WTC replacement: Freedom Tower

[Exhaust Port]

Here's an article by CNN regarding the unveiled plans for the Freedom Tower at the site of the WTC.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/19/wtc.plan/

What do you think? I think it looks pretty darn cool!!

[stillakid]

Here's an article by CNN regarding the unveiled plans for the Freedom Tower at the site of the WTC.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/19/wtc.plan/

What do you think? I think it looks pretty darn cool!!

Does it come with anti-aircraft batteries?

[Jedi_Master_Guyute]

Does it come with anti-aircraft batteries?

I dunno, i just found this comment slightly wrong and very inappropriate. :rolleyes:

1. Think- THEN
2. Speak

[Exhaust Port]

And this thread will now be closed in.....

3

2

1

[Jedi_Master_Guyute]

lol on a side note, i do like the new design!! It'll commemorate the WTC in the manner it deserves.

[plasticfetish]

Yes stillakid, naughty, spank yourself, naughty.
-----
Interesting design. Kind of strange to see something so irregular and truncated looking amidst all of those other classic blocky buildings.

The windmill idea for the top of the building is super cool I think.

As naughty as stillakid's crack was, one thing that I do kind of notice about the building ... and I don't know if this was an intended design element, but it seems as though the large structure is almost shielded by the other buildings. It looks like they sort of rise up around it like fingers (there's five of them.) Hmm.

[JediTricks]

Well, I don't like the idea of these 2 architects being forced to collaborate, it seems too much like it's about their egos rather than the building. As for the tower itself, the name seems a wee bit over the top for my tastes, not everything has to have a mega-patriotism name slapped on it to represent something about the USA to me -- especially when it's primarily an international business complex. As for the design itself, I dunno, it doesn't really feel like New York to me, it feels like it's trying to be a part of some generic futurescape rather than the exclamation point on the NY skyline as the article claims. In that vein, it reminds me a little of San Francisco's Trans-America Pyramid twisted and with the tip cut off.


Just as a normal reader of the forums, I found Stilla's comment a little funny. As a mod, it might be in poor taste but it doesn't break any rules (that I can see, if another mod can, feel free to do yer thang).

[EricRG]

They should have designed it like Minas Morgul, gargoyles and all.

[plasticfetish]

Yeah, I agree about the name thing. This whole over use of the word "freedom" is starting to get a little mundane.


like it's trying to be a part of some generic futurescape rather than the exclamation point on the NY skyline
I kind of thought ... Fortress of Solitude the first time I looked at it.
But you know, people hated the WTC for a long time and it'll take just as long for this idea to catch on. I really liked the WTC design and was hoping that they'd rebuild something similar, but who knows ... this may be more appropriate for a new decade, century ... millennium.

[Lord Malakite]

Just as a normal reader of the forums, I found Stilla's comment a little funny. As a mod, it might be in poor taste but it doesn't break any rules (that I can see, if another mod can, feel free to do yer thang).
If you don't see anything wrong with it JT, then I don't really see a problem with it, besides the poor taste. :D

[Exhaust Port]

With the top portion being used for the wind generators I wonder how high up people will be able to get for an observation deck. It's going to be one heck of a view from the top. :D

[stillakid]

I dunno, i just found this comment slightly wrong and very inappropriate.

1. Think- THEN
2. Speak

First of all, I always do. Many of you clearly didn't before those knee-jerk reactions... :rolleyes:

Uh, why was it in "poor taste?" The FACT is these lunatics are out there RIGHT NOW and don't kid yourself into thinking that they wouldn't take another shot at destroying the project if given half a chance. Even this morning on the TODAY SHOW, the report said that anti-missile batteries had been pulled back out for many of our landmarks and other potential targets. Military flight patrols had begun as well. Besides that, if we're going to build something even BIGGER on the same spot and call it the "Freedom Tower," we might as well paint a big ol' target on the side of the building as well.

No, my commment was not in bad taste. Hate the message, but don't hate the messenger. We are not living in some kind of utopia where our worst fears aren't possible. I never said I wanted anyone to take a potshot at the new "Freedom Tower," but the chances of it happening are pretty good sometime in the next 100 years if we don't manage to put an end to this insanity.

So aside from installing parachutes in the higher floors or some other kind of escape system for building occupants, I seriously don't see what the problem would be in defending the structure from this Kamikaze threat for the new century. The only other possible solution to put an end to high-rise threats is to not build them. Instead we could construct 1000 floors of office space straight down. While our offices and people would be a lot safer, I'm not sure that the message it would send (American's hiding out in holes in the ground like some other unnamed folks) would be appropriate.

[plo koon 200]

I think that a good anti-hijacking system would be good. I'm just glad that they are finally planning something after all these years.

[Jargo]

I think it's ugly. Nice idea to shove towers back up but frankly the design seems contrived to be different but fails spectacularly and just comes off as half baked and lazy and unimaginative. Point is that if someone wants to destroy your towers they will. I personally liked the idea of a large clump of towers closely clustered so they looked like a huge mountain. Solid and imposing. big. like a huge mountain of steel and glass and marble styled surfaces rising up above the city. But that's just my taste and i have nothing to do with the thing apart from sitting in my comfy office chair and looking at that picture and thinking "christ that's ugly!". I wouldn't be clamouring to buy a postcard of that. I'd be looking for the t-shirt that said "I love NYC (apart from the weird shaped architectural carbuncle joke over there by the river)"
Architects should not be allowed to express themselves and their eos through their commisions. Maybe the building complex symbolises freedom to them but what about the rest of the world that has ties to that site in some way or other, what about the opinion of the families of the dead? Hmmmmm...

All these years? It wasn't so long ago. Feels like yesterday to me.

[The 'Xir]

I like the design! However, there are reasons why people in the rest of the world hate us so much, and this will just be another example! Bigger, better, faster isn't always better! Want to talk about poor taste, all I could think of when reading that article is like when children mock each other saying,"nah nah nah nah nah nahh, my buildings' bigger than yours is!". :p
I mean I think we should have something symbolic, while giving respect to those that lost their lives in this horrible tragedy. But does it have to become the biggest building in the world?! I mean can't we get on with our lives and show some grace and humility in the process! From the Titanic(perfect name for arrogance) to the WTC and now Freedom Tower, It just goes to show you that humans and especially Americans will never learn! :rolleyes:

[Exhaust Port]

I think that a good anti-hijacking system would be good.
Anti-Hijacking takes place at the airport and on the airplane not accomplished by mounting a SAM battery on the top of a building. With the vicinity of Manhattan to 3 large airports (Newark, La Guardia and JFK) and their traffic passing over and near all the buildings there how would any anti-aircraft system differentiate between legitimate traffic and a threat? It never could. The time required for an aircraft to depart from a planned flight path to diverting and hitting a building in NYC is seconds. What would shooting down the aicraft accomplish? Rather than hitting the intended target the plane would fall onto the nearby buildings.

Plus it's not as easy to shoot down an airliner as you would think. Here's a picture of a DHL A300 that was hit by a SAM taking off out of Baghdad. Heavily damaged but still flyable. What happens if those missles miss? Where do they land? How can a missle controller differentiate between a threat aircraft and one that is diverting due to a Air Traffic Controller error? An onboard emergency? Weather?

So crap like putting a SAM site on buildings do nothing to eliminate the threat and won't prevent someone from succeeding. Rather than hit you at full force, they'll now hit you at near full force as they now have a smoking hole in their wing. Prevention starts by improving airport security and continuing to increase onboard security. Bulletproof/bomb resistant cockpit doors, Federal Air Marshalls and the arming of pilots are all perfect examples of stopping something like 9/11 happening again.

Improved defense does not come from increased offense.

[The 'Xir]

Actually I always wanted the new buildings to be exactly like the old trade centers in the same spots even, but have the floors stop where the planes struck each tower respectively 70something in the south tower and 90 something in the north! Then continue each tower up to it's original height with just the steel skeleton and maybe clear glass to enclose some of the structure to house memorials for those that lost their lives, possibly with all 2700+ peoples names painted on the steel! Then if they need to provide more office space for that which was lost they could raise the hegiht of the 3 or 4 other buildings that were lost!

[The Overlord Returns]

It's definitely not one of Libeskinds best designs...it's rather f'ugly...

And as for the name, let's just say I'm dissapointed, but not surprised.

[The 'Xir]

and the arming of pilots are all perfect examples of stopping something like 9/11 happening again.

