The World Trade Center or equivalent, because that is way to much area and money to spend on a memorial. I sorry for their deaths, but they are no more important to the average people than any other civilian causality. We can not build a memorial to every person that dies a tragic death.
2006-09-10 11:38:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by stephenl1950 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe that both can co-exist. The World Trade Center is hallowed ground though. Almost 3000 souls lost their lives that day--and so many who were First responders & residents of Lower Manhattan are suffering as a result of the attacks.
2006-09-10 20:21:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by kobacker59 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the memorial should be in the form of 19 additional floors. A more formal memorial can be placed on the roof.
2006-09-10 20:01:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that new buildings should be built on top of ground zero. It should be left as it is, with perhaps a memorial. This would be the greatest way to honor those who died, and the most profound way to remember them.
2006-09-11 14:21:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Matthias G 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
you have to rebuild...it's arguably the most valuable real estate in the world. Not to say they can't make a memorial as part of the new building
2006-09-10 18:31:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by groovintimes 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
rebuild and make a memorial there on the ground floor of the new building.
2006-09-10 18:33:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by loretta 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
yeah i think both. like every one said it's a very very important buildings for economy and it's also good to build a memorial so people would remember and know what happened there.
2006-09-10 18:35:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They will build both..
I agree with building both.
2006-09-10 18:34:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