Why not just rebuild the Twin Towers, just as they used to look but 'plane proof'?

I’m not sure you can make a skyscraper “747 filled with fuel proof.”

Ground zero has a lot of memories for people. I think there would be a lot of controversy and emotions coming from people.

They are building six skyscrapers and a memorial for the people that were killed on 9/11 at ground zero right now. There is also suppose to be a museum built as well. The memorial is suppose to open next year on the 10th anniversary and the museum is suppose to open the following year. I think the idea of not rebuilding them is a good one. It shows that we can’t just replace what was lost that day and we really can’t just go back to the way things were. There were a lot of other buildings that were destroyed on 9/11 as well.

The original twin towers were designed to be plane-proof. However, planes got bigger and were holding more fuel by the time they came crashing down. As you can see, this would require rebuilding the towers with each advance in aviation technology.

Construction on the Twin Towers started in 1966. Architecture and engineering have come a long way since then.

It would be pointless to throw aside 45 years of innovation in order to make the skyline look the way we remember it.

They were never not plane proof, at least by design, but they were always money losers if I’m not mistaken.

This is the solution this New Yorker wants.

It’s the only one that makes the correct statement to our enemies.

I want the same exact dimentions with some slight modernizations to the detailing.

(Up to the minute design, construction and methods, materials and safety elements would reside under the stainless steel skin @Seek_Kolinahr).

Every single blueprint resides in a building nearby.

I believe it’s the statement the victims would want made.

I think it would be grand to make something big and tall there. Not doing so would be like saying we are afraid to do things the American Way lest we piss off some religion.

@kevbo I think that’s really the truth of the matter. As painful as it is to say it, it’s a money issue. The twin-towers never made money and I guess most people forget this now, but a large swath of the New York populace HATED the twin towers. Architectural reviews trashed them all over the world. People called the biggest and most boring buildings ever made. I moved to NYC in 2003 and never saw the WTC skyline in person, but from the artistic renderings I’ve seen, the Freedom Tower will be a much more beautiful and potent addition to the world’s most famous skyline.

To be honest, they were just big gray rectangles. I do remember being pretty awed when riding in the car past them (especially when my daddy opened the sunroof), but in retrospect they were really boring.

@kevbo @crazyivan Can you still see them being money losers after they have been reconstructed? Given what has happened to them. And given what they would/could come to symbolise.

It’s not the money they would or wouldn’t make now, it’s more a matter of the investment to rebuild them. Mind you, the will and the money is there, but I think more people are willing to financially back a new (and taller if I understand correctly) building in its stead.