Actually I've never liked this Idea, Ok say we arm pilots, then because **** happens the pilots are over taken by terrorists somehow, hay it's life it could happen even with reinforced cockpit doors it can happen, so think of what you've done, you've just put weapons if not MORE weapons into the hands of the people you were trying to stop to begin with! This is not a smart Idea! Same could be said for the Air Marshalls, but unfortunately I think we do need them there so it's a no win situation, because **** happens and the Marshalls could be overtaken just as easily as the piolts! I dont know! :frus:

[plasticfetish]

Actually I've never liked this Idea, Ok say we arm pilots, then because **** happens the pilots are over taken by terrorists somehow...
Yep, but I think the main idea is to give the pilots a better chance to protect themselves from the "bad guys" and to prevent someone from gaining control over the most dangerous weapon, the airplane. Frankly, it doesn't matter how many guns are up there (or not), if the wrong person is flying the plane, then it's all over. Pilots should have been armed all along I think. If we can trust them to fly a jet full of passengers, then I think we can trust them to wear a side arm.

[stillakid]

I think it's ugly. Nice idea to shove towers back up but frankly the design seems contrived to be different but fails spectacularly and just comes off as half baked and lazy and unimaginative.

I'm more or less with you. On a lesser scale, the city just leveled and rebuilt a lot of the libraries in the area. The one in our city is just plain ugly. Yet I'm sure some fruity architect is patting himself on the back somewhere for being modern and innovative. What's worse is that they spent so much on the building that they don't have enough money to stock it full of books. That's putting the cart before the horse for ya.

I always liked the "leave the space alone" concept and shoot up those Xenon lights to represent the missing buildings. Sure, that doesn't replace the office space, but it looks great, it is nearly impossible to destroy (for the terrorists), and it contains just about all the symbolism we could muster without coming off with that "my building is bigger than yours" mentality.

As far as the building mounted security goes, no, it would not necessarily prevent some damage from happening somewhere. But it would be like everything else...a deterrent. Look, if their goal is to ram a building and take it down, with the threat of being blown out of the sky before achieving the goal, then it would make them think twice before going for that target. Yes, there would be other damage from the pieces hitting the ground and such, but their main goal would not be accomplished. Either way, a highjacker is going to cause destruction, but if we get to thwart their plans, then we win that specific battle, albeit with some unavoidable damage. Unfortunately, until these religious extremists are exterminated from the planet, these scenario's are inevitable.

[LTBasker]

But something like that is just asking for trouble. Who says they would go after it with a plane? Maybe they'll get a bunch of C4 and AK's then storm the building to get to the gunnery spots. Obviously if nothing happens for years and years, politicians will see it as funding specialty personnel for nothing and start cutbacks. Thus allowing the chance of it to happen.

Obviously arming pilots isn't going to do the job either, what they need ARE reinforced cockpits. Think about it, if they can go into a lockdown of the cockpit thus making it to where terrorists can't even blow the door off, then how are they gonna take control of the pilots? True they can use passengers as hostages, but what they're gonna use the plane for will cause more and more lives to be taken, it's more worth the risk. It's not different than shooting down the plane, except they can't kill everybody on board and get away clean if the pilots still have control of the plane and can land at an airport then be surrounded by feds. If the plane HAS to be shot down, then the pilots can then at least fly it into a safe zone where the wreckage wouldn't harm nearby innocents.

There is no truly invulnerable armor in the world you could use for the cockpit obviously, but alot of armor which would require more than they could probably conviently sneak onto an aircraft. If they harm the aircraft trying to get a door open, then the plane is useless. If they harm the pilot equipment, the plane is useless. So obviously the best idea to have a lockdown precedure around the cockpit thus making it to where terrorists can't gain control of the piloting equipment, and they will be killed by themselves (suicide bombs) or arrested. Either way it stops the aircraft being used as a weapon.

Now that that's over with. :) About the actual building:

It's not bad, alot better than some of the other entries. But I don't think it needs to be so detailed either. A building isn't something you're gonna put in your living room to display, and probably costs more money with so many details. Also the freedom name, I agree too overused. With the way the building looks, they may as well call it WTF. Does this mean if we're buddy-buddy with France ever again, we'll call it French Tower? ;)

[stillakid]

There is no truly invulnerable armor in the world you could use for the cockpit obviously, but alot of armor which would require more than they could probably conviently sneak onto an aircraft. If they harm the aircraft trying to get a door open, then the plane is useless. If they harm the pilot equipment, the plane is useless. So obviously the best idea to have a lockdown precedure around the cockpit thus making it to where terrorists can't gain control of the piloting equipment, and they will be killed by themselves (suicide bombs) or arrested. Either way it stops the aircraft being used as a weapon.

I actually have an idea for a brand new type of passenger aircraft design which would alleviate this potential problem by nearly 100%. In addition, it could also streamline the entire turnaround process at airports as well. Unfortunately, it would be deemed as too expensive a cost most likely. I think we'd have to see millions of people die before a complete overhaul like this was to be forced upon the industry.

Essentially the idea is that the passenger compartment is separate from the cockpit and winged sections of the craft. In the event of any catastrophic malfunction or a takeover, the passenger compartment could be jetisoned away safely and float down with enormous parachutes. The rest of the aircraft essentially becomes unflyable. Depending upon the design, the pilots could either abandon ship (plane) via the heavy accessway between the two pieces or, in the event of a design that keeps the two sections independent of one another, the pilots could bail out of the cockpit as if they were in a jet fighter. Either way, the aircraft becomes useless as a weapon. Of course, the danger is transferred to whatever sits below the falling debris and passenger compartment, but hopefully, some safeguards could be put into place for that at well.

[Exhaust Port]

Actually I've never liked this Idea, Ok say we arm pilots, then because **** happens the pilots are over taken by terrorists somehow, hay it's life it could happen even with reinforced cockpit doors it can happen, so think of what you've done, you've just put weapons if not MORE weapons into the hands of the people you were trying to stop to begin with.
First, this is a last line of defense here. Imagine trying to get someone out of their drivers seat in their car while they have a gun trained on you. Good luck. Not that it would ever happen but how can putting a gun in a hijackers hands AFTER they've taken the plane a concern? Remember, they are after the airplane and the only way they are going to get a gun is to kill the pilots.

Also arguing to keep guns out of the pilots hands so to avoid arming the hijackers is like keeping guns out of the hands of the police to avoid criminals from taking them and using it against someone. The pilots with guns are trained to use them. It's not like they just decide one day to start packing heat to work.

[Exhaust Port]

If we can trust them to fly a jet full of passengers, then I think we can trust them to wear a side arm.
You hit the nail on the head plasticfetish.


Obviously arming pilots isn't going to do the job either, what they need ARE reinforced cockpits.
All commercial jet aircraft in the US do have reinforced doors. They are bulletproof and bomb resistant. I can't remember the exact distance but they have to be able to withstand a grenade from only a few feet. It's often joked that in the worse accidents that the only piece left will be that door.

There are procedures in place that make that door and cockpit locked down tight. The problem arises that the door isn't always closed as pilots have to use the can or eat. That is were a gun is the biggest deterant.


Maybe they'll get a bunch of C4 and AK's then storm the building to get to the gunnery spots.
Can you imagine? Sitting up on top of the tallest building in the world with a SAM battery in the some of the busiest airspace in the world. Now there is something that should never be allowed to happen.

[JediTricks]

Bigger, better, faster isn't always better! ...well, um... "better" is. ;)


To those of the "If we can trust them to fly a jet full of passengers, I think we can trust them to wear a sidearm" school of thought, here's my take: we trust the people that drive the buses to get our kids to school, but I don't see a lot of parents standing up and suggesting we trust these drivers to wear a gun while doing it. Let the pilots worry about flying the plane, not about being air-cowboys. Keep the door secured, don't let strangers fly in the jump seat, that's all we should need. If getting in and out of the cockpit for food and bathroom breaks is so important, have a second door, if it's good enough for our financial institutions, it should be good enough for our airliners.

And anybody stupid enough to take hostages after September 11th is likely to be killed by the passengers anyway, although now the passengers are no longer armed with their unwieldy razor-sharp nail clippers so they might have to resort to breaking plastic spoons and using the pointy ends for defense. :rolleyes:

[2-1B]

Good point JT, if I'm a passenger on a plane and it gets highjacked, I'm immediately going to go balls out and either kill the highjacker or die trying because if I and the others don't do anything, we're all dead for sure. And I surely am not going to sit back while many, many others are killed on the ground or in a building. :(

I also agree on the name selection, I think it's lame. :rolleyes:

I was not offended by stillakid's comment back on page one. I'm not sure I agree that they need anti-aircraft on the tower but I surely did not interpret his post as making light of the WTC attack.

[Exhaust Port]

we trust the people that drive the buses to get our kids to school, but I don't see a lot of parents standing up and suggesting we trust these drivers to wear a gun while doing it.
I think the level of professionalism and training is a lot higher for pilots than school bus drivers. I might trust them to drive my kid to school but that's about the extent of it. They drive the same bus, on the same preplanned route, with the same kids and make the same stops everyday. Dealing with the abnormal is not in their capability. Pilots on the other hand have years of training and experience to deal with the unexpected.


