From: Dan Zbichorski \(bee HORS kee\) (danzbichorski@mediaone.net)
Date: Sun Sep 16 2001 - 12:52:13 MDT
Some sort of distributed but interconnected system of buildings might be a
better solution. Kind of like an Eiffel Tower with each leg being a
building, each strut being a corridor capable of remaining intact with the
removal of either support. Ideally this structure would have one building
in the center and between three to five buildings surrounding. The center
building would be the ideal evacuation path since it would probably be the
most protected.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Clemmensen" <dgc@cox.rr.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Rebuild the World Trade Center
> Miriam English wrote:
>
> >
> > Parachutes or paragliders, rope bridges to nearby buildings...
> > But I still favor the idea of building down instead of up. Tall
> > buildings always seemed a dumb idea since Towering Inferno. If you want
> > a great view put an eiffel tower kind of structure up there and make it
> > twice the height of the WTC buildings.
> >
>
> Miriam, if you were a terrorist, would you find it easier to attack
> a 100-story hole in the ground or a 100-story tower? If you were
> an office worker, would you prefer to evacuate from the 100th
> floor of a tower or from the 100th sub-basement? In Manhattan,
> remember that the third sub-basement is below the level of the
> Hudson river.
>
> Off the top of my head I can think of at least ten horrible
> ways to kill all the people in a big hole in the ground. I'm
> glad you brought the subject up. I've now thought about it
> and I know that I never want to work in such an office.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:42 MST