2007-03-28 01:17:05 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ United States ➔ New York City
I do! Same as before but one floor higher! It should've been up yrs ago.
2007-03-28 18:41:44 · answer #1 · answered by Susan 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do . The two towers should have been finished and re- occupied two years ago. If President Bush had the leadership skills he would like us to think he has, he would have stood in the smoking rubble on September 11, 2001 and promised to return in two years to re-dedicate two new and safer buildings. That is what a great leader would have done. George W. Bush is not a great leader
Think about this ;It was 8 years , 1 month and 26 days from the time that JFK committed this nation to landing on the moon [ 5-25-61], to the time that Neil Armstrong's boots first touched it's surface.[7-20-69 ]
Using that schedule If new structure isn't occupied by 11/06/09 it will have taken longer to replace the WTC than it took to go to the moon. Why is that so ?
2007-03-28 07:22:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think they should be rebuilt as they were. Put the NYC skyline back!! As for who should decide, I'm fairly sure the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the site. That is why the decision making is taking so long. Too muck beaurocracy. The nonsense about it going faster after Bush is out of the White House is just silly. EVERYTHING in NY takes forever becuse there are so many "special interests" to cater to. A simple vote by city residents would solve the issue, but that'll never happen bucause most polls I have seen want the building back as they were.
2007-03-28 05:01:30 · answer #3 · answered by duker918 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What I wonder is why's it taking so long? And it never seems like a final idea is ever agreed on. Every once in awhile in the news I hear about another idea. I thought it was already decided a long time ago. I guess not.
That's an interesting idea, to just build them the same. Kind of like they're here to stay, just build them stronger with some extra safety features and some basic changes based on what long-time users of the building have to say.
Then again, they weren't exactly the most pretty buildings, just two big rectangular buildings. New York might do better with more stylized buildings going up, something in the realm of the Empire State or Chrysler buildings.
I guess we'll have to wait until Bush is out of power, then we can focus on fixing things at home instead of destroying things overseas. We'll have more money too.
2007-03-28 01:26:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the owners of the land should decide. That is they type of decission that NYC was built on. For some reason the victims families think they have the right to decide everything and are holding up the city. I have sympathy for their loses, but if they want a say on the land, then buy it.
2007-03-28 02:58:53 · answer #5 · answered by NYC_Since_the_90s 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the owner of the property should have been left to rebuild however he sees fit.
2007-03-28 01:25:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea i think it should rebuilt the way it was before
2007-03-28 05:05:36 · answer #7 · answered by angiesupers 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i dont. i think we should try sumthin different this time!
2007-03-28 11:55:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think so!
2007-03-28 14:02:45 · answer #9 · answered by lazerybyl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