Let the pilots worry about flying the plane, not about being air-cowboys.
This argument is made in nearly every discussion of this topic and not once is it made by a pilot. Nothing personal but we are quite capable of flying an airplane and dealing with other situations or emergencies. Perhaps we should stop eating our lunch on these long flights so we can worry about flying the airplane? I'm quite comfortable ignoring the flying of an airplane for a few minutes to deal with an intruder. Remember, any instance where we'd use a gun the assailant is entering the cockpit. With or without a gun we're going to have to deal with him and (god forbid) stop flying the airplane. A trained pilot with a gun would end that situation quickly. Without it we're left to defend ourselves and maintain control of the airplane with nothing more than harsh words. Do you feel comfortable knowing that the best we can hope for is to poke an eye out with our pens?

Pilots have spoken and we are capable of carrying a gun as well as the responsibility that goes along with it. I find uneducated claims or demands in some cases insulting to the profession and an embarrassment among the general population. Trying walking at least one mile in the shoes before making such statements. I wouldn't do the same of say...a doctor.


If getting in and out of the cockpit for food and bathroom breaks is so important, have a second door, if it's good enough for our financial institutions, it should be good enough for our airliners.
The reason you'll never see this is money. Passengers will never stand to pay more per ticket to cover the cost of not only installing such things but to account for the loss of revenue generating passenger seats on each plane. People are quick to make demands of increased security but when the bill comes they balk and decide they are willing to do without some of it. Why was the security so lacks pre-9/11?? Over the years passengers wanted cheaper and cheaper tickets so costs were cut every where including the amount of security and its quality at the airports. Even now, as you stand in the security line people ***** and moan about it forgetting about it's purpose (and that purpose isn't good PR, its safety). Passengers complained just as much when security fees were being added to tickets post-9/11. "I can't fly across the country for $250!!! It's going to cost me $275?!?!?"

Such doors would probably add $100 per ticket at least depending on the size of the aircraft. Would you rather have to pay that to have a goofy door system for 2 people in the cockpit or see no cost increase and let the pilots carry guns?

[stillakid]

Even now, as you stand in the security line people ***** and moan about it forgetting about it's purpose (and that purpose isn't good PR, its safety).


Really? I entirely disagree. While it might be a small deterrent on some scale, I fail to see how the random spot check of a white woman trying to get through the arduous check in process with 3 kids and a stroller is anything more than wasteful politically correct security. The day they start profiling in these lines and stop having normal moms and elderly folks take off their shoes and submit to ridiculous wand waving that ALWAYS turns up nothing more than a belt-buckle or metal shoe supports is the day I'll agree with you on that one. Fact is, most of the added security in this country is useless theater. It is designed not to really catch the bad guys, but to give the population the sense of security. If a bad guy in this day and age wants to get on an airplane or blow up a building, he's going to do it. Why? Because Mr. TSA is too busy patting down grandma and running her walker through the xray machine while Osama Bin Bad Guy is cruising down the walkway because our security personnel aren't allowed to racially profile passengers.

I don't want more security. I'd prefer quality over useless quantity. A million monkeys in a room has less chance of thwarting a crime than one well trained and enabled security guard.

With that in mind, I agree with Caesar, as do most American's now I think. Never again will highjackers get the opportunity to fly for more than a few miles before the passengers try to beat the living crap out of them. It just isn't going to happen again here.

I'm also curious about this threat of international planes that we've heard about this week. What makes any one of them think that they'd get close to the mainland before getting shot down into the deep blue sea? :confused: So I guess none of our buildings or landmarks really need anti-aircraft batteries. Even when our circus security measures allow a highjacker onto another plane, the passengers will see to it that he doesn't see the light of day.

[Exhaust Port]

...I fail to see how the random spot check of a white woman trying to get through the arduous check in process with 3 kids and a stroller is anything more than wasteful politically correct security.
Nothing is random anymore, those checks have been pulled. Now everything is the same for every passenger/pilot that goes through the line. They treat every passenger as a possible risk no matter the age which is how it should be. Why should grandma be given slack? If I wanted to get something past security wouldn't I choose the most innocent person I could to do so? The days of favors are over.


The day they start profiling in these lines and stop having normal moms and elderly folks take off their shoes and submit to ridiculous wand waving that ALWAYS turns up nothing more than a belt-buckle or metal shoe supports is the day I'll agree with you on that one.
I agree that profiling would do wonders to stop future threats but thanks to our PC world that will never happen. It's like telling the French to stop assuming every German coming over their border was out to get them, it would only be fair if they shot 1 Belgian for every German so it didn't look like they were singling anyone out.

But on the flipside my specifying your resources to select out of a crowd certain groups then you degrade your ability to search the other 95%. In the rush to no tick off the "safe" general public they glance over grandma in her wheelchair as she carries her portable oxygen bottle. Little did they know what she had in that bottle or tucked away in the frame of her wheelchair.



Never again will highjackers get the opportunity to fly for more than a few miles before the passengers try to beat the living crap out of them. It just isn't going to happen again here.
That breeds complacency. It can't happen again because the passengers will step up so don't worry? Remember the rash of highjackings in the 80's? In fact I just finished some recurrent training this last weekend where we watched a video about the attempted highjacking/hostile takeover of an Alaskian Airlines 737 in the early part of 2001. No one stepped up to stop the maniac until it was almost too late. You know none of the passengers were ultimately concerned as hijacking hadn't been a threat to this nation in almost 15 years. It was when the pilots pleaded for assistance that a few passengers jumped in to help.

Why were the hijackers able to take over 4 (FOUR) aircraft on 9/11 to only have one of them be successfully stopped by the passengers/crew? Passengers aren't a threat to trained hijacking team. You don't think that they'd account for that in any future plans? All you are to them are a bunch of unarmed, untrained people. What was it back in the middle ages? One trained knight could take on something like 30-40 peasants easily at a time.

I'm not saying that passengers wouldn't be able to stop a threat but eventually passengers will forget the implications of 9/11 over time. Plus hijackers will train against such a threat and an organized threat will almost always win over an unorganized defense.

This is no longer a game so we have to stop *****footing around the issue. Blast proof doors and guns up front to stop anyone from getting in or living if they do so the aircraft stays in pilot control, plain and simple. The men that deliver the bags of coins to and from the bank are better armed and protected after a few weeks of training and that is only money. Perhaps passengers should start seeing their lives with the same worth.

[LTBasker]

The men that deliver the bags of coins to and from the bank are better armed and protected after a few weeks of training and that is only money. Perhaps passengers should start seeing their lives with the same worth.

Very good point, they usually have personal pistols and a shotgun at most. As long as pilots go through training to be certified, which shouldn't be much considering just anyone could get basic pistol training. You just wanna watch out for those with weird personalities that could just end up going :rambo:

Maybe we should come up with fembots and make them stewardesses. :D

[Exhaust Port]

Air France just cancelled 3 flights to LA as a result of intelligance that pointed to a flight being hijacked enroute.

Perhaps its time that all US carriers have security measures similar to Israel's El Al Airline. They have armed guards on every flight as well as armed pilots from what I've been told. They go through each passenger with their own security. Thorough security sweeps are performed around and through every aircraft. I've even seen security vehicles meet the aircraft out on the taxiways and follow it to the gate as well as on its way back out to the runway. It's a lot but they've never had any problems.

Where will the general public draw the line between safety and cost. Sadly, it'll be closer to cost savings than safety. Look how many people can't even bring themselves to wear their seatbelts in a car.

[stillakid]

Nothing is random anymore, those checks have been pulled. Now everything is the same for every passenger/pilot that goes through the line. They treat every passenger as a possible risk no matter the age which is how it should be. Why should grandma be given slack? If I wanted to get something past security wouldn't I choose the most innocent person I could to do so? The days of favors are over.

Really? Let the TSA folks at Burbank Airport in on that secret. As far as "choosing" who goes on board with a bomb, gimme a break. It doesn't work that way. Islamic Terrorists don't pick suicidal volunteers from the general US populace. They pluck young impressionable kids from their impoverished lives and brainwash them into believing that killing Americans is for the greater good of Allah. Grandma Smith from nowhere Minnesota isn't likely to ever be an agent of Islamic evil whether the lunatics would like to have her face of innocence on their side or not.



But on the flipside my specifying your resources to select out of a crowd certain groups then you degrade your ability to search the other 95%. In the rush to no tick off the "safe" general public they glance over grandma in her wheelchair as she carries her portable oxygen bottle. Little did they know what she had in that bottle or tucked away in the frame of her wheelchair.

I'm not saying that you don't check for things like that at all, but wasting resources to pat the ol' lady down for explosives and weapons is nothing but theater.




That breeds complacency. It can't happen again because the passengers will step up so don't worry? Remember the rash of highjackings in the 80's? In fact I just finished some recurrent training this last weekend where we watched a video about the attempted highjacking/hostile takeover of an Alaskian Airlines 737 in the early part of 2001. No one stepped up to stop the maniac until it was almost too late. You know none of the passengers were ultimately concerned as hijacking hadn't been a threat to this nation in almost 15 years. It was when the pilots pleaded for assistance that a few passengers jumped in to help.

