Perspective: long term questions

[tw]

Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt? Before answering, understand why a fire brought down the 1st two towers so quickly. Both shifts of the legenday NYFD Resuce 1 were all lost without understanding the dangers. Why? Should the WTC be rebuilt? Will we be pragmatic, emotional, or just defiant? If your think I even implied an answer, then you must re-examine your own biases.

On StarTrek, (Wrath of Khan), a starship had security encryption AND could be flown from another ship. Commerical airliners still don't even require keyed ignitions; let alone operator security codes. Previous security plans assumed hijackers were low intelligent extremists who could not operate complex controls, or who wanted to live. Assumptions made in error twice over. What is in the future for all computerized airliners that can fly and even land themselves without a human pilot? GPS - meaning that an airliner can be restricted from some airspaces no matter what the pilot tries to do. Are these ideas new to you? Then what were your news sources even 6 months ago?

While wasting big bucks and excessive time on some exotic and silly missile defense system, even the White House still has no defense from a jumbo jet even after being attacked by a helicopter (see it in Willow Grove) and a small plane. People who come from where the work gets done have been talking about basic, 'not glorious', defense systems. However politicans push a silly intercontinential missile defense system when even a working theatre defense system (Patriot) does not exist. As Undertoad has noted, Clancy defined a jumbo jet attack about 5 years ago in his best selling novel. Instead of overpriced systems, maybe politicans will now listen to those low tech air defense systems for cities? It requires listening to people who come from where the work gets done rather than people who bribe with campaign contributions.

The greatest threat to Washington - National (now Reagan) Airport puts landing planes within thousands of feet to the Capitol, Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, Supreme Court, and White House. Maybe politicans will drive out to Dulles instead of to personal parking spaces in National? Heaven forbid that politicans should inconvenience themselves. Close National Airport now. Republican extremists may be too attached to the airport's name to be so pragmatic.

Suddenly the White House says there was a threat to Air Force One. How? The sky was devoid of any plane. Any plane that kept flying would have been shot down. Also Air Force One is designed to fly significantly higher than any commerical airliner as well as refuel in mid-air. So where was this threat? Reporters doubted that one, immediately questioned those answers, and got silly answers.

On D-Day, most of the 29th Division sacrificed their bodies to stop bullets. Patriots. A few patriots on a Long Island RR train attacked an armed gunman using bodies to stop a massacre. Patriots are not people who sing to a flag. Patriots usually only have one oppurtunity in a lifetime to prove themselves. Over PA, once such patriot called his wife just before a planeload of patriots attacked the hijackers. Hopefully hijackers did not turn off the black boxes so we can learn the truth. (unfortunately those same boxes in the WTC probably never survived a fire so hot.)

If turned off, we may never know whether to present postumously the Congressional Metal of Honor to civilians who, as soldiers in a war, did what patriots do. Their action may have saved the White House. IOW dead patriotic passengers would have been piled in the aisles as they attacked hijackers in waves. Did it happen? Did they respond rather than cry tears? What you would have done?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt?

This has crossed my mind periodically over the past couple of days....

Rebuild them as they were? Absolutely not. Too much of a reminder...

Perhaps a memorial in the vein of Oklahoma City? Possible...all in due time.

[verbatim]

there are so many people to mourn and honor now. from the pilots to the passengers to the works in teh WTC. and as this has been the single biggest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, i think that eventually a lot of medals need to be handed out, a lot of graves need to be dug, and i think that 5 or 10 yrs down the road we will need a memorial for the 6,000 who died.




rebuilding the world trade centers is a must. we should stake whatever money it takes into rebuilding them to their original glory, we need not do if for the office space, we need not do it for the politicians. we need to do it to signify that the united states will pick itself up from the rubble it was and return to its original glory. we need to show our resiliance in such a way that ranks among the ways we have done it in the past. we need to rebuild them for the deceased also. i think we owe it to them and their families to restore those buildings.



