Just get on and live your life. Who cares what it looks like. Damn goverment doesnt give a fuc|< about the people anyway.

[quote:post_uid0="SolidSnake76"]oh my god.

I MEANT HOW THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT, NOT THE DAMN LOOKS U........U...........YA DAMN JACKASS. ur not even making sense. u never even seen a poster or a picture of the manhattan skyline have u?

this is the last time i doing this.

when the plane hit the building, the inpact blew right off important things to the building. as some of u may know, there was an outer are where the offices were and a core where the elevators and stairs were. in the north tower, the plane hit the core of the building and blew away the drywall surrounding the core. drywall. the idoits used drywall instead of concrete. and drywall may be fire-resistant, but fragile like glass when struck. the steel trussel held all 110 floor nicly above each other. what happens when they are exposed to heat? i mean extreme heat? they sagged and becamed weaken because the fire-proof foam that protected the trussel was blown away instantly by the planes impact. and once the trussel sagged, thats alot of weight bearing down on the building and as a result, the floors pancaked.

engineering flaws are one of the reasons why the towers collasped. using simple material instead of the strong stuff, idiots. i wish i was the chief engineer of construction.[/quote]
no1 is even paying attention to my post.

so if u got beaten up out on the streets, would u ever leave ur house again?

sum1 said once before, 'if the same towers are not rebuilt, the terroist has won.'

I like that way but if it caught on fire all of it would catch on fire right.

u like it?

that is just a joke. what fool would think of building that?

wut da fuk is dat?/?....it looks like a jig saw puzzle

I still like it. it looks like big stairs it looks better then the one with the abstract building(the one that is at the beggining of the page)

This has all 7 proposals..

It's the first "related" link, right under the "video" section.

To tell the truth, none of those looked exceptionally safe, except maybe for "Group 3". However, knowing nothing about architechture, I'd love to hear more from SolidSnake76 on this...

its the way they building it, it looks its easy to burn down. it looks unguarded..

lets see what i know. and nakuto joe, please talk to mastaq, italy and kingryu1.

engineering is like an art. the building structure must be strong for almost anything. the former WTC were strong to resist earthquakes and plane attacks. now ya are wondering, if it was strong enough to resist plane attacks, why did it fall?
if it wasnt strong enough, why did it not topple? the problem was engineering flaws that made it weak to fire. as i said down here

now you want a good looking building. but not looking like a blonde. pple wouldnt want to go into buildings that look unsafe. it must have a good design and strong structural point to make a strong building. in san fran, the buildings are made to take earthquakes. so was the WTC, and when that bomb went off, pple werewondering why did it stand tall. the bomb was like a 5.0 or sumthing earthquake and it was suppose to take earthquake tremors big as 7.0, the highest. engineering takes aot of skill and what u pple dont understand is the strenght the building has. the WTC wasnt strong to the fire, and i hope thses idiots rebuild the same towers with stronger material.

so what if its attacked again, it will be stronger. its like getting beaten up on the streets. does that mean u let them win and never show ur face?