Why were the hijackers able to take over 4 (FOUR) aircraft on 9/11 to only have one of them be successfully stopped by the passengers/crew? Passengers aren't a threat to trained hijacking team. You don't think that they'd account for that in any future plans? All you are to them are a bunch of unarmed, untrained people. What was it back in the middle ages? One trained knight could take on something like 30-40 peasants easily at a time.
The reason that passengers didn't step up to thwart highjackers pre-9/11 is because no one had ever used an airliner as a missile before. Highjackings always meant that your flight was being diverted to some god-forsaken third world country. The 9/11 folks opened up Pandora's Box wherein the assumption from now on will always be that whoever has taken over the plane has a deathwish. Passengers will do whatever they can to appease said highjacker with the intention that only the highjacker goes to visit Allah for a good swift kick in the pants while leaving the rest of the aircraft intact.

[2-1B]

Exhaust Port, you're a pilot so I want your opinion on this, and if I'm wrong with some of the facts, please clear that up for me.

During the 9/11/2001 highjackings, it's my understanding that the terrorists used their box cutters to slash the throats of flight attendants in effort to gain access to the cockpit so they could pilot the plane(s). If this happened, what could the pilots have done? True, with guns they could open the doors and take out the terrorists. But they didn't have guns, so what should they have done? Im not clear on everything that happened so fill me in please. I am not second guessing any actions they took, not at all. I'm asking from hindsight and I'm pretty sure the pilots only knew there was an uprising in the cabin. I'm sure they didn't know what the intentions were of the terrorists. But let's say it happens again and our pilots are tucked away in the cockpit while some maniac is murdering people outside the door. What should they do?

I don't really know you at all, but I'm pretty sure you would want to do everything you could to save a person being threatened. But should it be done at the risk of losing the plan? Should the crew and passengers be sacrificed so long as the pilots have a chance to land the plane ASAP?

It's a touchy subject because people really did die this way and it's horrible. So I ask with the utmost respect. I'm just curious as to your thoughts since you are part of the industry. :(

Personally, I don't have a solid opinion on whether pilots should be armed.

[Exhaust Port]

If this happened, what could the pilots have done? True, with guns they could open the doors and take out the terrorists. But they didn't have guns, so what should they have done?
The cockpit doors back then were nothing more strong than a particle board sheet. A swift kick and you're in. Pilots complained for years but no one listened and look where that got us. Once someone is in the cockpit the pilots are sitting ducks. You're strapped in and facing away from the attacker. The only real weapon would be the crash axe which isn't in a place that is quickly accessable and even if you had it available you would be hard pressed to swing it since the quarters are so tight.

There really isn't much that could have been done by them. They were good as dead (I hate to say that) being strapped in to their chairs.


But let's say it happens again and our pilots are tucked away in the cockpit while some maniac is murdering people outside the door. What should they do?
The procedure now is that door is opened for no reason. No matter the noise or pleads from the other side (as hard as that would be) the door stays closed to keep that line of defense sealed. Protection of the cockpit is primary. Guns are only used if that last line of defense, the door, is breached somehow. No armed pilot will exit the cockpit to attempt to subdue an assault in the back, armed or not.


I don't really know you at all, but I'm pretty sure you would want to do everything you could to save a person being threatened. But should it be done at the risk of losing the plan? Should the crew and passengers be sacrificed so long as the pilots have a chance to land the plane ASAP?
Due to the violent nature of hijackings, maintaining control of the aircaft is priority #1. As selfish as it might seem, all the pilots are concerned about is maintaining that control long enough to get the aircraft on the ground, disabling it and evacuating the flight deck. Leave the attackers with pilotless, non-moveable aircraft on the remote section of an airport. How pilots are taught to do that isn't for a public forum.


Personally, I don't have a solid opinion on whether pilots should be armed.
To be honest, a lot of pilots are struggling with that question too. It's a very personal, moral decision. Not only is someone capable of handling the responsibility to carry such a weapon but can they use it. It took me quite a lot of soul searching to reach my decision and perhaps that will change over time as the industry evolves.

It's important to realize that a gun is the absolute last line of defense and is an absolute as well. No one's coming out with guns blazing, believe me. At the first sign of any trouble pilots will have that aircraft on the ground before you even know it. In addition to pilots we also have thousands of professional air traffic controllers who are just as vigilant to the terrorist threat. The system from the first baggage screener you see to the controllers sitting in dark room hundreds of miles away that you don't see are constantly evolving in their job to handle this new world we operate in.

I watched a presentation given by one of the lead supervisors at Cleveland Center (the controllers than handle all the space between airports) a few months after 9/11. These guys were the ones that were handling the United flight that eventually went down into Somerset County, PA. He shared everything from the Air Traffic Control transmissions to a movie showing the movement of all the aircraft that day from 7:00 am to 11:00. It was very moving. This guy painted a picture of the events that he watched unfold that day that I couldn't even begin to discribe here. It was incredible. I came away with a new appriciation for the role they play in the industry.

It's a new world and priorities have changed. It might be tough to explain that without experiencing the consequencies of not implementing anything. Everything you see has a purpose and nitpicking some annoying details does nothing to aid the cause only create friction. Things are improving but people have just got to learn to roll with the punches. No one's going to die as a result of being overly cautious but making assumptions and perhaps rushing to change things back could prove to be our downfall.

[stillakid]

Due to the violent nature of hijackings, maintaining control of the aircaft is priority #1. As selfish as it might seem, all the pilots are concerned about is maintaining that control long enough to get the aircraft on the ground, disabling it and evacuating the flight deck. Leave the attackers with pilotless, non-moveable aircraft on the remote section of an airport. How pilots are taught to do that isn't for a public forum.



Not that this is an answer to the unspoken, but I do recall reading awhile back that when the interstate system was being built, part of the plan was to have stretches of straight and level road for emergency landings and such. I'm sure that a highjacking wasn't part of that thought process at the time, but it only makes sense that in dire straights, because of the foresight of those in charge of constructing our national transportation interstates, a pilot now doesn't have to wait as long to put the craft down on the ground.

[2-1B]

Thanks for the post Exhaust Port, and I disagree that it might seem selfish that the pilots have the number one priority of landing those planes.

If I'm ever on a highjacked plane and am being used for leverage to try to get a pilot to open the cockpit, I surely don't want him or her trying to save my life. It's too big a risk, my single life is not worth all those other passengers and countless people on the ground.

Yet, as much as I can write off my own life for the sake of thousands, I personally would have a VERY hard time focusing on the priority of landing the plane while others are being murdered. This is a case where the greater good truly has to be considered but I certainly don't think it would be easy for pilots to have to do. :(

[scruffziller]

First of all, I always do. Many of you clearly didn't before those knee-jerk reactions... :rolleyes:

Uh, why was it in "poor taste?" The FACT is these lunatics are out there RIGHT NOW and don't kid yourself into thinking that they wouldn't take another shot at destroying the project if given half a chance. Even this morning on the TODAY SHOW, the report said that anti-missile batteries had been pulled back out for many of our landmarks and other potential targets. Military flight patrols had begun as well. Besides that, if we're going to build something even BIGGER on the same spot and call it the "Freedom Tower," we might as well paint a big ol' target on the side of the building as well.

No, my commment was not in bad taste. Hate the message, but don't hate the messenger. We are not living in some kind of utopia where our worst fears aren't possible. I never said I wanted anyone to take a potshot at the new "Freedom Tower," but the chances of it happening are pretty good sometime in the next 100 years if we don't manage to put an end to this insanity.

So aside from installing parachutes in the higher floors or some other kind of escape system for building occupants, I seriously don't see what the problem would be in defending the structure from this Kamikaze threat for the new century. The only other possible solution to put an end to high-rise threats is to not build them. Instead we could construct 1000 floors of office space straight down. While our offices and people would be a lot safer, I'm not sure that the message it would send (American's hiding out in holes in the ground like some other unnamed folks) would be appropriate.Poor taste?..........mmmmmmm perhaps........:ermm:
The Hard Truth...........Absolutely......:rambo:

[Exhaust Port]

Not that this is an answer to the unspoken, but I do recall reading awhile back that when the interstate system was being built, part of the plan was to have stretches of straight and level road for emergency landings and such. I'm sure that a highjacking wasn't part of that thought process at the time, but it only makes sense that in dire straights, because of the foresight of those in charge of constructing our national transportation interstates, a pilot now doesn't have to wait as long to put the craft down on the ground.
Someone recently was telling me about this and the plan had a name that I can't think of. Supposedly there had to be at least 1 mile of straight road for every X miles built for emergency airplane landings. I wish I knew more. The plan was adopted a long time ago so even if it was adhered to today the benefit would be minimal as most large aircaft, especially those in an emergency, can eat through a mile of asphalt pretty easily.

