New Jersey) each of whom have veto power over what the PA does, it carries the force of law.
 
"Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."
Prom Committee (3.33 / 6) (#115)
by slur on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 01:53:50 PM EST

The 9/11 Memorial Project is just an excuse for a bunch of elites to have a big party, and I want no part in it. Whatever ends up there will be kitsch tailored to the elite as a celebration of elitism. It will be devoid of dignity and an affront to common humanity.

They should build a public park, plant lots of trees, and put a modest memorial at its center.


|
| slur was here
|

Interesting, but it falls short. (4.75 / 4) (#116)
by quasipalm on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:02:49 PM EST

This is an interesting idea. Although it wouldn't serve as a memorial in the classic sense (a place for relatives and others to go to and remember) it would be a visually interesting and impactful statement.

But, ok, if I worked for a company that bought office space in the towers that you propose be built... I really would rather not have to walk over a 7 story pit that serves as a memorial to a horrible day. Imagine, a daily reminder of 9/11 in the form of a big-ass hole, a mote of emptiness around your place of work. Ugh. Depressing.

I think a more thoughtful memorial would be a quiet, peaceful place a bit out of the way of any new towers. I'm thinking, trees, lawn, sunlight. Not pit, hole, ditch, moat.

(hi)
doesn't have to be depressing (5.00 / 2) (#130)
by adamba on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:24:07 PM EST

I don't know the exact dimensions, but 16 acres is a square over 800 feet on a side, and it's only 7 stories (70 feet, more or less) deep. So sunlight could reach in, if it could get past the surrounding buildings. You could have trees and lawn and all that. Remember when the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC was proposed, people complained that it was just a hole in the ground and wouldn't a nice heroic statue be better.

Personally I think it's cool when you cross a bridge to get into a building, but of course others may disagree. And I think it would be hard to go work at the "new" WTC without being reminded of what happened no matter what it looks like.

- adam

[ Parent ]

Why? (4.70 / 10) (#121)
by icastel on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:28:47 PM EST

Why does a memorial have to be built? Why do people think that we need a memorial to remember the catastrophe forever?

Someone posted a comment below about just rebuilding the site as it was and I almost agree with that; however, I'm sure that advances have been made since the towers were build/designed that would allow the construction of significantly better buildings. Why just repeat what was already done?

Let's build something better than the towers and I'm sure that that alone will serve as a the much "needed" memorial.




-- I like my land flat --
Hmm. (3.25 / 4) (#134)
by madgeo on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:50:17 PM EST

Why does a memorial have to be built? Let me see....

1. People like to have memorials to their loved ones, and it's not all about you, it's about the loved ones of the dead,

2. People forget history. Maybe we should not forget that a bunch of asshole terrorists murdered thousands of americans and effectively nuked part of New York.

that's just a few reasons why its "needed"

[ Parent ]

But (none / 0) (#148)
by icastel on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:42:47 PM EST

Where did I say it was about me or about forgetting the dead? It's obvious you missed the point completely. Read, understand, and only then, reply.




-- I like my land flat --
[ Parent ]
hrumph (none / 0) (#240)
by volkris on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 04:22:50 PM EST

Those quotation marks around needed were pretty appropriate. This kind of thing really isn't needed, just wanted. 1. People also like free money so why don't we just mail everyone a blank check from the US government? 2. Why do you think a memorial would help a significant number of people remember better?

[ Parent ]
Have you ever been to a cemetery? (none / 0) (#200)
by yankeehack on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 10:08:38 AM EST

Those people are dead too, and they don't care if they get memorialized.... Funerals and memorials are for the living, not for the dead.

I'm being a bit harsh here, but one of the reasons why there needs to be a memorial there at the WTC site is because there are many bodies and body parts that were never found. Poof! Gone! This is their burial place wether we like it or not and it should be treated reverently--just like other places of mass killing, like battlefields, cemeteries, etc. By your logic, perhaps there shouldn't be an effort to save Civil War Battlefields, attend Memorial Museums, respect the dead, etc.


"Went to Church last night. I saw a hot chick there. Rule. Yeah, they talked about god; but I wasn't really paying attention. That's being Catholic for yo
[ Parent ]

RE: Have you ever been to a cemetery? (none / 0) (#218)
by icastel on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:06:18 PM EST

Yes. I have been to a cemetery.

Those people are dead too, and they don't care if they get memorialized.... Funerals and memorials are for the living, not for the dead.

Sure. I agree.

I'm being a bit harsh here, but one of the reasons why there needs to be a memorial there at the WTC site is because there are many bodies and body parts that were never found. Poof! Gone!

My guess is that by the time they are done preparing the area for new development, all the body parts will have been scooped up and scattered someplace else. They will really be gone.

This is their burial place wether we like it or not and it should be treated reverently--just like other places of mass killing, like battlefields, cemeteries, etc.

See above

By your logic, perhaps there shouldn't be an effort to save Civil War Battlefields, attend Memorial Museums, respect the dead, etc.

That is what I'm questioning: The need for a memorial. I think that would be mostly a waste of money and resources. The dead don't care, as you pointed out. I'm not questioning the fact that most people like to remember their dead with respect and reverence, but, why is the memorial needed in order to remember them? Does that mean that if there is no memorial, people WILL forget them? OK, I'm beginning to understand.




-- I like my land flat --
[ Parent ]
Towers of Light (3.00 / 2) (#122)
by ethereal on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:30:41 PM EST

The best memorial design that I've seen has already been done: Tribute in Light. Granted, this is only visible at night, but perhaps a memorial park or something could be built for use during the day, and at night turn back on the 44 searchlights and paint the ghosts of the towers pointing up into the sky. The pale strands of light are a lot more impressive to me than any rebuilt tower of concrete and steel.

My $.02,

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Execution disappointing (none / 0) (#123)
by Josh A on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:41:21 PM EST

I would totally agree if the actual light towers were nearly as impressive as the conceptual renderings of them.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Fair enough. (none / 0) (#124)
by ethereal on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:43:24 PM EST

I've never seen them in Real Life, so I'll have to take your word for it.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

We need more SMOG! (none / 0) (#177)
by Wulfius on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:26:34 PM EST

Goddamned greenies are interfering with the memories of the dead!

