NEW JERSEY | Liberty World Trade Center -TTII| 1,515 FT / 462 M | 115 FLOORS | VISION

[Dac150]

^^^ You’re failing to acknowledge any posts / questions that call for solid explanation pertaining to this project. What’s the issue here? Why can’t you give any explanation? You talk a big game but you produce nothing.

[M II A II R II K]

And even if that presumption were accurate it's too late, and not practical to change course at this point.

[BStyles]

But instead, they keep saying that they're about to tear down a tower whose initial height states the year in which this country sought independence, which, by the way, the proposed north tower fails to achieve in it's heightened roof/antenna height. So yeah, it's full of corruption. Not putting any words in your mouth, but by saying that, the country itself is corrupt.

And the Chris and Larry backing statement is overlooked yet again.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by BStyles

And my Chris and Larry backing statement is overlooked yet again.

That’s what these guys do; pick and choose which posts to acknowledge.

[TwinTowersForever]

and once again our statements are overlooked again. It will be explained. Soon.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Yes. Buildings built in the 1960s and 70s are of poor quality, that is why the buildings collapsed. You don't know anything about how the towers were built, do you? They were built in such a way that the external columns, not the core, held most of the buildings load. The exterior was then tied to the core using the hat truss at the top of the building. With the exterior punctured and the core damaged, the loads were redistributed around the damaged areas via the hat truss. Eventually, this system failed due to the fire that weakened (not melted) the steel. It also must be said that the buildings contained very little concrete and the fireproofing was mediocre at best.

The new Tower 1, on the other hand, is going to be more conventional and the massive concrete core will carry most of the load. It has nothing to do with the glass facade. That doesn't carry a load.

Exactly. This explanation is reasonable, while DavidKyle13 has no idea what he's talking about. DavidKyle13, if you disagree with me calling you ignorant, supply credible sources for your previous statement. I can back up meh_13's statement with sources; can you do the same for your statements?

[CudaAhBuda_NYC]

Originally Posted by BStyles

Okay, why does everyone overlook this fact?

Larry and Chris have to finance the tower's reconstruction. He's about to go into binding arbitration with the PA for the financing for two of his office towers, and you still don't get it. We're in the worst financial situation since the Great Depression, who's going to finance your plan? If Larry Silverstein, the developer, looks at this plan, he's going to bring these up, and so is the PA, and you still don't answer back about how you're going to get this plan past them, yet you have the answer to everything else.

Just as a favor, and don't take this the wrong way, but unless you can reply with SOMETHING relevant to these two agencies, don't reply with senseless youtube videos.

Your plan will not get done by 2011, if all you want is to see the towers rise by that date because the form the number 11. It takes years of site preparation, especially with the site's condition. Less than two years to build six new buildings? A year and(not counting august) four months? The World Trade Center is no joking matter. Burj Dubai didn't even reach it's height in that timeframe, what makes you think the towers can do that?

Thats because it was thought that the Twin Towers II would be done and built by 2011 along w/ the memorial, but as if 2009 its been pushed back.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by CudaAhBuda_NYC

Thats because it was thought that the Twin Towers II would be done and built by 2011 along w/ the memorial, but as if 2009 its been pushed back.

But years later, the campaign people are still too incompetent to change a simple logo and slogan to reflect the current situation more accurately?

[1ajs]

stop with the bickering and watch them rise

[SD360]

How many times do I have to say this. the TTII will never be built. the site owners have the decision to build or not to build the TTII. they were in favor of the current design. why, because its bringing a new cristaline style to the skyline of Manhattan. Its, eleganse VS Nearly featureless.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by TwinTowersForever

and once again our statements are overlooked again. It will be explained. Soon.

And again, being that you have such a strong allegiance to this you should in return be able to answer the questions that we are implying to you.

What I read into the ‘it’ll all be answered soon’ excuse is:

1. You clearly don’t have your act together.
2. You clearly have no common and fundamental knowledge of the practice that which you preach.

With that your credibility level shrinks as does the credibility of your cause.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by morelight

TwinTowersForever,

You are a credit to the movement to build new Twin Towers. Thank you.