I remember hearing that it had been done in Germany as well prior to WWII. Under the guidance of Hitler the Autobahn roadway system was started and they had large stretches of roads going into and out of large cities. I recall seeing that on the drive into Berlin. The road was 5-6 lanes wide on both sides, east bound and west bound, and in addition the 100+ foot median between them was paved. It was 10 or more miles long and forever wide. Very interesting.

[JediTricks]

To everybody participating in this thread, we've gone too far off course from the original topic, so we either need to get back to the subject at hand or risk losing the thread.


EP, originally I had a response to what you said, but as a mod I realized that another response from me on the issue will only push this thread further off-course, so I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on the matter.

[stillakid]

To everybody participating in this thread, we've gone too far off course from the original topic, so we either need to get back to the subject at hand or risk losing the thread.


EP, originally I had a response to what you said, but as a mod I realized that another response from me on the issue will only push this thread further off-course, so I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on the matter.


TOWERS what's wrong with TOWERS letting a discussion TOWERS take a natural course TOWERS instead of just letting TOWERS a lesser topic TOWERS die TOWERS? TOWERS stupid TOWERS. TOWERS oh well TOWERS.

[JediTricks]

TOWERS what's wrong with TOWERS letting a discussion TOWERS take a natural course TOWERS instead of just letting TOWERS a lesser topic TOWERS die TOWERS? TOWERS stupid TOWERS. TOWERS oh well TOWERS.You can start other threads on those topics, but it's unfair to those who see this thread's original intention and only want to discuss that topic. If it dies out, so be it, but it is far easier for anybody in this thread who wants to further discuss that topic to start a new thread than it is for a regular poster to bring this thread back to its intended, original topic.

I also don't see the need for the rude sarcasm, if you have a reasonable point about forums policy, make it in the proper forum (which this actually isn't) but don't expect the staff here to take it that seriously when the message is delivered in this manner.

[stillakid]

You can start other threads on those topics, but it's unfair to those who see this thread's original intention and only want to discuss that topic. If it dies out, so be it, but it is far easier for anybody in this thread who wants to further discuss that topic to start a new thread than it is for a regular poster to bring this thread back to its intended, original topic.

I also don't see the need for the rude sarcasm, if you have a reasonable point about forums policy, make it in the proper forum (which this actually isn't) but don't expect the staff here to take it that seriously when the message is delivered in this manner.

You're right. Sorry bout that. But what is the topic of this thread? The towers? The design of the towers? The reason behind the towers? The ramifications of the towers? It seems to me that it is all open for discussion yet you've set up some invisible parameters that nobody is privy to except management. I mean, we could talk about the internal structure and how many bathrooms it will have all day long, but if that's going to be the case, then maybe it should be stated up front instead of tossing out vague threats later on when the discussion wanders into other more interesting aspects of the topic. No?

[The 'Xir]

...well, um... "better" is. ;)

Hey JT? Ever had a product you like, come out with a "Better" version of itself aka bigger, chesseier, more butter, more chocolate, more peanut butterier, And have it NOT be Better than what you were used to! SO no Better isn't always better, just marketing and propaganda BS to make you think you are getting something better! :greedy:


Frankly, it doesn't matter how many guns are up there (or not), if the wrong person is flying the plane, then it's all over. Pilots should have been armed all along I think. If we can trust them to fly a jet full of passengers, then I think we can trust them to wear a side arm.

The first part of your above statement is right, the second is not(in my opinion) proving my point that no we should not give pilots sidearms, because of this scenario:
AL Queda and groups like them are so bent on destroying our government, that they will go to the ends of the Earth as to achieve their objective! So Can't you see them putting one of their new recruits that has a clean background(like many of them start off with) and no real ties to any one organization up for a mission, where over time they do everything right to become a pilot, going through flight school, and registering their gun permits legally, and possibly even logging some flight time before the command comes down to do their duty for Allah. Come on! You've heard hundreds of stories on the news where someone(even with no hidden agenda) just goes nuts and you always see their next door neighbors on the news going on about how they were the nicest people and they'd never expected that they could do such a thing! So why couldn't a budding terrorist be patient enough over say 6 to 10 years to get his liscence and everything else, and because we arm are pilots, right after take off this idiot turns around and shoots his co-pilots and everyone in the Secured cockpit(so even the air marshalls can't get in!!!) and guess what you have... Sept 11th all over again!!!
once again THIS IS A BAD IDEA!!! NO GUNS IN THE AIR PERIOD!
In this same example if a terrorist were to do this but without pilots being armed atleast this would give the copilots a fighting chance to wrestle for control of the plane!

[stillakid]

At the risk of this being too far off topic (but I'll bring it back to the towers...I promise), maybe instead of guns on the plane the pilots instead have the button to put the passengers to sleep with a light gas (like at the dentist's office). That way, in case lunatics take over the cabin, the pilots can subdue everybody and fly in relative peace until they get to the ground where fully trained and armed personnel are in a better position to deal with the immature thugs. (Look, I trust the pilots and all, but it's not their primary job to be a soldier or police officer...I'd much prefer they concentrate on flying the plane while other people whose purpose in life it is to stop terrorists do the job). True, they might have gas masks or something, but it's doubtful they'd get them through security in the first place. What about the airflow system you say? Well, maybe so, but if they relied on that to keep them lucid, than it would limit the amount of misbehaving they could do. Anyhow, obviously the first line of defense is to keep these jerkoffs off the planes in the first place so that we don't have to worry about defending our tallest buildings (see! :) ) like the Freedom Tower.

[Exhaust Port]

AL Queda and groups like them are so bent on destroying our government, that they will go to the ends of the Earth as to achieve their objective! So Can't you see them putting one of their new recruits that has a clean background(like many of them start off with) and no real ties to any one organization up for a mission, where over time they do everything right to become a pilot, going through flight school, and registering their gun permits legally, and possibly even logging some flight time before the command comes down to do their duty for Allah. Come on! You've heard hundreds of stories on the news where someone(even with no hidden agenda) just goes nuts and you always see their next door neighbors on the news going on about how they were the nicest people and they'd never expected that they could do such a thing! So why couldn't a budding terrorist be patient enough over say 6 to 10 years to get his liscence and everything else, and because we arm are pilots, right after take off this idiot turns around and shoots his co-pilots and everyone in the Secured cockpit(so even the air marshalls can't get in!!!) and guess what you have... Sept 11th all over again!!!
once again THIS IS A BAD IDEA!!! NO GUNS IN THE AIR PERIOD!
In this same example if a terrorist were to do this but without pilots being armed atleast this would give the copilots a fighting chance to wrestle for control of the plane!
Oh please, stop with the "worse case senerio" junk. It ain't gonna happen. There's a freakin' crash axe up there. Don't give pilots guns because a terrorist could shoot the other pilot? Why not just use the axe that has been in there for 50+ years? Why not just fly the airplane into the ground when the other pilot is using the can? Or just lock him out?

Couldn't a terrorist just because a Federal Air Marshall where the entry requirements are lower time wise as well as requirement wise. He's just sitting in the back with a few of his "Federal Air Marshall" buddies with guns? Spend 10 years to get to the point where they could be an armed pilot? That's a bit far-fetched, sounds more like a James Bond movie plot. I can't even tell you the amount of Federal and other background checks that a pilot will go through in his career. Guns aren't going to cause another 9/11 so stop with the paranoia senerios. Couldn't they just become nuclear missle silo commanders so they could shoot off nuclear missles at will!!!! Sure it might take 10-15 years to get there but think of the damage they could do!!!

Look out for black helicopters. :cool:

[plasticfetish]

Couldn't they just become nuclear missle silo commanders so they could shoot off nuclear missles at will!!!! Sure it might take 10-15 years to get there but think of the damage they could do!!!
Or better yet, they could kidnap the president and then have a duplicate of his face surgically grafted on to their own... there by giving them control of our entire nuclear arsenal!! It could happen.

You know ultimately, I'm not terribly afraid of a 9/11 repeat. I don't think this new building is going to be a target and it's more than likely going to be designed differently than the last ones in a few important ways. If trouble's gonna strike, I suspect it'll end up being something different, but just as shocking. Since the main motivation behind it all was to "terrorize" and not simply just to kill people.

[The 'Xir]

Oh please, stop with the "worse case senerio" junk. It ain't gonna happen.

Oh OK! Yeah, and no one thought Pearl Harbor or 9/11 could ever happen!
Arrogance and complacency has marked human tragedy probably since the begining of our time! :speech: :dead:

[The 'Xir]

Well, back to the tower concept, as I have said before, "except for the biggest building in the world Idea, I like the concept!"

[stillakid]

Or better yet, they could kidnap the president and then have a duplicate of his face surgically grafted on to their own... there by giving them control of our entire nuclear arsenal!! It could happen..


Step away from the John Woo and nobody gets hurt...