If we had more smog in NY then the memorial
would be far more pronounced.

Exercise for the curious reader.
Calculate the annual tonnage of carbon emmisions
expelled into the atmosphere to power the permanent light display.

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
[ Parent ]

I did *not* like the towers of light (4.60 / 5) (#132)
by rknop on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 03:38:24 PM EST

Light pollution from our cities is bad enough without having huge lights doing nothing but shining into the sky. Let's think of a memorial that doesn't involve environmental degradation visible from such a great distance. We need to be reducing the amount of light our cities throw into the sky, not coming up with more reasons to increase it.

It's wasteful, too. Indeed, some have drawn a connection between the response to the terrorist attacks and a need to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil. A memorial that sits there doing nothing but using energy to throw light up into the sky where there's nothing that needs illuminating is at odds with that, and as such not a very fitting memorial.

-Rob



[ Parent ]
Only two options, really (3.75 / 4) (#128)
by pla on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 02:50:27 PM EST

1) Don't rebuild it. Turn it into a park. Deciding "how much" of the area to devote to a memorial strikes me as a particularly insulting tradeoff between commercial interests and the memory of those who died. Anything less than the full 16 acres insults them.

2) Ditch the memorial idea. Pressuring the owners of that land, the single most valuable land on the planet, into wasting part of it to remember people who died (through no fault of the owners) strikes me as absolutely deplorable in a so-called capitalistic society. Okay, perhaps a plaque or a statue (or other ideas that basically take up no space except a few feet in a courtyard) doesn't ask too much, as long as the owners don't have to pay for it, but asking for any "real" chunk of their land asks *way* too much. If *you*, the reader, owned that land, how would you feel about having a choice between wasting literally millions of dollars per acre on a memorial (just in land, not even considering the value of what could go there), or having the public look at you as some sort of monster?

I realize these exist as pretty much diametrically opposed alternatives, but any compromise will leave both sides feeling unsatisfied. Pick between a memorial and commerce, and just accept that one side will feel screwed either way, rather than *both* sides feeling screwed.

Personally, I'd go for the park idea, but have bias in the issue in that I really dislike the entire concept of cities in general. I don't really give a damn about the memorial idea, I just don't care for 100+ story buildings. I also don't mean that as an insult to those who died (although the money-grabbing behavior of their relatives has not left me with a positive impression... 14 trillion dollars? Piss off and get a clue), but really, a memorial won't bring them back.


They are dead, they don't care. (4.00 / 3) (#137)
by Kintanon on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:01:19 PM EST

First point. The dead don't care. A memorial is for the living. And if the living only need a small memorial then that's good enough.

Second point. From what've heard everyone who wants to build on the land wants to build some form of memorial into the building. So no one is being forced to add a memorial that they don't want.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

A PR statement, not reality (3.75 / 4) (#162)
by pla on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:49:11 PM EST

everyone who wants to build on the land wants to build some form of memorial into the building.

They have no choice in the matter. Anyone who dared to say "we don't really want to put in a memorial" would have no shot at getting the contract, and would have a PR nightmare. So of *course* they all say they want to build a memorial as part of the new site.

But do any of them *really* want to? I repeat my analogy - If *you* owned the land, and didn't have a personal connection to those who died, would *you* want to waste such an enormously valuable resource?

Our society places *FAR* too much emphasis on comforting those-who-survive-the-dead. People, and all animals, die. Sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes tragically, but it always happens sooner or later. People need to just move on with their lives. Grieve for a few weeks, then "bury the dead". Very nearly a year has passed now, quite a lot longer than "a few weeks".

I suppose this sounds inflamatory, but I do not intend it as such. I simply believe that people need to focus on living, not on dying or the already-dead.


[ Parent ]
Emphasis on the living (5.00 / 2) (#165)
by cloquewerk on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 06:41:28 PM EST

I mostly agree with the idea of concentrating on the living rather than the dead, especially considering that disasters with a similar or larger number of casualties occur extremely often. But I think that you're taking the emphasis on the dead and putting it on money... if our society places too much emphasis on "comforting those-who-survive-the-dead", it *definitely* puts too much emphasis on money and real estate.

[ Parent ]
Sept 11 memorial (3.00 / 4) (#147)
by shakin on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:28:10 PM EST

I think that the new WTC should contain some kind of light and mirror memorial, posistioned just right so that on every Sept 11 at precisely the time the first airplane hit/building fell/whatever it would do something spectacular.

I'm thinking it could send out light onto surrounding buildings, display the american flag on the ground or something really noticable like that. I think it would be a very fitting tribute, but I don't know about the astronomy involved -- placement of the memorial might be impossible.

A big-ass mosque (1.33 / 9) (#151)
by Bob Dog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 04:57:37 PM EST

Would be nice. Or perhaps a statue commemorating the ineptness of the engineers who built the damn place.


What "ineptness"? (4.50 / 2) (#154)
by resquad on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:14:34 PM EST

I have to ask what "ineptness" you are talking about?  When they originally built the twin towers they were designed to withstand a hit from a plane.  But back then they didn't carry half as much fuel, which is exactly what was the major problem on 9-11.  They jet fuel got burning in the towers weakening the structure.

I dont care about people ripping on other people, but at least know what the fuck you are talking about.


-----------
"I WIN THE END!" -Me
[ Parent ]

Yes (1.00 / 4) (#155)
by Bob Dog on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:20:48 PM EST

And engineers designing the worlds largest building are of course completly unable to figure out that stuff develops and gets bigger.  I bet everyone back then thought that there would be no more progress ever.


[ Parent ]
No. (none / 0) (#157)
by resquad on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:37:58 PM EST

First off, it isn't, nor was it the worlds largest building (just before it fell).  Second, they are building designers, stupid, not plane designers.  They saw how buildings were going in the future but probably not planes.  Besides, they did a good job of preping the buildings.    One of the towers got hit a while back and we see that they survived.  

I am sure they knew there would be progres, I bet they didnt really have any idea though.


-----------
"I WIN THE END!" -Me
[ Parent ]

WTC Jumbo rated (2.00 / 3) (#176)
by Wulfius on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:21:03 PM EST

Well, at the time it was designed.
The Buildings were rated to take a hit from a 747 Jumbo Jet.
The amount of fuel has not gone increased, if anything, due to primarly COST considerations (ie: aircraft that burns less fuel makes more money) the
amount of fuel had gone down.

The WTC was rated to take the KINETIC impact of the aircraft. The reasoning being that after a Jumbo slams into the towers the fireproof tiles (fastened using ordinary office rated fasteners) are going
to remain in their predesignated locations.

Therefore our estieemed correspondent is entirely
correct accusing the Engineers of ineptness.

That is if you want to discard altoghether the
fringe (independant) reports of items pointing
to other forces such as;
a) Sequestering of all the seismographic records
by the FBI.
b) Eyewitness reports of multible explosions
akin to controlled demolitions.
c) The totaly unexplained colapse of builing no.6 (from memory). Captured on the CNN live video
of the collapse (the one with Tom Clancy talking)
the building collapses SIMULTENOUSLY with one
of the towers.
d) The even more wacky reports of EMP pulses
immediately before the collapse.
e) The superfast UFO (captured by a number of
video cameras) flying between the two towers.
f) The arrest of a group of cheering Israelis
filming the collapse from a roof (source NY press).

Wacky theories? Yes.

Concesus reality has the benefit of allowing others to make your mind up for you.

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
[ Parent ]

I call troll! (4.00 / 1) (#221)
by ckaminski on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:24:20 PM EST

Considering construction of the building began in 1966, and the first 747 didn't roll off the factory floor until 1969, I seriously doubt they were DESIGNED to survive a direct 747 hit.

[ Parent ]
Fact (none / 0) (#252)
by Wulfius on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 11:18:21 PM EST

The winner of the competition was awarded in 1965.
So by 1966 it was well known that in the near future an aircraft LIKE Jumbo would take to the skies.

"The 747 came into existence after Boeing lost the competition for a strategic airlifter for the US Air Force. The Air Force needed a strategic long-haul airlifter capable of transporting troops and heavy weaponry to Europe. The very desirable contract was, however, given to Lockheed in 1965 and led to the creation of the C-5A Galaxy."
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9904/FR9904e.htm
---

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
[ Parent ]

Yes in the sense of no (none / 0) (#186)
by epepke on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 02:24:18 AM EST

The construction of the WTC, with much of the structural stability in the walls themselves rather than in a central steel pillar, was highly controversial at the time they were built.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
yes, but now it is a standard design <n/t> (none / 0) (#202)
by madenosine on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 10:34:08 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Perhaps it shouldn't be (none / 0) (#230)
by epepke on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 05:25:44 PM EST

All those other buildings that make it "a standard design" went up before the WTC went down. So, now the design has been tested, so to speak. It doesn't automatically make it a good design simply because no planes have flown into other buildings with that design.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
20,000 people worked in those towers (4.50 / 2) (#205)
by sab39 on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:07:41 AM EST

20,000 people worked in the twin towers, without even including the other buildings that were destroyed that day. It seems almost certain that the majority of that number were in the towers at the time of impact, since it was within business hours on a weekday.

Of those 20,000 plus, only 3,000 were killed in an unprecedented and almost unimaginable attack[1].

Thus, at a conservative estimate, those "inept" engineers saved 17,000 lives that day.

Further, with the impact of an extremely heavy object at high speed, it's not hard to imagine a tower that high simply toppling. So beyond the 17,000 people in the buildings themselves, all the lives of the people in the adjacent city blocks that would have been crushed by a toppling tower were saved by the engineers who built a design which, despite unprecedented and unimagined circumstances, still managed to fall straight down.

I'd say the engineers who designed the WTC did a pretty damn good job. And I question where you get the right to claim otherwise - how many thousands of lives have you ever saved?

(Having said all that, I agree with the idea of including a mosque in the memorial. Probably along with a few places of worship for other religions also, but you wouldn't need to give the mosque any special prominence for everyone to notice the message it sent)

Stuart.

[1] Not only were the planes bigger than those at the time the building was designed, the attackers had specifically chosen planes that could reach the towers with an almost completely full load of fuel - if you're designing for an accident, rather than deliberate attack, you can assume that the likelihood is that the plane would be almost out of fuel - otherwise why would they be unable to avoid the building? And you simply can't reliably design for a deliberate attack - I doubt the twin towers would have withstood a missile attack either... and I know for damn sure that they wouldn't have stood for a second against a nuke. At some point you have to draw the line, and I think the WTC engineers drew an eminently reasonable one.
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]

The real facts, from those who designed 'em (5.00 / 2) (#238)
by grizzlyaddams on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 03:16:50 PM EST

At the University of Colorado, we are fortunate to have as a professor Mr Hyman Brown, who was vice president of Tischman Realty and Construction, the management company in charge of the WTC project. He was present during the entire construction of the towers. Two days after 9/11, he gave a talk here at CU, available HERE entitled "The World Trade Center: Did We Make the Right Decisions?". Of the many enlightening things he discussed, two especially important points surfaced.

One: The towers were never "designed" to withstand any jet impact. Towards the end of the project, during a meeting in which he was present, someone posed the question of whether the towers could survive a hit from the largest airplane flying at the time, I believe the 727. They did some calculations and said yes. That is where all the incorrect media hype about "Designed to withstand a jet impact" came from.

Two: The towers were never designed to be able to withstand the heat from thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning at several thousand degrees. Could they have been? Absolutely - but the cost to do so would have meant that the buildings would never have made money, because they would have been inordinately expensive. If you want to blame anything besides mindless terrorism for the collapse, blame basic economics, not inept engineering.

[ Parent ]

Here's my idea (none / 0) (#152)
by skintigh on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:00:55 PM EST

Why visually striking, it doesn't seem safe or practical to build large buildings in a pit, especially if they might be targets. My idea: rebuild the towers, but star shaped. Maybe three of them. Something symbolic.

A park (none / 0) (#153)
by bouncing on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:12:02 PM EST

People keep mentioning a park. While I like this idea, this is New York City, downtown at that. You can't go without the office space. Why not put a park on top of the office buildings? In Japan, they are putting parks on buildings to reduce urban heat trapping. I think a wide, tall office building with a public park on top would be a great idea.

You could have seporate, public elvators that lead up to the park on the top, and if the building covered the entire area, it would be 16 acres of 80-story park with a view!

I still like WTC2002 better (4.00 / 2) (#156)
by tbc on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:33:29 PM EST

I already wrote about the WTC2002 concept by Derek G. Turner. He wasn't in the running with the original 6, but the poll at his site shows strong support for his design.


Obviously (4.00 / 2) (#164)
by rebrane on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 06:23:44 PM EST

A poll at his site is hardly a good barometer. Personally, I thought his idea was ridiculous from first glance, so I didn't stay on his site long enough to find any poll.. just long enough to read through the proposal.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#228)
by djp928 on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 04:06:45 PM EST

Did you read through some of that stuff? What the heck was that bit about using "sound waves" to repel aircraft and enforcing a five mile radius "no fly zone" around the site??

-- Dave

[ Parent ]

I am going to get flamed into oblivion for this... (3.83 / 12) (#160)
by jonr on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:44:46 PM EST

But I just have to say this. (Don't worry, it will be short) Less than 0.001% of US population died that day. It's like 3-4 people of my country. It's very small number in a war (This must be a war, the Prez sez so?). Let the people who knew the victims personally grief for them on their own terms. Just keep the park that was there, put up a small headstone "In memory of all who perished 09.11.2001" or something and get over it! I'm sick how CNN and others have used this to boost ratings instead of getting to the root of the problem. The world has worse problems than these 3000 souls. And DO start to think WHY the glorified USofA (the country/government, not the people) are hated so much. Not that I have any sympathy with the brainwashed idiots that made this happen. I dread next month, the US propaganda machine will be in full swing. J.

Damn straight (none / 0) (#244)
by volkris on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 04:39:38 PM EST

Damn straight ~An American

[ Parent ]
The purpose of said memorial (2.55 / 9) (#161)
by alkaline on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 05:45:35 PM EST

Most of the posters have said something to the effect of "we need a memorial to remember our loved ones," etc. Sure, but I think we need to build a memorial to remind the people in our country that we're not the *only* people on this planet, and to try to act like world citizens instead of just citizens of the USA. It's that very egocentric mentality that led to the tragedy to begin with.

Tripe (3.33 / 3) (#175)
by tarpy on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:03:40 PM EST

Oh what utter crap.

There's a ton of reasons that 9.11 happened (I, myself, am partial to the school of thought that Osama didn't like the fact that we were in his "holy" Saudi Arabia protecting the Saudis from certain people at their own damn request and that this sent him over the proverbial edge).

But the long and the short of it is, it happened because some nutbags (*) got together and felt that they needed to make us feel all the pain and rage that they somehow felt that they were feeling and NOT because we're the arrogant pricks that the world seems to think that we are. Any attempts at moral equivalence is not only logically weak, it is ethically repugnant and dishonours the memory of those innocents that died on that tragic day.

(*) To wit, as Jed Bartlet said in "Isaac and Ishmael", "Killing yourself and innocent people to make a point is sick, twisted, brutal, dumb-ass murder."


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]

But we ARE arrogant pricks!! (4.00 / 4) (#194)
by taiwanjohn on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 07:34:22 AM EST

As a US citizen (which I assume you are) you have every right to your opinion. As a US citizen I have the right (duty actually) to disagree with what I see as a dangerous attitude.

Forget "moral equivalence"!! The post you're responding to is not trying to "justify" the attacks. It simply notes that the typical American insularity and ignorance about the rest of the world was a contributing factor (the wording "led to" is a little strong, IMO).

And, as if on cue, you give us yet another shining example of that attitude.

Whether or not you accept it, the simple fact is that about three quarters of the world's population agree that we ARE arrogant pricks. Why? Because we consume roughly a quarter of the world's resources, yet we are woefully ignorant of where those resources come from, or at what cost to the people in those places. Because we tell everyone else what to do, yet freely back out of whatever treaties we please. Etc., etc., etc...

There will always be a lunatic fringe to deal with. But in a world that, by and large, sees us as arrogant pricks, who is going to stand up and say anything in our defense, when the lunatics start talking about how we need to be taken down a peg or two?

As an American citizen, I heartily approve of the idea that the 911 memorial should include some hint of how American ignorance, arrogance, and insularity helped indirectly to foster the very "nutbags" who did this.

The attacks were an abomination. America's sins are also an abomination. NEITHER ONE JUSTIFIES THE OTHER!!! This is not about "moral equivalence". It's about doing the right thing (the "Christian" thing) regardless of what others have done.

Murdering innocents -- whether by terrorist attack, corporate callousness, mistaken-ID in capital punishment, or even just plain despotism -- is an ABOMINATION for which there can be NO justification.

We American's have a lot of things to be proud of. Unfortunately, our holier-than-thou self-pity and self-indulgance since 911 are not among them. In the short term, we have spanked the 911 bad guys and spanked them hard. But the long term solution MUST address our arrogant "image" problem.

In short, we dishonor our country's high ideals of democracy and egalitarianism with our puerile, brutish demeanor on the world stage.

Whether or not you agree, the "connection" between our past actions and the 911 attacks is pretty clear for the rest of the world to see. And your stubborn refusal to accept any hint of such a connection only deepens and strengthens our "arrogant" image. That, in turn, endangers our country even more. So please stop it!

--jrd

[ Parent ]

Crap Mk. II (4.00 / 3) (#229)
by tarpy on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 04:56:02 PM EST

Well, since your post mostly focuses on our appearance of being arrogant or being arrogant (which are two separate issues) I'll deal with that rather then the other little gems you sprinkled into your post.

So, the world thinks we're arrogant. And? Why do we care? Does it particularly affect my life that the French think that we're not multi-lateral enough for them? Nope, not in the least, they will either do business with us or not. If they do, the world is a happy place, if not, they we will find some other place to buy and sell our goods. And if they know that if they ever threaten our physical well-being, we can actually hold them responsible for what they've done or try to do.

They call us arrogant because I believe they are fundamentally jealous of the United States, and the position the US has in the world at this time. Why are they jealous? It's for a number of reasons:

  1. They are jealous of the power we now control. They are jealous because we have power now, and maybe they had it in the past (France anyone?). It's the same thing that always happens to the best player on a ball team. "He's arrogant", or "he's a show-off", or some other carping. This jealousy comes from the fact that we have something that they want, and they can't get it for whatever reason, so out comes the Shadow and some projection goes on.
  2. They are jealous because people can come here and make scads of money, paying less taxes, and with more freedom while for the most part a person couldn't do that in their own country. (Which is why countries that typically have a greater economic freedom index don't really yell all that loudly at us. When was the last time you saw a rally in Hong Kong where people shouted "Death to America!"?
  3. The are jealous because they need us. In his latest HBO special Robin Williams does a great bit on how much the French hate us and will go to great lengths to spite us will suddenly become all lovey-dovey with us the moment the Germans show up. ("America, I hate you! You are a stupid people. What? The Germans are coming...America we love you!")
  4. They are jealous because they fear us. If we really wanted to, we could pretty much regime-change anywhere we wanted to in this world. I could understand, if I were on the other side of this power, how terrifying this power could be.
And, you know what, if we consume 25% of the resources with having just 5% (or whatever the current figure is) of the population, there's an easy answer if the rest of the world wants to cut down on our consumption: THEN STOP SELLING US YOUR RESOURCES. Use them to your own betterment than just feeding our appetite...but let's quickly gloss over the fact that they best way to bootstrap yourself out of non-development is to sell your resources/products to someone who wants and is willing to pay for it. And god forbid, don't mention the fact that it's a basic fundamental law of economics that products and resources follow the capital. If we have the money, the resources will follow. In fifty years if/when China replaces us, do you honestly think that the same arguments WON'T be used against China that are made against the USA now.

Beyond even that, I'm not so sure that even it's us that is the whole problem. Down at that lovely little gathering the Lilliputians are having down in J'burg, apparently the EU has been getting quite a lecture about many of the same things that they like to lecture the US about when it comes to consuming the world's resources and being a bad 'world citizen'. To wit:

"European consumers are paying to destroy livelihoods in some of the world's poorest countries," said a representative from Oxfam, the development agency. At issue are European crop subsidies and farm supports, such as those for sugar growers. Oxfam goes on: "An agricultural commodity that could play a real part in poverty alleviation in southern Africa does not do so" because European price supports make African sugar uncompetitive. (Source)

We may be puerile, but I hate to be the one to tell you this, so is the rest of the place. (And I'd rather take our rather free form of puerility than theirs, any day of the week. At least we're more honest about it)




Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]

Oh cripes, not the "jealousy" thing agai (4.00 / 1) (#237)
by taiwanjohn on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 06:19:48 AM EST

Well, since your post mostly focuses on our appearance of being arrogant or being arrogant (which are two separate issues) I'll deal with that rather then the other little gems you sprinkled into your post.

Actually, my post focuses on how our arrogance is detrimental to our national security because it fosters the widespread attitude (outside the USA) that we "had it coming". This is a pity because, given all the noble and wonderful things the USA has done, we really ought to be revered rather than reviled.

I deliberately left the jealousy issue out of my post because it's such an obvious red-herring. But since you brought it up...

1. They are jealous of the power we now control.
To use your own analogy: they are not "jealous" of our talent (power), they are pissed off at the way we use it. Just like your "show-off" ball-player, WE ARE NOT A TEAM PLAYER.

2. They are jealous because people can come here and make scads of money, paying less taxes, and with more freedom
Um... okay, right... people go to America to earn scads of money, but they don't go to France, Germany, the UK, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Switzerland, Ireland, etc...

3. They are jealous because they need us.
You seem to have some unresolved "issues" with the French. (Wanna share?;-) Seriously though, the "need" for our military support is debatable. The EU, collectively, have plenty of military power for their own protection (especially now that the USSR is defunct). Most of the rest of the world sees us more as a potential threat, and would rather avoid any "protective" intervention from the USA.

4. They are jealous because they fear us.
Dude, you're getting seriously wacky here! We have yet to demonstrate this magical "regime-changing" ability you claim over the long term. The jury is still out on Afghanistan. Numerous top-ranking military officers are now talking about the need to "go slow" with Iraq. (Dare I mention Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, and Chile?? Or how about our "successful" regime change in Iran from Mossadeq to the Shah? Gee, that sure turned out well in the long run, didn't it!)

the best way to bootstrap yourself out of non-development is to sell your resources/products to someone who wants and is willing to pay for it.

That's not entirely true. Take Central America, for example. After 150 years of US colonial "development" this is still one of the poorest regions on earth. Africa, after centuries of European colonialism, has vast infrastructure devoted to extracting resources, but almost NONE devoted to internal integration and growth.

As your Johannesburg quote illustrates, the reason why people protest against "globalization" so much is that the modern corporate/IMF version of "development" seems to be continuing this scorched-earth trend, even as it tries (in some cases at least) to do better.

Saying "Well, if you don't like it, just STOP SELLING YOUR RESOURCES!" is just like telling a drug-addicted ghetto kid to "JUST SAY NO... and go to the library and teach yourself some skills so you can get a job!!" It's easy for the rich to say, but much tougher to do for someone who's never "been there" before.

In a word, that's not just arrogant, it's mean. America, arguably the greatest nation on earth, really ought to be doing better, no?

But, getting back to the POINT of all this... we are SEEN as arrogant because we ARE arrogant. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we weild that power freely... yet we do so with PATHETIC IGNORANCE of the world outside our borders, and how our actions affect other places and peoples.

(Here's an idea... how about we follow Europe's lead, and end the War On Drugs, then take that $50b/yr savings and put it ALL in the Peace Corps? We could easily have "forces" to rival our military, whose sole mission is to build infrastructure and train and educate the poor. Then we'd be making FRIENDS left and right, instead of enemies... and we'd be learning first-hand about the real needs of the people we claim to lead and protect...)

If we are going to arrogate the mantle of "Leader of the Free World" then we must also accept the responsibilities that come with that power. We must use our power for the good of all mankind, not just our own selfish interests, and to do that, we need to understand and listen to the world much better.

If we don't, we will continue to breed resentment and antagonism. And that, ultimately, will make the War On Terror unwinnable.

--jrd

PS: Sorry this got so long! :-/

[ Parent ]

This article says it better... (none / 0) (#255)
by taiwanjohn on Tue Sep 03, 2002 at 12:08:05 AM EST

I'm no particular fan of Salman Rushdie, but he sums up the argument well in this article.

--jrd

[ Parent ]

Hubris (none / 0) (#260)
by darien on Sun Sep 08, 2002 at 09:15:32 AM EST

So, the world thinks we're arrogant. And? Why do we care?

Nuff said.

[ Parent ]

citizenship (none / 0) (#251)
by brandon21m on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 08:02:52 PM EST

I'm not a world citizen. I was not born under the rule of the UN. I was born under the rule of the current President of the United States. I'm a US citizen.

And we did not cause this. Murder is no excuse for trying to put us in our place. We are the best nation in the world but that doesn't mean we deserve to die. Everyone has a right to do what they want and to live as long as it doesn't intrude upon anyone else. Terrorists didn't like that and thought that murder was an all right way to try to make us change. Because they steal from the citizens of their own country we are a better country and they blame that fact on us instead of on themselves. The Taliban had a lot of money. Afghan citizens had hardly anything. Thankfully that is changing.



[ Parent ]
None (3.40 / 5) (#163)
by sypher on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 06:06:15 PM EST

It being built again 'as was' is a memorial itself, people won't forget what happened that day anytime soon.

I dreamt of it once, now I fear it dreams of me
For two minutes, every day (2.25 / 4) (#168)
by perdida on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 07:27:48 PM EST

of every year, the streetlights in a large area of Manhattan should turn blood red.

These two minutes can be spaced out evenly and in a semi-random pattern.


The most adequate archive on the Internet.
I can't shit a hydrogen fuel cell car. -eeee

hrm... (none / 0) (#235)
by overkill on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 01:21:15 AM EST

I hate to nitpick, however, by definition, something cannot be spaced out evenly, and in a semi-random patern.

[ Parent ]
I don't get offended easily.. (4.28 / 7) (#170)
by Sheepdot on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 08:13:21 PM EST

But when I see the same people that:
  1. Usually bitch about stories being US-centric
  2. Complain the the US is an abusive world power (which to an extent I agree with)
  3. Talk about how it was the US's policies that led to this event
  4. Try to justify the 9/11 as deserved
  5. Don't live in the US and categorically hate all USians
...proceed to suggest how a memorial should be built, it is EXTREMELY offensive.

It's like a US citizen (citizen, mind you, not the government) suggesting how to best build a memorial to remember the most tragic event in your countries recent history.

What is really funny is most of you won't even be embarrased that you are doing the exact same thing you claim the US government should not be doing to other countries.

Hope this doesn't offend you (2.25 / 4) (#171)
by jesush on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 08:49:07 PM EST

Well I guess it is a little bit pretentious for me to speak for approximately 96% of the world's population that are not "USians" but I'll try anyway.

You see, what many of us find sad about the whole WTC thing is how much more Americans care about 2000 or so people killed in WTC then about at least 500 times as many Iraqis killed in their name by their government. In fact they are largely in favor of killing even more.

[ Parent ]

Be realistic -- this isn't just a US thing (5.00 / 3) (#180)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:45:43 PM EST

You see, what many of us find sad about the whole WTC thing is how much more Americans care about 2000 or so people killed in WTC then about at least 500 times as many Iraqis killed in their name by their government. In fact they are largely in favor of killing even more.

I don't really think it's fair to single out Americans or the United States on this one.

Nobody in the world cares as much about "those other people" as they do about "our people". Sure, it'd be nice if our empathy carried across our little clanish borders (there wouldn't be many wars, would there?), but the fact remains that we instinctively root for our guys and demonize the other side.

And so do you.

To suggest that the pain, suffering and recovery process of a particular group is therefore somehow undeserved is equally unempathetic and unreasonable.

[ Parent ]

Actually, you're right... (5.00 / 3) (#203)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:01:22 AM EST

...we do care about our own more than others. But don't forget that anyone from Iraq is free to move to New York, get a job, show up for work, be killed by insane Islamic militants, and will be treated with the same degree of respect and will be memorialized in the same manner as the *thousands* of world citizens (from many, many countries outside the USA) that died in the WTC.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Re (none / 0) (#173)
by carbon on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 10:03:34 PM EST

It's like a US citizen (citizen, mind you, not the government) suggesting how to best build a memorial to remember the most tragic event in your countries recent history.

I dunno, something along those lines seems to be the thing that memorials are made for. Well, more generally, memorials are made to help people in future generations remember the significance that something had during the time it happened, i.e. "Remember the Alamo!".


Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
[ Parent ]
Think you misread (none / 0) (#181)
by Skyshadow on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 11:55:52 PM EST

I think what the original poster is saying is that people living in other countries aren't really qualified to make suggestions as to an appropriate memorial.

I don't necessarily agree with that; some of the more elegant tributes I saw immediately after Sept. 11 were from Europe. I do understand his point of view, however -- it seems like it would be difficult to understand the unique impact this event had on the American psyche without, well, having an American psyche of your own to examine. =)

It's like the boss I had who sent out an email a few hours into the work day on 9-11, demanding that we shut off our radios, stop surfing news sites and get back to work (he was a recent Chinese immigrant). He phrased this demand very politely, and didn't understand when he was completely ignored. He couldn't understand becuase he wasn't vested in the country the way many of his employees were.

Personally, having both the pile at ground zero and the footprints of the buildings (there was still cleanup being done when I was there, but you could see the idea), I firmly believe that leaving the empty pits is the way to go. I don't think that building a soaring, magestic memorial fits this particular event. When I remember it, I remember the pit in my stomach and the feeling of helplessness. I think it's important to hold onto that and not gloss it over.

[ Parent ]

Erm... (4.00 / 1) (#188)
by rakslice on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 03:38:32 AM EST

It's getting to the point where all of my posts have a subject of "Erm..." or something similar.

Not that tentative disagreement isn't what I'm shooting for, but just that I could probably afford some more originality.  Oh, well. Anyway...