MD

Credit to what? Providing zero credible or valid information? If that’s the criteria to which you view as a strong advocate for your cause than this character must be the best you got.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by @KyleDavid13

Glass facade buildings aren't going to be safer then the old WTC like buildings. The old WTC was built in the early 1970's maybe that's why the structure was weak. OR I am not being a 9/11 conspirators but FDNY said they seen/heard secondary explosives in the Towers which could of weakened it. That's fact too, not fiction.

This assessment by yourself to me demonstrates that you have as much knowledge about structural engineering as a 5 year old child who fools around with mega blocks.

[CudaAhBuda_NYC]

Originally Posted by SD360

How many times do I have to say this. the TTII will never be built. the site owners have the decision to build or not to build the TTII. they were in favor of the current design. why, because its bringing a new cristaline style to the skyline of Manhattan. Its, eleganse VS Nearly featureless.

Don't be to quick to predict the future. The financial situation the current plan is havin I wouldnt be surprised if there was a decision for a transition. Twin Towers II will never be built; it doesnt really effect my support for new Twin Towers. It doesnt matter what the minority like this this forum decides or thinks what's right, it matters what the majority knows what's right - the majority is for Twin Towers II. I'm grateful for Kenneth L. Gardner's bringin light for new Twin Towers.

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayRe...5076464&EDATE=

[theWatusi]

Originally Posted by CudaAhBuda_NYC

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayRe...5076464&EDATE=

A press release is not a news story. We have yet to hear any facts at all supporting your claim that this ridiculous plan will be built.

[M II A II R II K]

The only thing about that video I would have to agree with is the rant about the observation deck, it's not as high as the Twin Towers observation deck and no outdoor decks either.

Maybe they'll add a glass floor, or perhaps more daring, a cling wrap floor that bulges down.

[Dac150]

I just watched in full that YouTube video and let me assure the ones who are optimistic in this plan going through; that if you have people such as that representing your case then you will be going nowhere fast. That guy also gave me a better picture of who I am dealing with in debating this in this thread, and my assessment is a bunch of sorry, reckless and radical individuals.

That video was not so much funny / entertaining as it was more very sad and scary. That man is obviously a very unstable individual who lacks both common knowledge and sense. For this mental case to insist ‘mass protests’ in the streets of New York demonstrates to me that your group contains both radicals and extremists, who are capable of causing public trouble and harm.

To get so hung up on material when so much more importance was lost is beyond me. If you folks don’t favor the plan that is in the process of being constructed then that’s fine; you’re entitled to your opinion. However please refrain from imposing ideas and motions of protesting and other actions that can result in harm. That accomplishes nothing.

[vid]

The idea that metals loses half its strength when heated to even a tenth of its melting point seems to be a very difficult concept for conspiracy theorists to understand.

And yes, the fact that it was built in 1970 is the reason it collapsed. This is why the Sears ("Willis") Tower no longer exists.

[BStyles]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Maybe they'll add a glass floor, or perhaps more daring, a cling wrap floor that bulges down.

Hey, if they can land the rover on mars that way, then i'm all for it.

How did you get to a conclusion that steel weakens over time? The towers stood for 30 and 28 years. Guess what? The Empire State Building has stood for over 75 years, the Verrazano Bridge for over 40, and the Brooklyn Bridge for well over 120 years. They aren't showing any signs of sagging whatsoever.

The new WTC plan isn't in any financial trouble. The developer is trying to get his money back from the owner for paying rent when there were no towers standing, and the PA has a problem with staying on schedule. Silverstein would have long gotten the WTC rebuilt, so don't blame him for the rebuilding effort's turtoise pace.

[Mercedes Benzene]

If you took the time to look at the current site, you would see that it is impossible to build the TT2 as designed. Anyone from your "organization" who has told you otherwise is wrong.

So what happens when you finally realize that it isn't going to come to fruition? For one, you'll be very embarrassed for ever being such a dumb-ass. You should personally apologize to every legitimate member on this site.