Tuesday, September 11, 2007


Today, I'm just going to rerun a post I made last year around this time.

"One of the biggest tragedies of 9/11 to me personally is that we are accepting defeat in that battle. We're taking the attitude of, "they won this time, but we will prevail in the long run." I truly believe we will prevail in the long run, but I don't see why we have to let them leave a hole in NYC. Instead of rebuilding the World Trade Center, we are building an enormous monument to terrorism. Instead of putting back what terrorists tried to destroy, we are leaving it destroyed.

If terrorists had knocked down the White House, the Capitol, the Statue of Liberty, or other Washington monuments, I would like to think we would rebuild them just as they were. Why, then, are we throwing in the towel on the Twin Towers? What makes a better statement then having the World Trade Center rebuilt stronger than before, so potential terrorists will see that NYC has been restored to the way it was before September 11th? It would show them the futility of the mission to destroy the United States through murdering civilians. The hijackers would still be dead, and the towers would stand again over New York.

Instead we're building an ugly spire, and leaving 2 empty sockets in the ground of NY and calling them memorials. They will be a perfect place for future terrorists-in-training to come and see what their kind have done before. Imagine them instead coming to the site and seeing it looking essentially the same as it did on September 10th? If I had been killed working or visiting a national symbol, I would most certainly want it rebuilt. Replacing what was lost gives a big "F You" to terrorists everywhere.

In fact, I have come up with 2 rules I'd like to leave behind in the exceedingly unlikely chance that I'm ever killed in a terrorist attack.

#1. Don't use my death as justification to kill anyone not directly involved in my death. I'm not going to get into this one.

#2. Rebuild. I don't care if I was killed by terrorists in the Statue of Liberty, the Sears Tower, or a Kwik Shop in Davenport, Iowa. Build it back the way it was, and find another way to memorialize the people lost besides leaving a gaping hole.

More info can be found on rebuilding at makenynyagain.com"


Robbie C. said...

I think if the Kwik Stop in Davenport goes down, its just not worth living anymore! Unless they replaced it with a 7/11 instead!!!!

Good post though. I agree with what you are saying.

Tory B said...

QCI - can you shoot me an e-mail or call me.


QuadCityImages said...

No problem Tory.

Robbie, its just the idea that our future kids won't be able to go see the twin towers, and its because of terrorists. That seems like a victory for them to me. They were one of the 3 most important landmarks in NYC, but we're not rebuilding them. I've read that at least 50% of New Yorkers want them rebuilt, but that idea was hardly considered. It makes me mad.

sensible sally said...

We cant try to hide the fact that the WTC was destroyed by terrorists. The new building will symbolize the efforts of our nation to combat terrorism and to maintain our way of life. Isnt that something to look forward to?
BTW what makes you begin to think you understand the impact any building project will have on the terrorists? Rebuilding the towers isnt going to stop or lessen terrorist activities. Besides the new freedom tower looks beautiful, the towers looked boring.

Anonymous said...

I definitely understand the argument for rebuilding, but I think the cons way outweigh the pros.

The reasons I understand rebuilding wasn't really considered were:

(1) The Twin Towers were almost universally regarded as bad architecture by most critics (and many New Yorkers). Sure, they were iconic by virtue of being very tall. But they were far from being an architectural masterpiece. They were boring and fairly inefficient. And obviously not very safe.


(2) The Twin Towers had more high-floor office space than Larry Silverstein (who pays $100+ million per year to lease the site) thinks he'll be able to profitably rent out. Heck, they finished rebuilding WTC7 a couple years ago already. It's a beautiful building (I'll actually be back on the 40th floor tonight) and they're having a heck of a time finding tenants.

So why not take the opportunity to build something safer, more interesting and potentially more profitable while respecting (within reason) the wishes of the families of those who were killed, many of whom are opposed to ANY building on the site.

Anonymous said...

I lived in NYC in 2001 and 2002. There were SEVERAL town meetings on what to do with the site and what should be included.
One of the problems is that the site isn't owned by a private company. One only has to look to the riverfront to see an example (or two, maybe three, four?) of how smooth public/private building projects get accomplished.