Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:33:02 -0500 (EST) From: Louis Epstein To: BakerQebtcb On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 BakerQebtcb@ wrote: > Hi Everyone. I am forwarding/cc'ing this to "the list" since the writer wanted to address it to "everyone".(A few of you are new to my larger-than-ever list of advocates of rebuilding the WTC Towers as tall or taller). While willing to facilitate communication among rebuilding advocates,do consider carefully what's worth everyone's notice.(Baker's letter is rather simple,but I am using this occasion to circulate various items of relevance). I'll mention for those not aware that the Restoring the Twin Towers website is down for now but plans to return next week with a different name (not sure of URL,but when there's a new one the old http://www.rjdbiz.com/rebuildwtc/ will I hope have directions to it). Last I checked http://www.buildthetowers.org/ and http://www.buildanewwtc.org/ were still ticking... and for any of you not familiar with them it's worth checking out,if not posting at, http://www.theopinion.com/newyorkcityskyline/ and http://www.cbsnewyork.com/message/ground/ . > The good news is that NYC may rebuild the WTC Towers. The bad news is > that they may not make them as tall as before. As if shorter towers could count as "rebuilding the towers" at all!!! > In an article written in the New York Times ( Thursday March 28, pg A15 ) > titled "Report Sees Lower Towers That Can Empty Faster", it says that they > think that the towers, if rebuilt, should only be 50 or 60 stories high > instead of the original 110 stories high! No taller than what's across the street? > They seem to think that if the newly rebuilt towers are shorter in > height, they could be evacuated much faster where as if the the towers are > 110 stories again, they would require wider stairwells to get people out of > the buildings faster. > They also seem to think that if the towers are put back at their same height > as before, not only would the upper floors be > wasted from a lack of tenants but they would also be hard to attrack new > clients for fear of a repeat of the 09-11 attacks! Who are the "they" that wrote this report? There are more of us who would be honored to work or live on the top floor than could possibly fit on it.To whom should this information be directed? Writing to the NYT is of course something else to do (letters@nytimes.com and include snail mail address and phone). Perhaps more worrying than this article is the speech LMRC Chairman Whitehead recently gave at a Crain's luncheon (no response or questions from the audience were permitted) reiterating his stance against rebuilding the Towers and claiming that his organization would have full control. Does anyone have a lead on the man who appeared on Fox News saying his father,who was killed in the attacks,would have wanted the Towers rebuilt as tall or taller? I heard about this secondhand,obviously a survivor spokesman would be a very good thing for the rebuilding movement to have. Today's radio news mentioned a FEMA report saying that it was the fires that felled the Towers,the structural damage alone would not have done so...mentioned that the water and sprinkler systems had been knocked out. I have considered the idea of giving the 90th floor of new Towers over entirely to firefighters and apparatus,so that no part of even 135-story towers would be more than 45 floors from help...this would of course be part of solidly upgraded fire safety systems throughout,directed as necessary from the in-building fire stations. Before the RTT site went down,I printed out their public petitions and left them for signature at a convention,then sent them to the LMRC,Port Authority,and Silverstein...they were far from full,but every letter they have to open reminding them there are people who want the Towers back is a reminder they need. I have to say that the text of those petitions is a little too wedded to the Yamasaki design for my own tastes.While those I am sending this to range from advocates of "down to the last toilet" replication to those who specifically think the new Towers should be neither on the footprints (though within the site) nor of similar design to the old,just at least as tall,my own opinion is that we need to be open to new ideas as long as the new towers are not one inch shorter than 1368 feet and have no setbacks anywhere in the first 110 stories. Interior structural columns may well be a safety improvement considered necessary,though the petitions specifically commend their absence. Having to design floors around eighteen pillars and welded crossbraces may well be worth knowing that one side's pillars would complete the breakup of a colliding airplane carved to bits by an Astaneh-design disaster-proof skin,while the other side's pillars,never touched by fire,would make sure that the Towers stood while firefighters contained the blaze. A design competition for the most indestructible huge towers could inspire the world...one for very safe structures of average-high-rise height would quickly become a footnote. Of course,you are each welcome to advocate the particular solution you most desire...just keep up the drumbeat of demanding full size Towers and reminding "them" that it is the killers who are honored by the construction of anything less. > Supposedly, New York is rethinking its strategy on building new > skyscrapers now, saying that people will not feel safe anymore in 100-story > buildings. So it looks like terrorism is about to triumph after all! > > Sincerely, T. Baker. The bottom line remains the same as ever... -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.