I can see how someone hating everyone from your country could be offensive to you.  And it makes sense to me to a certain extent that someone trying to assign responsibility for a terrorist attack on your country back to it would similarly offend you.  

Now, if someone suggesting a link between the attack and your country's policies or actions really offends you (over and above you just disagreeing), all I can surmise is that your patriotic see-no-evil lobe is being stretched beyond design capacities by considering those possibilities, and you should probably have it removed before it affects your judgement any further. Or maybe you're taking it a bit too personally.  Whatever. Doesn't matter.

My point is, even if I can understand why some of those comments offend you, I don't really see why a suggestion for rebuilding would offend you merely because it comes from someone who isn't from your country.  

>>It's like a US citizen (citizen, mind you, not the government) suggesting how to best build a memorial to remember the most tragic event in your countries recent history.

That puzzles me.  Not only do I not think there's anything wrong with that, I can't even figure out what you might find wrong with it.  I'm a Canadian.  And, although I think Canadians on average have a better understanding of Canada than people from other countries, it would pretty arrogant of me to suggest that we have a monopoly on that understanding, that contributions from outsiders have no value.

And I'm absolutely clueless as to why you make the distinction between citizens and governments... Why should suggestions from a government (nominally made up of citizens) be treated any differently?

[ Parent ]

WRONG. (none / 0) (#261)
by Sheepdot on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:25:43 PM EST

My point is, even if I can understand why some of those comments offend you, I don't really see why a suggestion for rebuilding would offend you merely because it comes from someone who isn't from your country.

No. You missed the point entirely. I'm talking about the fuck ups that hate the US and US policies but are giving their "two cents" as to what the memorial should look like. Who really gives a fuck what they think? I hate my government for different reasons than they a number of times. But my hatred isn't a bitterly conceived one, it's one of frustration with the issues that get debated. Whereas a lot of this anti-USian twits would go to war with the US were they given the power, I wouldn't turn on my country unless my liberties, which are fewer and fewer by the week, were in serious check.

And yes, like the anti-property rights argument goes, myself and one gun is nothing compared to an entire government, especially the US. But the point here is that I'd die for something I care about (my liberty) rather than die in some war or over some policy that two world powers didn't agree on.

I'm not a member of the military, but I am of perfect age for drafting if needs be.


[ Parent ]

I understand your feelings (none / 0) (#189)
by Cloaked User on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 03:38:47 AM EST

But there were non-US citizens in those buildings too, and I'm willing to bet that some of the US citizens were immigrants. I'd say that gives non-USians a right to discuss this, even if they do fulfil your criteria as listed.

Me, I don't care what the US decides to build, it's nothing to do with me, so I'm not about to start discussing it. I do care what we decide to build here in London (particularly as I'm against building anything at all here), but you guys can do what you want.

Incidently, comdemning the US and trying to justify the WTC attacks, then discussing what memorial should be built is nothing like what your government (at times) does. We're hardly threatening economic and/or military sanctions if we don't get our way, nor are we putting pressure on other countries to support us. We're just pointlessly, endlessly chewing over the same tired old arguments on a website.

Cheers,

Tim
--
"What the fuck do you mean 'Are you inspired to come to work'? Of course I'm not 'inspired'. It's a job for God's sake! The money's enough and the work's not so crap that I leave."
[ Parent ]

But who suggested that? (none / 0) (#197)
by drquick on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 09:26:25 AM EST

A lot of non-US comments are just saying: Get out of my face!

[ Parent ]
I am tired of all the 9/11 crap! (4.36 / 11) (#172)
by MeanGene on Thu Aug 29, 2002 at 09:22:13 PM EST

I live here, and I watched the towers go down out of my office window, and I love NYC for its radical creative karma - but this cheap whining and claims of "exclusive suffering" (tm) have got to end! Yes, about 3000 civilians died. Yes, just last year. But sticking that "sorrow" into my face every time politicians and media got nothing better to say is truly sickening. We, humans, are a blood-thirsty breed. Get over it. The city has got to rebuild on its own. If every city on this planet that was ever sacked, raped and pillaged during the Middle Ages/Ancient History was to build a memorial to the dead, there would be no space for the living.

I echo your sentiments... (none / 0) (#212)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:26:07 AM EST

...as a New Yorker myself. I also agree that humankind will exploit itself and eat its young for the rest of time (or until pharmaceutical companies manage to curb narcissism). I think the endless fascination with the WTC is really just part of the world's endless fascination with NYC -- a place that will take any loser, but is also the most selective, elitist and most accomplished city in the history of mankind.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Modest Mosque (3.62 / 8) (#184)
by medham on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:23:29 AM EST

Upon further reflection, it's clear to me that the most appropriate response to this tragedy would be the construction of a mosque near the ground-zero site.

The symbolic value would override any commercial considerations, as it would show to the world that the U.S. has learned the hard lesson of its cultural and economic imperialism, and, conversely, that it is strong enough to withstand attacks by its forced perversions of great world faiths.

A simple mosque, tribute to Allah the Unseeing, would be the best honor the dead could receive. I'll now read Auden's "The Shield of Achilles."

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Except that . . . (4.66 / 3) (#199)
by hardburn on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 09:42:49 AM EST

. . . it would show to the world that the U.S. has learned the hard lesson of its cultural and economic imperialism . . .

Except that it hasn't. I thought this had been established by now.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
Setting aside the fact... (1.50 / 4) (#216)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:32:51 AM EST

...that you are trolling, I would not endorse this proposal to put a mosque on the site of the WTC. I live across the street from a mosque in Manhattan. The people that attend services are 99% cab drivers -- a demographic that is so utterly, irrevocably deplorable, disgusting, smelly, rude, stupid, indefensibly arrogant and outrageously ungrateful (with a *very* few exceptions) that it would be an insult to build those scumbags a home-away-from-home on what most Americans view as hallowed ground. As far as I can tell, any mosque in Manhattan is nothing more than a clubhouse for mysogynistic neaderthal men with dirty beards and lice.

Now, someone will accuse me (and America writ large) of discriminating against Muslims. To them I must ask: when's the last time you rode in an NYC cab?
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

And YOU are not trolling? (3.00 / 1) (#234)
by jonr on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 12:56:17 AM EST

Riiiigghht....

[ Parent ]
My idea... (3.50 / 2) (#187)
by mikecheng on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 03:11:04 AM EST

...

A smallish park, with a few seats and a memorial constructed such that when you sit down it looks like you were looking at the towers as they stood.

Combine this with another idea to have the sun (on 9/11) completely white-out the memorial (using a cunning combination of mirrors and lenses)

my cunning plan

m



My personal opinion... (4.00 / 4) (#190)
by Zodiakos on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 04:42:09 AM EST

I think rebuilding the towers to a even taller height would show the world that we have suffered great loss, but triumphed over it to become even greater. We shouldn't dwell on the dead, but celebrate the living. At leat that's how I think the dead would feel. They would probably be upset at all of our whining and mockery of the situation.

Wasn't it enough already? (3.00 / 2) (#192)
by rapha on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 05:48:39 AM EST

History repeats until it is understood.
  'Taller, faster, farther' will come to an end.
   Eventually, and either way.

---


---
NIETS IS ONMOGELIJK!

[ Parent ]

Exactly... (none / 0) (#217)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 11:34:55 AM EST

...someday, after we rebuild a thousand times, those nutty Muslims will understand the futility of crashing into the WTC.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#201)
by DesScorp on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 10:22:59 AM EST

Despite the naysayers, I say that we should build someting that's even bigger than the twin towers. Some see that as an invitation to another aerial attack. I see it as a poke in the eye to our enemies. "Attack us....you'll never destroy us, and we'll come back bigger and more powerful than before". And as I work in the aviation sector, I can tell you I have absolutely no worry about another hijacking. Is it possible? Of course, anything is possible. But let's face it. Things have changed, and hijackings are just too difficult to set up now. And the most important thing preventing another 9/11 is not so much the airport/airline security measures, but the flying public themselves. As hard as it is to get guns on an aircraft now, they'd have to stick with some kind of blade. And folks, the social compact has changed. If a terrorist tries to keep the passengers at bay with a blade, he's going to get the shit pounded out of him. They know what's coming if they lose control of that plane. And while the government doesn't like to promote this, the fact is, all aircraft are monitored more closely now, and any that strays from course will soon have a couple of F-16's on it's wing. And the Air Force will not hesitate to shoot it down if the opinion is that the aircraft has been seized. And you know what? The public will support that decision. Build a bigger building.
Go straight to Hell; Do not pass Go, Do not collect 200 Dollars
[ Parent ]
Thats all well and good but .... (none / 0) (#224)
by smartin on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 01:05:36 PM EST

The reality of the situation is that the place is a commercial property and commercial pressures will affect what happens there. The simple fact is that that if they build a big in-your-face target. 1) no one will rent space there. 2) No one will work there ,and the kicker is 3) No one will insure it. I work in downtown Manhattan and I truely miss the WTC and hope that they rebuild something that will be beautiful and fill the void, but i think that what ever happens there is going to be a huge compromise that will make no one really happy.

[ Parent ]
RE: (3.00 / 1) (#236)
by sb-fire on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 04:00:18 AM EST

That's why you put giant turrets on the top to shoot down all and any intruders, and then you could secure the ground level by allowing search of vehicles that enter the parking underneath, but also structure it so that it could take a tremendous hit to the structure and still stay standing. By tremendous hit I mean like something that would give the Vogons a hard time to remove.

[ Parent ]
Not only that... (none / 0) (#258)
by SLTrigger on Wed Sep 04, 2002 at 06:05:25 PM EST

But wwe should hang a huge banner between them that says, in fifty foot red letters, "Bring it!"

It's only gonna get weirder, so let's get on with the show!
[ Parent ]
If they want to rebuild . . . (3.00 / 1) (#198)
by hardburn on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 09:40:34 AM EST

. . . could they please use a design that doesn't look like two giant Lego bricks? Lego bricks are fine when you have a lot of little ones, but two big ones are just unsightly.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


I know! (4.66 / 3) (#223)
by Fantastic Lad on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 12:44:34 PM EST

Why not leave a scathed section intact, build an observation deck, and then charge people a few dollars to gawk at the destruction, so you can, you know, exploit the situation for cash!

Oh. They did that already?

Nevermind.

-Fantastic Lad

Wrong (none / 0) (#233)
by dannydee on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 07:58:54 PM EST

The observation deck was FREE and always has been. Exploitive would be speaking about something you have no basic facts about, just to push your feelings about people trying to have a sense of what they can't feel by watching CNN. -- DD

[ Parent ]
Rumors. . . (none / 0) (#246)
by Fantastic Lad on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 08:38:21 PM EST

I remember being told by several people as well as reading in a couple of different news sites that there was a charge.

I am pleased to learn that I was mis-informed!

Have you visited NY?

-Fantastic Lad

[ Parent ]

It might actually become a bathtub (3.00 / 1) (#231)
by GoldenHawk on Fri Aug 30, 2002 at 06:01:43 PM EST

If you pave the bottom of the 'bathtub' how would the rain water get out?

Drainage systems by definition have to drain downward, so you'd have to pipe it all the way to lower ground than that.. which might be very far away.
-- Signatures are for losers

Memorials (none / 0) (#259)
by stpna5 on Thu Sep 05, 2002 at 05:19:54 AM EST

In general, memorial sites and their designs are fraught with disagreement and consternation. The many memorials already in Washington and New York City have only been built after many contentious, and sometimes vehement turf wars, as for example, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and plans for other memorials to veterans of other wars. Sadly the first memorial to these thousands of civilian victims of the new war both within and outside of NYC, is dismissive hand-wringing about real estate values and construction costs. Millions of Americans spent the first year after Pearl Harbor sacrificing, volunteering and dealing with rationing and shortages and the rapid shift to a war economy. Today a very much more prosperous generation's representatives in Washington have rebuilt the damaged area of the Pentagon, and have refrained from declaring war and have requested no sacrifice, or even held a hearing about 9/11 itself (unlike nearly immediate Congressional hearings after Pearl Harbor). It seems we accept thousands of civilian casualties on the soil our own families defended with their lives as just a cost of doing business. How very un-American.

A Proposal for the World Trade Center Site | 262 comments (253 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!