and a lot of things will have to change. we will have to look at teh security of the airports and airplanes, we need to look at our military status in the world. one thing is for sure, those budget cuts in teh military and all those bases that are scheduled to close wont. not now. not ever. there will be a cry from new york city, along with other cities across the united states for retribution of wrongdoings to the usa. new yorkers are not ones easily brushed off, and when pissed off they stay that way untill they get what they want. they want revenge. they want a sense of closure to all those lives that were lost in a crime against the usa. they want to know that they have eliminated one evil in the world and can now relax and recuperate. they need time to fix their buildings temporarily, after that they and the nation needs a few weeks to mourn those lost in tragedy.


we need time. we need to figure out what went wrong. we need to strike back. we need to mourn and honor our deceased. we need to change our country, and we most importantly need to rebuild what we lost: relations with other countries, lives, and our public services. we need to finish what has been started, and what has been done against us.

[tw]

Originally posted by verbatim
...and a lot of things will have to change. we will have to look at teh security of the airports and airplanes, we need to look at our military status in the world. one thing is for sure, those budget cuts in teh military and all those bases that are scheduled to close wont. not now. not ever. ...

One reason why money to change the military from 'Cold War' mentality to 'fast response' is not available - all those useless bases that remain open - because no Senator or Congressman has the gumption to let his local base close. Do we spend money on airport security - or on maintaining numerous useless bases?

Of course neither bases nor more military would have or will protect from this current event. We still spend more money on military than the next 5 or 6(?) countries combined. Shortage of cash is really not the problem nor addresses the solution.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw
Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt? Before answering, understand why a fire brought down the 1st two towers so quickly. Both shifts of the legenday NYFD Resuce 1 were all lost without understanding the dangers. Why? Should the WTC be rebuilt? Will we be pragmatic, emotional, or just defiant? If your think I even implied an answer, then you must re-examine your own biases.

Translation: tw realizes he implied an answer, and so attempt to blame the reader for inferring one.

On StarTrek, (Wrath of Khan), a starship had security encryption AND could be flown from another ship. Commerical airliners still don't even require keyed ignitions; let alone operator security codes. Previous security plans assumed hijackers were low intelligent extremists who could not operate complex controls, or who wanted to live. Assumptions made in error twice over. What is in the future for all computerized airliners that can fly and even land themselves without a human pilot?

Star Trek = fiction.

This = reality.

And of course building in a remote-control mechanism opens as many opportunities for terrorism as it closes.

Bottom, Supreme Court, and White House. Maybe politicans will drive out to Dulles instead of to personal parking spaces in National? Heaven forbid that politicans should inconvenience themselves. Close National Airport now. Republican extremists may be too attached to the airport's name to be so pragmatic.

Closing National will make next to zero difference. They hit the Pentagon from Dulles. They hit the WTC from BOSTON. These are jets. They fly at more than 500 miles per hour. That's a mile every 8 seconds.

[BrianR]

USS Samuel B Roberts - struck a mine in Persian Gulf - rebuilt on GP

USS Cole - struck by terrorists in Yemen - being rebuilt as we speak, just because we can and we won't let the terrorists say they destroyed it.

Now, the WTC a few years ago - car bombed - fixed.

We've done it before and we'll do it again.

Prediction: The money will be found to rebuild to show the world we can.
The WTC will be back bigger and better than before. Maybe even taller than the Empire State Building this time. One thing is sure, we won't recognise the New York skyline in ten years.

Brian

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by BrianR
The WTC will be back bigger and better than before. Maybe even taller than the Empire State Building this time. One thing is sure, we won't recognise the New York skyline in ten years.

Actually Brian, the two WTC towers were over 100 feet taller than the Empire State building. The WTC towers were # 5 & 6 in the world's tallest buildings...the ESB was #7. (# 2, 3, and 4 in the US, respectively)

I could see rebuilding maybe one of them. But eventually, it would only be right to create a memorial to commemorate the lives of those who perished...something I don't personally feel would be achieved by rebuilding two 110-story towers.

[BrianR]

I stand corrected. I should know better than that.

But my point should still stand.

The memorial will be built into or nearby the new buildings. Mark my words.

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
Star Trek = fiction.

This = reality.

Of course building in a remote-control mechanism opens as many opportunities for terrorism as it closes.

Seeking logical reasoning 1) Tom Clancy flys a jumbo jet into a major American landmark = fiction.
Terrorists fly three commerical airliners into major American landmarks = reality.

Good fiction today is reality tomorrow.


Seeking logical reasoning 2) Remote control security cannot work? Oh well. Remove jailhouse security because mechanisms open as many opportunities as they close?

[tw]

Originally posted by BrianR
Prediction: The money will be found to rebuild to show the world we can.
The WTC will be back bigger and better than before. Maybe even taller than the Empire State Building this time. One thing is sure, we won't recognise the New York skyline in ten years.

But reasons provided were only emotional. The Cole, Roberts, and Stark were rebuilt for logical reasons. The ships were still functional and could be operated safely.

However I asked an important question - one that you must first answer before you can answer the queston. Why did the WTC towers collapse? They remained standing when struck. The answer to that question is pragmatic. Yes, there is some honor at stake. But honor was not the reason to refloat the Cole, Roberts, or Stark. BTW, honor or emotion was also not the reason to refloat most of those sunk Battleships in Peral Harbor.

Should the WTC be rebuilt? A question that begs a more pragmatic answer.

[jaguar]

I think the least disputed issue here is that plane security should be boosted up. Cabin doors should be bulletproof and have peepholes and pilots armed with beanbag ammo shotguns or something else non-hull piercing.

Remote flying capacity sounds like a damn good idea. Arguing that it could be used against. Well....consider the damage a takedown/over of one of the major control towers could have done, planes crashing, planes crashing into each other etc would have been absolute uncontrollable chaos. Stations on the ground are far easier to protect and re-control.

Personally I think it should be rebuilt. Bigger.

[lisa]

Originally posted by jaguar
I think the least disputed issue here is that plane security should be boosted up. Cabin doors should be bulletproof and have peepholes and pilots armed with beanbag ammo shotguns or something else non-hull piercing.

As I pilot, I have been hearing a lot of the conversation about flight security (BTW, small planes are STILL not allowed to fly -- we expect to hear from the FAA on that issue today.) and the concept of making the cockpit doors relatively impenetrable has been a point that has been brought up repeatedly.

The problem in this case, though, does not seem to be that the door was forced. It was that the pilots responded to threats of passanger's lives by opening the cabin doors. My guess is that they had NO idea that (a) the terrorists knew how to fly and (b) that they intended to use the planes as missles.

Note that, as well as it can be pieced together, the Pennsylvania plane's occupants, one they became aware (via cellphone) of the probable plans, decided to forcably attempt to retake the plane even if it meant their lives -- which it apparently did.

These men were apparently armed with nothing more than a few knives and a box that they claimed was a bomb (which it apparently was not). If the passangers and crew had ANY idea that these men were going to kill them all EVEN IF they cooperated, I don't think they would have successfully taken the plane.

The only reason they succeeded was that the passangers thought that some of them might come out of this hijacking alive and the crew probably wanted to save as many lives as possible.

From this day forward, I think we will view the passangers' lives as the secondary goal. The first will be to prevent the plane from being used as a fire-bomb missle.

[Chewbaccus]

Originally posted by tw
Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt?

Well, on the one hand, rebuilding it would be a symbol of defiance, showing the world that America goes on, that America won't be stopped. On the other, leaving it a memorial would be a subtler symbol, showing that not only do we remember our own, but that we don't forget who comes against us.

Personally, I feel we'll rebuild. Maybe not exactly the way it was (though probably), but we will build a World Trade Center, because it was a World Trade Center. DeutscheBank had offices there, as well as many other foreign financial institutions. They'll want things to run again like they did before.

What is in the future for all computerized airliners that can fly and even land themselves without a human pilot?