:p

[plasticfetish]

Step away from the John Woo and nobody gets hurt...
Oooooooh! I forgot about that awful movie, and now you've reminded me. Bad.

except for the biggest building in the world Idea
Yeah, I was a little surprised by that also. After hearing all of this talk about it being perhaps a great deal shorter and more... I dunno, humble, I'm not sure where this height idea came from. But, it is kind of cool what they're using that height for and I'll admit, I'm actually interested to see how the "self powered" aspect turns out. It's something I never would have imagined.

[stillakid]

Yeah, I was a little surprised by that also. After hearing all of this talk about it being perhaps a great deal shorter and more... I dunno, humble, I'm not sure where this height idea came from. But, it is kind of cool what they're using that height for and I'll admit, I'm actually interested to see how the "self powered" aspect turns out. It's something I never would have imagined.

Maybe they should make it 1,776 feet long and 50 feet high (for the 50 states). :ermm:

[Exhaust Port]

Oh OK! Yeah, and no one thought Pearl Harbor or 9/11 could ever happen!
Arrogance and complacency has marked human tragedy probably since the begining of our time! :speech: :dead: Paranoia that the guy sitting next to you is going to kill you after he spent 10 years of his life to get there with the hope of starting WWIII is a bit farfetched. I don't see how Pearl Harbor or 9/11 are comparable. The events on 9/11 were possible due to explotation of known weaknesses in the system. Weaknesses that were warned against for years but no one listened. Pilots constantly complained about the weak cockpit doors but only until that September day did any realize that we weren't lying. Pilots have also warned against the lack of self-protection up front. Our lives are more important at 35,000' than anyone elses in the back, it's just that simple. We have to fight to the death so why not give us a fighting chance?

Your paranoia that a pilot would shoot his fellow pilot is downright ignorant. Do you also fear that the Secret Service personnel are really terrorist agents who will shoot the President? Perhaps we should take away their guns?

We've just completed 100 years of aviation. Along with that we've wrapped up about 80 years of commercial aviation. In that time we haven't had one instance of a pilot taking a commerical aircraft and using it as a tool of terrorism. Yet we've had hundreds of instances where terrorists have either blown the aircaft up in the sky, used the passengers as targets, used the crew as targets, blown the aircraft up on the ground, forced the crew to divert to foreign grounds, etc. The terrorists are the threat not the pilots.

I find it ironic that this particular issue is such a hot button for folks when they don't blink an eye at a 20 something Federal Air Marshall sitting in the back of the aircraft with passengers with a side arm under his coat. Do you honestly think their level of professionalism is any different that the flight crew?? If you've flown since 9/11 you've probably been on a flight with armed Air Marshalls. Not to mention that any police officer or federal agent with a gun can pack heat on an airplane. Are they even trained to handle an emergency onboard an aircraft?? What are the chances that it would be easier for some terrorist to fake his way into that position? You don't seem concerned. Let's see, 10 years to be a pilot or 9 months to be a police officer. Please....:rolleyes:

[plasticfetish]

Maybe they should make it 1,776 feet long and 50 feet high (for the 50 states). :ermm:
1,776 feet long? I thought you said 1,776 inches and 50 inches high. See, that's what it says written on this napkin here you gave me. 50 inches high!
50 inches? What kind of a Freedom Tower would be 50 inches tall?
Well, that's what it says here. I only build what I'm told to build.

(Ah, any moment can be a Spinal Tap moment can't it?)

[Exhaust Port]

"It was running the risk of being trampled by a dwarf!!"

[Turbowars]

I have a few comments.

I love that they are rebuilding. Why let those bastards stop us from living?
The project will create 1000's of jobs and put food on the table of every kind of construction trade you can think of.
I love the idea of building something similar to the TT, but stop at the floors where the planes hit. Very nice remembrance.
How often do School buses get hijacked? I mean that has got to be the dumbest analogy I have ever heard.

[2-1B]

1,776 feet long? I thought you said 1,776 inches and 50 inches high. See, that's what it says written on this napkin here you gave me. 50 inches high!
50 inches? What kind of a Freedom Tower would be 50 inches tall?
Well, that's what it says here. I only build what I'm told to build.

(Ah, any moment can be a Spinal Tap moment can't it?)

"**** the napkin!"

[JediTricks]

How often do School buses get hijacked? I mean that has got to be the dumbest analogy I have ever heard.
In the US over the past 12 years, there have been more school bus hijackings than airliner hijackings. There was a school bus hijacking less than 2 months ago.

[Exhaust Port]

I think he might be getting at that comparing such a hijacking as those on buses to those on airplanes is far fetched. Airline hijacking is a terrorist act, those bus incidents that I've heard about are just some wack-job trying to take the bus for some stupid reason. How does that compare to your everyday carjacking? An airplane can be used as a weapon that can strike nearly any location in the nation or world. What would giving a gun to a bus driver prevent? The hijacker from driving the lumbering bus into a building?

Arming pilots or having Air Marshalls isn't about saving the lives in the back, it's about preventing the wrong person getting control of the aircraft. Terrorists will still try to shoot aircraft out of the sky or blow them up on the ground but debri falling from 30,000' will never cause the distruction of 9/11. That method of terrorism doesn't have the impact it might have once had.

[plasticfetish]

What would giving a gun to a bus driver prevent?
It would prevent me from sleeping at night.

[dr_evazan22]

Terrorists will still try to shoot aircraft out of the sky or blow them up on the ground but debri falling from 30,000' will never cause the distruction of 9/11. That method of terrorism doesn't have the impact it might have once had.

While it may not have the same destructive impact, I think that getting a US plane shot down over the US would put everyone in a tizzy. Talk about terror!

And getting back to the tower(s)...

Maybe they should make it 1,776 feet long and 50 feet high (for the 50 states).

That's a real ****er! LOL.

With our preoccupation with LOTR, why not make Sauron's Tower. At the top, instead of the burning eye, make the mason symbol on the back of the dollar bill - pyramid with eye on top. Let everyone know we're watching!

[JediTricks]

I liked the idea that Stilla said earlier about keeping the big lights up indefinitely, but that is probably not a reasonable use of space and part of the original WTC was its usefulness (especially over aesthetics, from what I've heard), too sentimental, I guess. However, if they did make it 50 feet high, it'd be a lot easier to just add 1 foot to the top if we ever add another state to the union; making a 1,776' tower 1 foot wider might be a little more difficult. ;)


----


I am going to touch on this gun issue once more since I didn't respond to anything in my last post that was on-topic, and then try to be done with it -- though probably still violating SirSteve's general advice in this area.

One of the places I received that data about the number of schoolbus vs airliner hijackings was from a government website that was trying to create awareness with schoolbus drivers to avoid having their vehicles hijacked and then used as terrorist weapons in various different ways such as filling it with explosives or toxic chemicals and driving it into congested urban areas such as in front of government buildings or even into courtyards of large business complexes such as the WTC replacement. EP, you yourself said that pilots are "sitting ducks, you're strapped in and facing away from the attacker", "due to the violent nature of hijackings, maintaining control of the aircaft is priority #1. As selfish as it might seem, all the pilots are concerned about is maintaining that control long enough to get the aircraft on the ground, disabling it and evacuating the flight deck," and later, "a gun is the absolute last line of defense." If the point is to land the plane immediately, it seems like having to handle a gun as well might compromise that #1 priority, so in response to your question, "what would giving a gun to a bus driver prevent?", probably very little, but it seems like you are saying the same about airline pilots, and the government is concerned with both types of hijacking.

[The 'Xir]

Your paranoia that a pilot would shoot his fellow pilot is downright ignorant.
umm explain to me how being conscious and insightful is Ignorant?



Not to mention that any police officer or federal agent with a gun can pack heat on an airplane. Are they even trained to handle an emergency onboard an aircraft?? What are the chances that it would be easier for some terrorist to fake his way into that position? You don't seem concerned. Let's see, 10 years to be a pilot or 9 months to be a police officer. Please....:rolleyes:

Good Point, it is easier!

and as I said, you don't think that a terrorist group if they really wanted to could come up with such scenarios? Why do you think they are called extremist? Because they will go to any extreme neccessary to promote their cause and destroy that which lines up against them! Terrorism within the United States is new, not that it hasn't happened but not to the extent that the rest of the world has seen, we have no clue how serious and how violent terrorism really is! But, we are strating to learn, and if you and I(john q U.S. citizen) can dream up such scenarios, you don't think a terrorist could or would?!!! NOW THAT'S BEING IGNORANT!!!
and I'm not saying we have to stop our lives, live in fear and think up crazy extreme plots like these in order to prevent them, but the topic came up and that's just the scenario that I happened to dream up to lend to the conversation! But, once again, if they went to the extreme of highjacking not 1 but 4 planes on sept 11 and used 3 of them to destroy 2900+
american lives then what other extremes are they willing to go to!

Why 9/11 is similar to PH is that although there was a war going on elsewhere in the world, Americans for the most part felt safe from attack and ignorant to the threat of extremist powers will to destroy our way of life. Japan was in desperate need of oil, and bombed American forces in Pearl Harbor killing 2400+ Americans, so it could continue it's warpath throughout China, The East Indies, and South East Asia, not to mention attacking our forces in the Philippines there after!
So we were caught off guard and unaware, and it propelled us into full combatant compliance within WWII. Well 9/11 caught us off guard and unaware, and that propelled us into full combatant compliance within the War on Terror, that has been going on long before the US was involved!(atleast to the extent we are now involved).
But again excuse me for being Ignorant! :rolleyes:

[stillakid]

----


I am going to touch on this gun issue once more since I didn't respond to anything in my last post that was on-topic, and then try to be done with it -- though probably still violating SirSteve's general advice in this area.

One of the places I received that data about the number of schoolbus vs airliner hijackings was from a government website that was trying to create awareness with schoolbus drivers to avoid having their vehicles hijacked and then used as terrorist weapons in various different ways such as filling it with explosives or toxic chemicals and driving it into congested urban areas such as in front of government buildings or even into courtyards of large business complexes such as the WTC replacement. EP, you yourself said that pilots are "sitting ducks, you're strapped in and facing away from the attacker", "due to the violent nature of hijackings, maintaining control of the aircaft is priority #1. As selfish as it might seem, all the pilots are concerned about is maintaining that control long enough to get the aircraft on the ground, disabling it and evacuating the flight deck," and later, "a gun is the absolute last line of defense." If the point is to land the plane immediately, it seems like having to handle a gun as well might compromise that #1 priority, so in response to your question, "what would giving a gun to a bus driver prevent?", probably very little, but it seems like you are saying the same about airline pilots, and the government is concerned with both types of hijacking.

But not so concerned it seems. Did anyone else find it odd/amusing that whenever the threat level goes up, LAX stops personal cars from driving up to the terminals but still allows taxis, limos, and buses? I mean, seriously, if security is trying to stop somebody from driving a vehicle up to a building then they have to ban ALL vehicles and/or screen them before they get close. But as I said earlier, most of the faux-security is simply theater meant to imply that some steps are being taken. In the end, without full on screening and/or profiling, there will always be gaps and the bad guys will find a way in someday when we least expect it.

My earlier suggestion about making a long building wasn't entirely facetious. It is far easier to knock down a tall structure with one big hit as we've seen than it would be to take out a short and spread out structure (like the Pentagon showed us). We could still have our office space with our built in "themes" yet have some semblence of protection.

[JediTricks]

I didn't think it was totally facetious Stilla, just not practical for the already-cramped island to give up so much footprint to one new quarter-mile-long building.

I wonder if they're going to limit auto traffic around this new tower the way they have been limiting and barricading traffic around certain government buildings over the past 2 years. Certainly it's understandable, the WTC was car-bombed 10 years ago, so they could do something like the Getty center with a parking area that's far from the main complex and then small trains to rush between them. But like Xir said, if we can imagine it, so can the terrorists, and even with limited or no auto traffic, there's still the subway underneath that could pose a threat and the foundation walls keeping the river out. Plus, it feels like giving in to the terrorism, and I don't like that.

[Exhaust Port]

One of the places I received that data about the number of schoolbus vs airliner hijackings was from a government website that was trying to create awareness with schoolbus drivers to avoid having their vehicles hijacked and then used as terrorist weapons in various different ways such as filling it with explosives or toxic chemicals and driving it into congested urban areas such as in front of government buildings or even into courtyards of large business complexes such as the WTC replacement. Um, why would a terrorist do that when they can buy a used school bus for $1000 and do what ever they want to with it. I doubt they would bother with hijacking a bus, getting rid of the occupants, filling it full of exposives and then using it as a weapon before someone noticed that the school bus was missing. No terrorist can buy a $50-100 million aircraft let alone operate it without people knowing, trust me.



If the point is to land the plane immediately, it seems like having to handle a gun as well might compromise that #1 priority... Here again is a falacy that the general public worries too much about. As I said, it is imperative that the flight crew maintains control, plain and simple. Control doesn't mean both pilots with one hand on the yoke and the other on the thrust levers. Heck for all I care, the stupid airplane can be upsidedown, as long as we are the ones in control of the cockpit. With all the automation turned off it'll be quite a while before I'd get worried that we'd end up in a situation that the pilots couldn't get themselves out of.

If someone gets into the cockpit with the intent of taking control then the pilots have to fight back to maintain their control. Again, control doesn't mean the pilots hand flying the airplane, it means being in charge of the environment.

I guess when someone breaks in and starts smashing my head in with a mallet I shouldn't let it take my mind off flying the airplane. God forbid I do something that might jeapordize the aircraft and it's passengers by not "flying the airplane." At least when when the hijackers finally pull my body out of the seat they'll think to themselves: "Hey, at least he was professional enough to continue to fly the airplane until his last breath." Man, won't that make my parents proud.

I just love how people feel they have the right to govern an environment that they know nothing about and never themselves work or live in. They know what's best for the situation never having spent one minute in the shoes of the professionals that have devoted their lives to that line of work. Apparently during an engine fire or other inflight emergency we shouldn't spend time or energy addressing that issue as it will take our minds off of flying the airplane.


it seems like you are saying the same about airline pilots, and the government is concerned with both types of hijacking. That is not what I'm saying. A properly defended cockpit will stop a hijacker/terrorist from using that airplane as a weapon. Doing the same for a bus driver won't stop a terrorist from getting their hands on a bus or trying to use one as a weapon.

[stillakid]

I just love how people feel they have the right to govern an environment that they know nothing about and never themselves work or live in. They know what's best for the situation never having spent one minute in the shoes of the professionals that have devoted their lives to that line of work. Apparently during an engine fire or other inflight emergency we shouldn't spend time or energy addressing that issue as it will take our minds off of flying the airplane.

That's interesting. It's essentially the same argument I've used to justify my stance(s) on the Prequels. Really, only the professionals in any given industry know what the problems are, how to fix them, and what's best overall. The world is full of backseat drivers and early morning quarterbacks full of opinions but when it comes down to it, nothing replaces in the trenches experience to figure out the best course(s) of action. I'm entitled to my opinion regarding what's best for the airlines, but until I log in a few thousand hours as a pilot, my opinion will be colored by my limited point of view as a passenger (spectator).


so they could do something like the Getty center with a parking area that's far from the main complex and then small trains to rush between them.

I've frequently thought that this is the ultimate solution to city gridlock. Ban all personal modes of transportation into a city. Everybody parks on the outskirts and gets bused in. Unless you live inside the limits of course, in which case you get the freedom to drive in and out. This would encourage people to live closer to where they work and force public transportation upon those that choose not to. The streets would open up and people would actually get to their destinations faster.

[stillakid]

For some reason, Derek must have posted the following response and then it was deleted. I'll do him a favor and repost it here:


no, there would be just a new cause of gridlock....a hundred thousand people waiting for your government bus to pick them up. :rolleyes:

do you have any idea how big some cities are? could you imagine the mass confusion and mess caused by everyone in LA trying to park and ride a bus? i commute 30 miles to work, one way. who are you to tell me where i can and can't live? gridlock is just a part of life. :rolleyes:

It's people like you that cause unrest. ;) "Gridlock is just part of life"? You got the rolling eyes part right for sure, but you need to aim it back at yourself. It's thinking like that that will keep our cities (and LA specifically) jammed up for years to come. Obviously :rolleyes: Los Angeles has it's own special needs, as do many places. There is no "one size fits all" solution. For instance, there is unending talk of expanding the 101 Freeway right near my house. Not only is that a stupid idea, but it wouldn't help at all and would cost billions of dollars. There are far more effective and lower cost ideas which should be implemented instead.

Besides, I don't recall telling anybody where they should live. It's your choice if you want to commute 100 miles or walk the block to work. Always has been and probably always will be. But it's the job of the city to determine what's best for the majority in all circumstances of life, so if regulating traffic-flow in any way possible is somehow hampering your lifestyle, then maybe you should live close enough to work so that you can walk there.

This is the problem with Freedom...while it is your right to do as you will, that same attitude bleeds into the idea that you can screw everyone else just as long as you get what you want. That's fine and good in an "uncivilized" society, but I'm thinking that most people would choose to make a few concessions in favor of the greater good. For instance, it you were suddenly told by a terrorist on a plane that if you didn't sit down, the entire First Class section would get shot to death, would you sit? Or would you decide that your personal need to stretch your legs (personal freedom) superceded their right to live to see another day? Extreme example for certain, but the same philosophy holds. Oops, did I say philosophy. I almost forgot that you don't allow anyone to talk about that kind of stuff. Better stop before the thread gets shut down. :rolleyes:

[Turbowars]

THREAD CLOSED, due to the fact that you disagreed with a MOD










Disclaimer, I am joking

[2-1B]

yeah, what gives with derek and his tendency to make a post and then delete it? It's happened more than once and it confuses people around here. I don't think it's proper.

stillakid, no offense but I don't see how your prequel argument holds up there. Many different professionals make up "Hollywood." Hypothetically speaking if a world famous cinematographer lectures me about a bad script or whatever, I'm personally not going to give that person more weight as I consider their opinion.

Everything is so "collaborative" that if it takes 20 people to screw something up, then maybe one single person's professional evaluation is not that important.

Besides, with as much junk as Hollywood blesses us with, I don't think it's enough to work in the industry to elevate the level of an insider's opinion. Steven Spielberg would get my undivided attention while David Fincher would lose me quickly.

Terrorism sucks, I really hope this Freedom Tower is a success. :)

[stillakid]

stillakid, no offense but I don't see how your prequel argument holds up there. Many different professionals make up "Hollywood." Hypothetically speaking if a world famous cinematographer lectures me about a bad script or whatever, I'm personally not going to give that person more weight as I consider their opinion.

Everything is so "collaborative" that if it takes 20 people to screw something up, then maybe one single person's professional evaluation is not that important.

Besides, with as much junk as Hollywood blesses us with, I don't think it's enough to work in the industry to elevate the level of an insider's opinion. Steven Spielberg would get my undivided attention while David Fincher would lose me quickly.


You make some good points. But just as much as I wouldn't dare march into, say, a doughnut making factory and begin telling them how to improve their product and process, I continually shake my head at the masses who don't truly understand what it really takes to make a motion-picture. Truth be told, I'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 75%-85% of the material you see was "directed," at least partially, by the Cinematographer. There are a few quality directors out here who know their jobs well enough to handle the entire scope of what they are supposed to be doing, but more often than not, you'll see too many of these "actor's directors," the directors who don't want to deal with that "camera stuff." That attitude extends into other areas as well, like Production Design and Editing. Many many Directors also are not writers either...but think they know better. That's why they typically kick the writer off the project as soon as possible. It's an ego thing for the Director to not be challenged. It's his vision, afterall. :rolleyes: That's where a lot of that garbage comes from.

But anyway, back to the point, I think it's valid for anyone to have an outsiders opinion about nearly anything, however until we've walked a mile in their shoes, we can't really know what's best for any given situation. That's why we delegate tasks in this society. If we all had to learn how to do absolutely everything that we wanted to do (ie, learn how to pilot a plane because I wanted to fly across the country), then we wouldn't have time to do the things we really wanted to do.

[JEDIpartner]

Well, I don't like the idea of these 2 architects being forced to collaborate, it seems too much like it's about their egos rather than the building.
Erhm... yeah. Only in America would two people fight over something such as this in the wake of the attack and subesquent change. I would have said, "No thank you" to BOTH of these idiots and picked another group of architects who were more willing to play nice.

Idiots.

[The 'Xir]

I was trying to find the exact news article to post here, because I couldn't remember the name of the technology, but hopefully this will settle most arguments here, and shows that sometimes the experts do come through:

I saw on the news a couple nights ago, that there is a new technoolgy being developed encompasing gps and air traffic control. Certain geographical structures(like mountains) and man made points of interest that are vunerable to terrorist attck will be programmed into a database that gps's will use to guide planes equipped with special beacons. Anytime one of these eqipped planes comes close to one of these points of interest, say like the new Freedom Tower, the controls are suspended away from the piolts and the plane is automatically steered away from the structure! According to the report once the plane reaches a safe distance, pilots would then regain control of the plane, however if the plane is then manualy turned back towrds the structure, the saftey mechanism will engage again and suspend control indefinetly, then autosteer and land the plane according to its preflight destination programming!

This sounds like a very intiguing technology that could be a front runner in air traffic saftey, However there are two points that concern me. Being the anti technology person that I am, one concern is that I hate relying on satellites for anything. Look at a few years back when what was it called the G4(I think) satellite went down and it affected cell phones and medical euipment that rely on satellite data relay. Actually, if it had just knocked out the cell phones i might have applauded it's demise! ;)
However my second concern is, the report made it sound, that once the controls were suspended indefinetly and the plane would then be autopiloted to its predestined destination, that there is no way to override the system in case of an emergency! Although this is great for possible terrorist threats, what if a satellite does go down after a planes controls have been suspended indefinetly? The plane would be flying blind and the pilots would have no way to overide the computers.
So although this sounds like a very promising technology, it sounds as if a few kinks still need to be worked out! The report made no mention of when this technology might be installed into commercial planes, although it had being installed, and succesfully field tested into private planes used or owned by the technology makers. :D

[Exhaust Port]

I see in the distant future pilots being removed from the cockpit as technology evolves but no time soon, there are too many unknowns. This type of override system is much to limiting for such a small percentage of problems. The biggest problem is if an airplane is in an emergency and such a system should decide to override the pilots and steer clear of an obstacle. What if flying towards that hill or mountain was the best option to avoid severe weather or turbulance?

The biggest variable in aviation today is weather (and always will be). Until we have a much, much better understanding of it as well as predicting it and detecting it than this type of technology is bound to cause other troubles. Not that it won't happen at some point but no time soon.

[stillakid]

I was trying to find the exact news article to post here, because I couldn't remember the name of the technology, but hopefully this will settle most arguments here, and shows that sometimes the experts do come through:

I saw on the news a couple nights ago, that there is a new technoolgy being developed encompasing gps and air traffic control. Certain geographical structures(like mountains) and man made points of interest that are vunerable to terrorist attck will be programmed into a database that gps's will use to guide planes equipped with special beacons. Anytime one of these eqipped planes comes close to one of these points of interest, say like the new Freedom Tower, the controls are suspended away from the piolts and the plane is automatically steered away from the structure! According to the report once the plane reaches a safe distance, pilots would then regain control of the plane, however if the plane is then manualy turned back towrds the structure, the saftey mechanism will engage again and suspend control indefinetly, then autosteer and land the plane according to its preflight destination programming!

This sounds like a very intiguing technology that could be a front runner in air traffic saftey, However there are two points that concern me. Being the anti technology person that I am, one concern is that I hate relying on satellites for anything. Look at a few years back when what was it called the G4(I think) satellite went down and it affected cell phones and medical euipment that rely on satellite data relay. Actually, if it had just knocked out the cell phones i might have applauded it's demise! ;)
However my second concern is, the report made it sound, that once the controls were suspended indefinetly and the plane would then be autopiloted to its predestined destination, that there is no way to override the system in case of an emergency! Although this is great for possible terrorist threats, what if a satellite does go down after a planes controls have been suspended indefinetly? The plane would be flying blind and the pilots would have no way to overide the computers.
So although this sounds like a very promising technology, it sounds as if a few kinks still need to be worked out! The report made no mention of when this technology might be installed into commercial planes, although it had being installed, and succesfully field tested into private planes used or owned by the technology makers. :D

Is this what you're talking about?

[The 'Xir]

Ya know... I know we are all here on a Star Wars web forum, but even so; Stilla I think I can safely say it... You're a Dork! :D :p :crazed: ;)

[stillakid]

Ya know... I know we are all here on a Star Wars web forum, but even so; Stilla I think I can safely say it... You're a Dork! :D :p :crazed: ;)


I do try to fight it. :p

[mabudonicus]

BACK TO THE WHOLE "TOWER" DEAL :D

Mebbe it should be made of NERF and then there'd be no problems :)

Really, though, the design does sort of recall those old "middle finger" carvings that one sees at flea markets sometimes....

The coolest idea in this thread so far IMO would be the "skeletal" one proposed a few pages back... it would seem to be a more fitting memorial, and not scream "unbridled hubris" quite so loudly like the freedom finger does

[stillakid]

the freedom finger


Good name!

[The 'Xir]

Thanks Mabudon! I thought it was a nice tribute and a respectful one at that! One thing I do like about the new freedom tower design, actually is with the smaller buildings proposed, how they seem to have angled diamond shaped tops. I think this would also look nice on my proposed idea! The top of the diamond shape could stop at each impact floor respectively, then allow the steel structure/skeleton to contiue up to the buildings original hieght. Or!..have the north towers last floor be level, and the south towers last floor be the angled diamond shape, seeing as that's how each plane impacted with their respective buildings. I'm not tyring to cause for bad rememberence, just that people don't forget entirely.
Having, the basic structural designs to include clear glass and floors for memorials within the skeleton design are just added niceties, along with possibbly finishing off the roofs to include neccessities like communications(like the north towers needle). Memorials could be done at ground level and in the plazas of the new buildings, and as I said if they need more office space for that which was lost, they could just rebuild the other buildings lost(like tower 7), exactly where they were, but raise the height of each building to make up for that lost office space within the new Twin 'Freedom' Towers! The other advantage to rebuilding the smaller lost buildings higher, would be that they now may take a mark on the cities skyline where as before they didn't get the attention their big brothers did! ;) :cry: