"Brilliant" Idea

So yeah. It seems like a Brilliant idea to build a very large residential building in place of the WTC's previous location. Who's idea was/is this?
Asking for trouble is always the best way to get it. Placing a bunch of innocent civilians in place of where a bunch of innocent civilians were slaughtered always seems like a bright idea.
Incase anyone out there has a problem with measuring their own density, there is a slight tone of sarcasm to this post.

No the sarcasm was clear, but given the hostile tone of you post im starting to wonder if there is any point to this thread other than trolling for some points?

It's almost like building a house on top of a graveyard...

Does it really matter?
It's a good point, and I don't think plotting to build a large building to hold a potential catastrophe is a good idea. Is seeming to care really something that should be judged?
Everyday we watch, or read, or hear the news, and it seems as if the world is falling more and more apart. Some of us have our opinions on things that are planned that really don't look like a good idea, considering the history of that area, and the hostility towards the United States in present time.
I brought up a point, because forums are meant to have discussions held. Surely discussing something that has the potential to solve something isn't going to cause any harm.


there is a bright side to this, the soon to be Freedom Tower, if that's the name they're sticking with, will definately provide more housing situations for those in NYC. and considering the present ones, it could most definately help.
Why choose that spot, the idea of building a large place that has no purpose other than that of housing people seems like drawing a big crosshair on the map of Manhatten, with the center of the target being placed in the same place as it was before. Doesn't it seem a little odd to any of you?

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

Yeah. so I read up until "point to this thread", and forgot to read the line under it. In attributing something to my hostile tone, I would attribute the being involved in what I'm saying, and it being something that was going through my head for weeks now, above the apparent wanting of points. That is a good point you bring up though, considering I only really started paying any attention to the point system today, and this being my first posted topic. However, this is something I've been saying to friends a lot in recent time, and none seem to care much.
And points may be useful, yes. But in my opinion, it is definately more useful to help create an awareness and destroy an ignorance of something that is potentially harmful to a planned large body of people by putting forth a good point.

Sorry if I seemed hostile, but I'm very hostile at that idea's being brought up, formulated into a plan, and then set into motion by being named.


[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

I think NYC should turn to the sea/river/harbour surrounding it. Would it be hard to put large pylons into the bedrock that lies under the bed of the sea/river/harbour much like they do for offshore oil platforms. They could just put a large square platform atop some pylons and sell the space to contractors to build upon.

UnMature has just come up with a great way to solve the NY City housing problem. Another way would be to require skyscrapers to have as many stories below ground as they do above. For that matter build them all below ground, then Al Queda cannot knock them down.

in reply to groingrinder, first off thanks , secondly, NYC is solid bedrock (of the slate variety I believe) and I'm no geologist, however is it possible to build down through such geologic material?

Cheyenne mountain was solid granite, now it is hollow. Yes bedrock is no problem for modern technology.

Why not just build cities underwater? We'd be fending off sharks and other sea life more often than terrorists. Unless the sea creatures wish to scare us also...
But if underground is an option, under the water should be as well. It takes a lot more math to be able to aim a bomb at a city under water.

For reference, I feel invariably tired. My ideas may seem out of whack, but the first idea of not building the Freedom Tower in that place seemed like one I wouldn't back down from.
Also, I realized on my last post, AFTER EDITTING I feel I must add, due to peoples' pointing finger technology, that I can gain points just by editing. So, in accordance with this, I shall edit this post to contain the alphabet after a couple of blank lines and this post saying this.


abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz


[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

or not, cuz I still have 325 points. Maybe sleep is a good idea now...

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

Christ_v2 please do not make this all about the points you get for your posts. I think the mods will give you more points for good posting than for editing posts. Your post was a good one and I am glad you posted.

Cities underwater...now you come into the problems of having to completely waterproof and pressurive, a whole LOAD harder than building under/above ground.

Thank you groingrinder.
I felt almost obliged to make it about points due to my obsession with being accused in the first place of making it about points. I'm really pleased to have "touched" someone, in a sense.
Now I should go sleep. I hope this topic reaches some more people, and then I can be called a point-monger, but at least one who's got a good point to share.


but for the record, I didn't sign up for ATS for points, I signed up because I like the topics shown on here, and I wanted to put forth some topics of my own.

It would actually be easier to do damage to a city underwater. Explosions in water only have to be close to create a pressure wave capable of breaching any potential habitat. Add in to that the fact that at more than a few hundred feet underwater a breach would be fatal due to the ambient pressure and you will see why we don't build underwater colonies.

Well that and the staggering price tag of building things designed to withstand multiple hundreds of pounds per square inch of pressure.

i already claimed my ideas seeming out of whack, aside from not building the Freedom Tower.

and is it really that great to put a price tag on safety? gold is no more than a good conductor of electricity in essense.

although gold is "shiny", so it must have some TRUE metaphysical value. -- insert sarcasm last sentence. --

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Christ_v2]

@fredT

as if anybody cares for those points...oh yes you get access to the top-top-secretforums, and you are a king amongst kooks if you reach how many points? 5000? 10000? you know what fredt, take my points and buy yourself something nice. or feed them to the hungry children in africa.

The best response to the 9/11 event is to build an even more significant edifice. Perhaps not on the very location, which would be better saved as a park for remembrance of those who died, but somewhere nearby, for instance, build a World Trade Center that has truly monumental dimensions.
You know what they say...if you fall off a horse, you get right back on.