The Cellar - View Single Post

tw · 05-28-2002, 11:57 PM

This week, Silverstein goes to trial against most of the insurance companies on his SwissRe policy over whether the WTC collapse was one event or two. Will he get $3.6 or $7.2 billion. He has already settled with two companies whose policies were more explicit on the matter. But this is the suit that determines if he has sufficient money to rebuild WTC1 and WTC2. Much will depend on how his Travelers Insurance policy is worded.

Who really is the power broker here? The one man with most influence in every critical decision making body is the Governor of NY. But decisions could be very political. It makes no sense to rebuild two towers at those height. Especially after engineers analysis before Congress and broadcast on Frontline (PBS) makes it obvious that both towers were a fire disaster waiting to happen.

Both towers were not brought down by the airplanes nor the burning fuel. Although that was the reason for fire, another serious fire would have brought down those towers. The heat necessary to create the collapse is believed to have been mostly from furnishing already on the floors. If the jets did not bring those towers down, then it was just time before another serious fire did.

WTC7 previously was believed to be the fire major building ever brought down by fire. Now we know WTC1 and WTC2 were the first.

Should WTC1 and WTC2 be rebuilt? About 70% of New Yorkers say yes. Ironic since when they were built, they were considered ugly scars on the NYC skyline. NY residents slowly grew to love what were really two towers out of place in the NYC skyline. Another architecturally ugly building was WTC7 - Silverstein's first building.

Silverstein has already started rebuilding WTC7. But debate rages on what should be in WTC1 and WTC2

Lower Manhatten is said to be desperately short of office space. But if two new towers are built to 100+ stories, then less office space would be created as compared to two 50 or 70 story towers. Emotions appear to be stronger than facts.

Already clear are ideas to unite two subway lines, the Path line to NJ, and maybe more into a massive transportation center in Lower Manhatten. That may be constructed (within 2 years) before the towers are built since those transport lines already are desperately required. Over in NJ are plans for a free standing TV tower that will be the tallest structure in the region - maybe the world - in Jersey City. Apparently demands of DTV make the Empire State Building too low. No one is betting on new WTC towers.

But this still does not answer the question of what will replace WTC1 and WTC2. People whose job it is to think logically are slowly working up a campaign to show the public how foolish it would be to construct two new 100+ story towers - as was explained here about two weeks after 11 Sept. And so decisions will be slow in coming so that emotions give way to logical thought.

05-28-2002, 11:57 PM	#1
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Future of the WTC (long) This week, Silverstein goes to trial against most of the insurance companies on his SwissRe policy over whether the WTC collapse was one event or two. Will he get $3.6 or $7.2 billion. He has already settled with two companies whose policies were more explicit on the matter. But this is the suit that determines if he has sufficient money to rebuild WTC1 and WTC2. Much will depend on how his Travelers Insurance policy is worded. Who really is the power broker here? The one man with most influence in every critical decision making body is the Governor of NY. But decisions could be very political. It makes no sense to rebuild two towers at those height. Especially after engineers analysis before Congress and broadcast on Frontline (PBS) makes it obvious that both towers were a fire disaster waiting to happen. Both towers were not brought down by the airplanes nor the burning fuel. Although that was the reason for fire, another serious fire would have brought down those towers. The heat necessary to create the collapse is believed to have been mostly from furnishing already on the floors. If the jets did not bring those towers down, then it was just time before another serious fire did. WTC7 previously was believed to be the fire major building ever brought down by fire. Now we know WTC1 and WTC2 were the first. Should WTC1 and WTC2 be rebuilt? About 70% of New Yorkers say yes. Ironic since when they were built, they were considered ugly scars on the NYC skyline. NY residents slowly grew to love what were really two towers out of place in the NYC skyline. Another architecturally ugly building was WTC7 - Silverstein's first building. Silverstein has already started rebuilding WTC7. But debate rages on what should be in WTC1 and WTC2 Lower Manhatten is said to be desperately short of office space. But if two new towers are built to 100+ stories, then less office space would be created as compared to two 50 or 70 story towers. Emotions appear to be stronger than facts. Already clear are ideas to unite two subway lines, the Path line to NJ, and maybe more into a massive transportation center in Lower Manhatten. That may be constructed (within 2 years) before the towers are built since those transport lines already are desperately required. Over in NJ are plans for a free standing TV tower that will be the tallest structure in the region - maybe the world - in Jersey City. Apparently demands of DTV make the Empire State Building too low. No one is betting on new WTC towers. But this still does not answer the question of what will replace WTC1 and WTC2. People whose job it is to think logically are slowly working up a campaign to show the public how foolish it would be to construct two new 100+ story towers - as was explained here about two weeks after 11 Sept. And so decisions will be slow in coming so that emotions give way to logical thought.