I feel this won't happen. You get this going, and you'll breed more sophisticated cyber-terrorism, that's if it gets past unions and other such things wanting to keep people employed as pilots. What I feel should happen is we gotta boost the strength of that door. I mean, stronger lock, stronger material for the door, and give the pilots Glock .9's or something. Some form of self-defense.

Instead of overpriced systems, maybe politicans will now listen to those low tech air defense systems for cities?

Well, don't you see, that won't happen. It's practical. It's affordable. It's not as politically disastrous.

Answeringly,

~Mike

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by tw
Why did the WTC towers collapse? They remained standing when struck. The answer to that question is pragmatic.

The towers collapsed because their load-bearing members were bathed in flaming jet fuel by militant extremists. So what? Engineers could surely design a highrise office tower to withstand that sort of punishment, but no one could afford to build one. So why bother?

Should the WTC be rebuilt? A question that begs a more pragmatic answer.

The pragmatic answer is: "Of course they'll be rebuilt." Suddenly, there's a tremendous shortage of Class A office space in lower Manhattan. The real estate market will not tolerate this disparity between supply and demand for long.

Besides... the owner of the site (the Port Authority) faces a tremendous incentive to rebuild: only ONE of the WTC towers was insured. They need the revenue that leasing office space will provide. Their risk management people (correctly and pragmatically) advised them to insure against the most PROBABLE risk, not the most DANGEROUS risk. One tower? Sure. Both towers? Inconceivable!

Expect RFP's for architectural design not less than six months after the last truckload of debris leaves the site.

[tw]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
The towers collapsed because their load-bearing members were bathed in flaming jet fuel by militant extremists. So what? Engineers could surely design a highrise office tower to withstand that sort of punishment, but no one could afford to build one. So why bother?

During destructive events, loadbearing members of smaller skyscrapers fail, that floor collapses, yet what remains is intact. But to build them higher, then load bearing members cannot withstand a collapse of just one floor. If any one floor collapses on excessively tall buildings, then entire building pancakes. However and for some unknown reason, Hubris Boy 'knows' that if any one floor of any building collapses, then it is normal for all buildings to pancake. That is normal? What about those buildings in Kobe Japan? His conclusion - buisness as usual because he 'knows' it would cost too much to build as smaller skyscrapers are constructed and because there will be a demand for real estate. He just 'knows' without a doubt.

Hubris Boy probably also does not know that most financial firms had been considering moves to NJ anyway because they did not have to be located in expensive NYC. IOW there is a shortage of class A real estate - in Jersey. Not in crowded, expensive, and now to be even more expensive NYC. NYC real estate insurance rates will increase substancially.

Before asking "Should the WTC be rebuilt?" with so much confidence, one must first learn an overabundance of details and have accurate details in support of those conclusions. IOW 'know' before you mock another with an answer. Should we build structures so tall that a collapse of any one floor results in the destruction of the entire building? Should we build buildings so tall as to take a half hour just to get out of the building? Should we build buildings so tall that firefighters cannot even effectively fight the fire? Those details must be answered before WTC is rebuilt. Is honor more important than those risks?

One dismisses the question of how a building collapses to just obtain a particular conclusion. An engineer instead would ask whether it is intelligent to build structures so tall as to be easily pancaked. Demonstrated is how different mental processes approach the problem. Hubris Boy dismisses the problem with a quick politician answer - not based upon technical knowledge and using flawed details to prove his answer. Others approach with the question only from the viewpoint of honor - which is a valid point but not sufficient to answer the question. An engineer's viewpoint takes a more detailed, wide ranging, and pragmatic approach. Is it smart to put too many marbles at risk on one table when the table is therefore too large to be stable? Remember this dirty little fact from engineers: the 1993 WTC bombing should have brought down both towers (contrary to Hubris Boy's erroneous comments on building insurance).

Many NYC financial firms have already answered that question to commercial real estate brokers. They don't want their new offices in larger, taller landmark buildings. Therefore is it smart to rebuild the WTC? Is there even a market for such real estate based upon an engineer's more pragmatic viewpoint or upon the experience and new attitude of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter?