reality check, was: Re: what does WTC groundzero look like now?
danny burstein
>up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
>be terrible.
Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back in
1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
>everyone except the designers.
Moron. I liked them. You must have forgot to poll me when you were polling
"everyone."
-Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
COPYRIGHT 2002, All Rights Reserved
Asterbark
>
>
>>Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
>>everyone except the designers.
>
>Moron. I liked them. You must have forgot to poll me when you were polling
>"everyone."
>
You do realize the Eiffel Tower was also considered an eyesore when it was
built, and by "you," I mean whoever you quoted. Modern architecture more often
lately seems to be on the practical side, but I have read that it's meant to be
seen from far away or at greater speeds along the drives rather than admired in
awe from up close. If there were just one of them, it might not have been so
bold, and I can understand the objection in the 70s when they were new, but
they became quite a landmark. I liked to see them from the Whitestone Bridge
into Queens on the way to my grandparents home. There were two, and roughly
twice as distant as the Empire State Building, from that perspective, I seem to
remember (though it may not have been the case) that they still looked taller.
And so twice as ugly, at first perception, the twice made it that much better,
and twice as devastating a loss.
I don't know what should be there, but I don't think arrogance is the key, and
I don't think replacing them, exact girder for girder, is what life is about.
They were there, they are gone. They may have been ugly to you, or the severe
architecture had grown on you, but when things pass, they are gone.
There was an old lighthouse, when I lived in Boston, that they were going
through great pains to preserve. They put it on some contraption to roll it
back from the eroded edge and I wondered to my tv at the news of it, why they
would cherish an old lighthouse to such an extent. I understand historical
preservation to a certain extent, and sentimentality, but I feel some things
can't and shouldn't be saved from experiencing its time expiring.
I think, around the same time, there was a park which was being restored to its
original oldness, with utter disregard to other pleasant periods in its
history, as if the old "original" was more righteous than the over-layers of
time.
There were two, and now there are none, and I think it would be simply arrogant
to attempt retrieval of something which is lost, and simply not
forward-thinking, not practical (which, as you'd note was what giant rectangles
with offices in them are primarily), and not a healing move. The current
practicality involves not being attractive to being smacked into on purpose,
not risking the loss of real estate dollars, not risking the lives of people
who work there for the "pride" ("arrogance") of the rest of the country who do
not have to work there, and just plain keeping business operational. Layering
time upon that spot, with all due respect to the lives lost and none whatsoever
to bold, yet distant urges to comment on swift and thoughtless replacement (and
obscene finger gestures), involves healing and moving forward and making a new
building, inviting a new architect to create the next step. The past is in the
past, and we do not have to leave it all behind and forget it to bring some of
the essence of it with us to the new place. I just think that's how art works
and how time works.
--
Aster
Mark Hanson
news:ad3125$9j9$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> >up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
> >be terrible.
>
> Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
> everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back in
> 1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
>
neither: hardly pretty, or even attractive buildings, they were nonetheless
commanding and majestic. As symbols (of commerce, engineering, whatever),
they were astounding.
Mark
Scott P
wrote:
Honestly I did find them beautiful. At night they were gorgeous and
during the day they caught the sun in a way the other buildings just
don't. Also, as you wrote, they certainly were commanding and
majestic. They also said "New York City" unlike any other part of the
skyline, even the Empire State Building (which seems to have reclaimed
that right now that the twin towers are gone).
Scott
JB
> > >up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
> > >be terrible.
> >
> > Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
> > everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back in
> > 1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
> >
> Calling them "ugly" is as much a lie as calling them "beautiful." They were
> neither: hardly pretty, or even attractive buildings, they were nonetheless
> commanding and majestic. As symbols (of commerce, engineering, whatever),
> they were astounding.
The WTC towers were not astounding. Technically impressive, maybe.
Visually distracting, certainly. Totally out of character with the rest
of the skyline, without a doubt.
For a few years, San Francisco relaxed its ban on plain boxes, and some
ugly plain boxes were built before the city recovered its senses and
reinstituted the requirement that skyline-impacting buildings must have
aesthetic merit.
--JB
The AFCA Kid
>For a few years, San Francisco relaxed its ban on plain boxes, and some
>ugly plain boxes were built before the city recovered its senses and
>reinstituted the requirement that skyline-impacting buildings must have
>aesthetic merit.
Boy, where's Mike Lorton and his naive faith in the efficiency of unregulated
markets when you need him to make fun of? I don't suppose my wish for airplanes
to fall out of the sky on his head came true...
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Mark Hanson
news:3CF579DE...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
> > Calling them "ugly" is as much a lie as calling them "beautiful." They
were
> > neither: hardly pretty, or even attractive buildings, they were
nonetheless
> > commanding and majestic. As symbols (of commerce, engineering,
whatever),
> > they were astounding.
>
> The WTC towers were not astounding. Technically impressive, maybe.
> Visually distracting, certainly. Totally out of character with the rest
> of the skyline, without a doubt.
>
reality, and aesthetically, they were rather drab and boxy.
Mark
Boron Elgar
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <03v9fu4g03jkt6nlb...@4ax.com> Scott P <qui...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> writes:
>
>>up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
>>be terrible.
>
>Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
>everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back in
>1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
Not true. Though when they went up it was true that people were a tad
taken aback at the stark design & we used to tease about being careful
to take out of towners to see the skyline of NYC *from* the
observation deck there so they didn't have to look at the towers
spoiling it all.
What they in fact turned out to be, was precursors of a style of
architecture in the city. I looked very carefully at the skyline today
& saw how many similar buildings have been built in Manhattan since
then. A lot.
For one thing, when the towers went up, that part of Manhattan hadn't
anything new to compete with 'em..oh there were big buildings there
from an earlier age, but the landfill from the excavation for the
towers added a nice chunk of real estate & a huge slew of things went
up. Couple that with the building boom of the 80' wowie..
The WTC Towers became a visual anchor to lower Manhattan. It really
looks odd to me now with them gone. The vastness of them, the sheer
power and simplicity of the two huge slabs looming over it all...By
looking the length of the island & seeing the rise & fall of the
sklyine...the undulations of the various building-tops as the eye
follows them down the Hudson, culminating in this huge swoop skyward
at the tip...ahhhhh...they were truly magnificent that way.
Boron
Stan
>The WTC Towers became a visual anchor to lower Manhattan. It really
>looks odd to me now with them gone. The vastness of them, the sheer
>power and simplicity of the two huge slabs looming over it all...By
>looking the length of the island & seeing the rise & fall of the
>sklyine...the undulations of the various building-tops as the eye
>follows them down the Hudson, culminating in this huge swoop skyward
>at the tip...ahhhhh...they were truly magnificent that way.
Oooh! Undulations! That sounds so dirty.
JB
>
> "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
> > > Calling them "ugly" is as much a lie as calling them "beautiful." They
> were
> > > neither: hardly pretty, or even attractive buildings, they were
> nonetheless
> > > commanding and majestic. As symbols (of commerce, engineering,
> whatever),
> > > they were astounding.
> >
> > The WTC towers were not astounding. Technically impressive, maybe.
> > Visually distracting, certainly. Totally out of character with the rest
> > of the skyline, without a doubt.
> >
> I guess you missed the part where I said *as symbols* they're astounding.
I guess you missed the part where I said they were not astounding, in
response to your statement that they were astounding symbols.
> In reality, and aesthetically, they were rather drab and boxy.
Yes. Drab and boxy, yet astounding symbols. --JB
JB
Nah. The WTC towers were simple cereal boxes without character.
Compare the twin Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur.
In the 30s, improved building materials and techniques were pushing boxy
buildings ever higher into the sky in Manhattan, and city fathers
implemented aesthetic architectural requirements. That is why the
Empire State and Chrysler buildings among others have setbacks along
their heights and crown treatments. You can be sure that the
builder/owners at the time, in the mentality of the time, would have
built straight-up shoeboxes if that had been allowed, in order to create
the greatest rentable floorspace on the available site.
I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
aesthetic architectural requirement.
--JB
Greg Goss
>I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
>aesthetic architectural requirement.
The port authority is state regulated. An empire-builder asserted
that a state authority does not need to submit to city authority. And
was able to make it stick.
I notice that the workd financial towers across the street from WTC
are not nearly so boxy.
But one liberty is just as square. If there are aesthetic rules, how
did Banker's Trust or One Liberty get built?
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Matt Miller
> In <03v9fu4g03jkt6nlb...@4ax.com> Scott P
> <qui...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> writes:
>
>>up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
>>be terrible.
>
> Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
> everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back
> in 1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
I just can't not see them through the lens of 9/11. I know I used to
think of them as graceless concrete blocks that mucked up the skyline. But
it's hard to remember that when I look at pictures and see two grand
shimmering pillars.
--
Matt Milller
Boron Elgar
Oh it is! I was noticing how dirty the city was just yesterday. Trash
everyone
Boron
Stan
Oh, but i'm just too nice to trash everyone. (Besides, where would I
start).
In March I walked from Penn Station to South Street Seaport. I didn't
notice anything missing, but then I am not in Manhattan much. I did
go to the WTC site, and the size of the hole made me realize the size
of the buildings that were gone.
Asterbark
They were money siloes, and you fail to recognize that with regard to history.
You fail to recognize the passage of time, and that Modern Art Deco was radical
and weird too. What's a fun thing to do in Boston? Go to the Hancock Tower and
look at the reflection of a hundred years past, in the Trinity Church behind
you.
>Compare the twin Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur.
Not just ugly, uggh-leaigh. You seem to think gaudy ornamentation means nice.
You think sentimentality factors into the success of an architecture. You don't
have to have liked the towers to be able to grasp their significance. Money
isn't sentimental. It is pioneering: there's no more Manhattan down here, then
"go up, young man."
How many city blocks high do you figure they were? I think their site, as any
good architect considers, had a lot to do with making them the symbols that
they were, for the radically brave height they stood, rather than if the same
architecture were plunked in mid-town. The Empire State Building, in its own
time, means a lot more in mid-town, near the shops and department stores and
train stations, than it would in the financial district, but if you'd look at
the surrounding architecture in downtown, where the streets aren't gridded,
straight line no-nonsense makes all that much more sense, there and from all
lookouts to the north looking south, and especially since there were two. If
there were one, it wouldn't like like just one of them, it would be something
else.
>
>In the 30s, improved building materials and techniques were pushing boxy
>buildings ever higher into the sky in Manhattan, and city fathers
>implemented aesthetic architectural requirements. That is why the
>Empire State and Chrysler buildings among others have setbacks along
>their heights and crown treatments. You can be sure that the
>builder/owners at the time, in the mentality of the time, would have
>built straight-up shoeboxes if that had been allowed, in order to create
>the greatest rentable floorspace on the available site.
_Architecture: From Prehistory to Post-Modernism_ by Marvin Trachtenberg and
Isabelle Hyman:
"The point of departure for the Late Modernist skyscraper was the
aesthetic program of High Modernism, filtered through International Style
doctrine and reinterpreted by Gordon Bunshaft (of the firm Skidmore, Owings &
Merrill) in the Lever House of 1950-52. Although, in 1947, the
Corbusier-inspired Secretariat Building of the United Nations had already
appeared in New York City as a thirty-nine story slab with its two main faces
entirely in glass, Lever House was a more decisive turning point, especially in
the eyes of corporate patronage. It was not the working quarters of a nonprofit
international organization on the river boundary of Manhattan but the Park
Avenue headquarters of a leading American manufacturer of hygienic products
such as toothpaste and soap. Thus began the still unresolved love-hate
relationship between impersonal, profit-oriented, bureaucratic patronage and an
architecture style rooted in 1920s radicalism and humanistic idealism. In its
initial phases, however, the postwar style's intrinsic qualities represented a
masterful synthesis and expansion of the High Modernist 1920s--the glass-walled
Bauhaus machineshop and Le Corbusierr's five-point scheme. Lever House
comprises two counterposed rectangular volumes, sheathed in a thin curtain wall
of stainless steel and glass, floating on pilotis, the lower volume carrying a
roof garden and enclosing a garden-atrium retreat. Its thin, twenty-story tower
was small by New York standards (sacrificing potential real estate profits to
beauty and urban values), but for an International Style building it was
unusually large. The mastery of proportions and especially of detailing was and
remains exceptional, a harbinger of the technological excellence of the
metal-glass curtain wall that was to become the special province of Late
Modernist American builders."
http://www.som.com/html/lever_house.html
>
>I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
>aesthetic architectural requirement.
Also from _Architecture: From Prehistory to Post-Modernism_ by Marvin
Trachtenberg and Isabelle Hyman:
"In the 1960s and 1970s, it became clear that the first cycle of architectural
Modernism, which had begun in the 1890s, encompassed three generations, and
passed through three phases, was finished as a living movement capable of
further growth. Modernism was pronounced dead. Obituaries were read over its
unburied corpse by proponents of a new architectural wave that embraced over
historicism, garish symbolism, vivid ornamentation, and humble vernacular
models. After the mid-1970s, this new avant-garde style tended to call itself,
or to be called, Post-Modernism. This term served a valid polemical function of
distancing the new movement from the older one, at a moment when it was still
too nascent to be described more definitely than as a radical, backward-looking
departure. By the mid-1980s, however, the continued use of Post-Modernism posed
more difficulties than it offered advantages. That Post-Modernism as a movement
was not post-modern but, if anything, hyper-modern, meant that it was enmeshed
in a contradiction in terms. As long as Post-Modernist architects feared that
their cause might only be a transient fashion of a few seasons (like many
recent artistic phenomena), the tendentious character of the term did not
matter. But as the Post-Modernist current strengthened into a broad,
irresistible movement, with most leading architects converted to its cause by
the early 1980s, it needed a less confusing name than Post-Modernism.
"The new movement might better be termed Second Modernism. Such a term is
justified by the authentic modernity of the development despite its saturation
with historical forms and allusion, symbolism, and other explicit content
foreign to most earlier Modernism. Second Modernism is modern in structure,
abstraction, and irony; it is also modern in the most basic way as an
expression of late twentieth-century culture and society. But there is another
dimension to the movement that warrants the term Second Modernism, and that is
the probability that current developments are merely part of a whole new cycle
of Modernism in the process of crystallization.
"Much of Second Modernism is fed by diverse First Modernist forerunners--Art
Nouveau, Early Modernist Vienna, Perret, and late Le Corbusier, for example;
but more relevant is the influence of other earlier twentieth-century trends
which ran parallel or tangentially to it. To explore these roots of Second
Modernism, even tentatively, is crucial to recognizing its historical
authenticity."
The time has passed on building a new set just like the old one, and I don't
think they should if it wasn't, but as they stood, they sleekly stood for a
great number of symbols of an era that you don't seem to be able to account for
without parroting what someone said upon the initial shock after they were
first built. What you call 'reality check' is only your illusion of reality,
it's sentimentality is what it is.
--
Aster
Dana Carpender
JB wrote:
>
>
> I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
> aesthetic architectural requirement.
>
I don't, either, but I do remember that it was widely felt that they
were "spoiling the skyline". Funny the difference thirty years or so
make.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Jason Quick
"Stan" <sze...@hotmail.com>
> I did
> go to the WTC site, and the size of the hole made me realize the size
> of the buildings that were gone.
You know, I visited NYC back in October 2000 for the first time, and even
though my schedule was quite tight (only there for 3 days, and very busy for
2), I found time to see the ESB, thinking that I could see the Lady and the
WTC on my next trip.
The determining factor was walking distance - I didn't feel like trying to
navigate the trains or take a cab with my mum in tow, and my hotel was at
63rd and Broadway, so walking to the ESB was fairly do-able. I could've
made the WTC on my last day there, but didn't feel like going to the
trouble.
Man, do I ever wish I had.
The towers were not beautiful in the same way that the Chrysler Building or
Empire State are, but they had a grace and style all their own, and, dammit,
they *were* beautiful in their own way. They were truly monumental - a
monument to American capitalism (the worst system except all the others), a
monument to modern design and technology, and a monument to the economic
powerhouse that is NYC.
Jason
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Mark Hanson wrote:
>> "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
>> > Visually distracting, certainly. Totally out of character with the rest
>> > of the skyline, without a doubt.
>> >
>> I guess you missed the part where I said *as symbols* they're astounding.
> I guess you missed the part where I said they were not astounding, in
> response to your statement that they were astounding symbols.
>> In reality, and aesthetically, they were rather drab and boxy.
> Yes. Drab and boxy, yet astounding symbols. --JB
In the middle distance, yes drab and boxy, further back, thier impressive
height alone lended them some beuty and up close the sweeping catherdral
style windows near the base were appealing.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>> I did
>> go to the WTC site, and the size of the hole made me realize the size
>> of the buildings that were gone.
> You know, I visited NYC back in October 2000 for the first time, and even
> though my schedule was quite tight (only there for 3 days, and very busy for
> 2), I found time to see the ESB, thinking that I could see the Lady and the
> WTC on my next trip.
> The determining factor was walking distance - I didn't feel like trying to
> navigate the trains or take a cab with my mum in tow, and my hotel was at
> 63rd and Broadway, so walking to the ESB was fairly do-able. I could've
> made the WTC on my last day there, but didn't feel like going to the
> trouble.
> Man, do I ever wish I had.
Hell, I've lived in the greater NYC area all my life. I've always
posponed going up to the top of the WTC becuase I figured I'd have time
for it later and besides the line was always way too long.
Now, I've got regrets.
Asterbark
>
>JB <job...@carolina.rr.comtrimthispart> wrote:
>> Mark Hanson wrote:
>>> "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
>>> > The WTC towers were not astounding. Technically impressive, maybe.
>>> > Visually distracting, certainly. Totally out of character with the rest
>>> > of the skyline, without a doubt.
>>> >
>>> I guess you missed the part where I said *as symbols* they're astounding.
>
>> I guess you missed the part where I said they were not astounding, in
>> response to your statement that they were astounding symbols.
>
>>> In reality, and aesthetically, they were rather drab and boxy.
>
>> Yes. Drab and boxy, yet astounding symbols. --JB
>
>In the middle distance, yes drab and boxy, further back, thier impressive
>height alone lended them some beuty and up close the sweeping catherdral
>style windows near the base were appealing.
>
Don't discount the amazing endless views, straight up into the sky from the
base, or straight down to the street without interruption from the interior
observation deck (the platform on the roof was set back from the edge for
safety and distance viewing).
At the Empire State Building, the vertical lines aren't so distinct, and with
the step-back, those lines are half as long, a disappointment from that angle,
seemingly only as tall and bland as any other office building. From the top,
you can see in all directions, but not straight down. From afar, it's got the
pretty lights on the tower, but that's what makes it it, and some other
building has its own distinct character. But if you really look at the Empire
State Building, I think the sense of old-fashioned character is overstated in
romanticism of an era, sentimentality, and pretty colored lights at night. It's
got a character, it's of an older era, but it's not necessarily more striking
in design.
--
Aster
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
> At the Empire State Building, the vertical lines aren't so distinct, and with
> the step-back, those lines are half as long, a disappointment from that angle,
> seemingly only as tall and bland as any other office building. From the top,
> you can see in all directions, but not straight down. From afar, it's got the
> pretty lights on the tower, but that's what makes it it, and some other
> building has its own distinct character. But if you really look at the Empire
> State Building, I think the sense of old-fashioned character is overstated in
> romanticism of an era, sentimentality, and pretty colored lights at night. It's
> got a character, it's of an older era, but it's not necessarily more striking
> in design.
No, if you want striking desing with load of character, it's the Chrysler
Building.
Frankly, if they wanted to build a 2x version fo teh chrystely bulding on
the WTC site, complete with massive art deco Eagles, I'd be all for it.
Just put Phalanx CIWSs on the corners of it.
Asterbark
>
>Asterbark <aste...@aol.comzeq> wrote:
><snip>
>> At the Empire State Building, the vertical lines aren't so distinct, and
>with
>> the step-back, those lines are half as long, a disappointment from that
>angle,
>> seemingly only as tall and bland as any other office building. From the
>top,
>> you can see in all directions, but not straight down. From afar, it's got
>the
>> pretty lights on the tower, but that's what makes it it, and some other
>> building has its own distinct character. But if you really look at the
>Empire
>> State Building, I think the sense of old-fashioned character is overstated
>in
>> romanticism of an era, sentimentality, and pretty colored lights at night.
>It's
>> got a character, it's of an older era, but it's not necessarily more
>striking
>> in design.
>
>No, if you want striking desing with load of character, it's the Chrysler
>Building.
In Venturi language, that's considered a "duck,"--a building that formally
tries to symbolize its function (such as the roadside stand in the shape of a
duck selling ducks)".. The AT&T building, evocative of a payphone with negative
space outline on top where the "bell" logo would sit is another example of
literal architecture.
>
>Frankly, if they wanted to build a 2x version fo teh chrystely bulding on
>the WTC site, complete with massive art deco Eagles, I'd be all for it.
It's a one-trick duck. A novelty is only new once. It was clever in its time,
and it's been done, but we've gotten over it. I'd like to see what comes next,
you know, broaden my perspective, open up to moving forward. The Chrysler
Building is indeed a beauty, but you can see where copying it would diminish
its singularity, and the process of healing, as well as stall time and inhibit
inventiveness.
>
>Just put Phalanx CIWSs on the corners of it.
>
You're just too sentimental.
--
Aster
Gary S. Callison
: Frankly, if they wanted to build a 2x version fo teh chrystely bulding on
: Just put Phalanx CIWSs on the corners of it.
It's a good idea in theory, but in principle you need to remember two
important things:
1) the Phalanx puts an unbelievable amount of metal in the air, and
2) what goes up must come down.
Firing a couple thousand extremely high-powered machinegun bullets in any
direction in downtown Manhattan is going to kill a bunch of people. And I
have a hard time seeing the government endorsing this, high-powered
machineguns not being the sort of thing that Uncle tends to leave 'just
lying around'...
--
Huey
Al Yellon
news:oFsJ8.945$%k1.7...@monger.newsread.com...
> Hell, I've lived in the greater NYC area all my life. I've always
> posponed going up to the top of the WTC becuase I figured I'd have time
> for it later and besides the line was always way too long.
>
> Now, I've got regrets.
I went to the WTC twice, once in 1976 to do the skydeck-gawking-thing, and
once two years ago to go to the TKTS booth there (we were told the lines
were shorter than in the one in Times Square, which turned out not to be
true).
The buildings themselves seemed pretty banal and ordinary on the inside,
typical 1970's urban building architecture. Their monolithic quality on the
outside did give them a cachet as a symbol, no question about it.
As others have said, the NY skyline seems *so* different without them there,
much as Chicago would be changed without the Sears Tower, or San Francisco
without the Transamerica Pyramid.
Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have buildings without
which their skylines would be *significantly* altered?
--
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you
with experience."
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> : Frankly, if they wanted to build a 2x version fo teh chrystely bulding on
> : the WTC site, complete with massive art deco Eagles, I'd be all for it.
> : Just put Phalanx CIWSs on the corners of it.
> It's a good idea in theory, but in principle you need to remember two
> important things:
> 1) the Phalanx puts an unbelievable amount of metal in the air, and
> 2) what goes up must come down.
> Firing a couple thousand extremely high-powered machinegun bullets in any
> direction in downtown Manhattan is going to kill a bunch of people.
It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and mind
you the alternative isn't all that great.
> And I
> have a hard time seeing the government endorsing this, high-powered
> machineguns not being the sort of thing that Uncle tends to leave 'just
> lying around'...
Well, one would have to station troops up there with it, even if it's just
a few lowly guards and a service tech. In short, put a Military base up
there.
Of course, the best alternative is to somehow engineer the world such that
people aren't flying major airliners into buildings, but the Sec'y of
Trasnportation seems down on allowing Air crews to go armed, so being able
to shoot them down is the next best thingy.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> <ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
> news:oFsJ8.945$%k1.7...@monger.newsread.com...
>> Hell, I've lived in the greater NYC area all my life. I've always
>> posponed going up to the top of the WTC becuase I figured I'd have time
>> for it later and besides the line was always way too long.
>>
>> Now, I've got regrets.
> I went to the WTC twice, once in 1976 to do the skydeck-gawking-thing, and
> once two years ago to go to the TKTS booth there (we were told the lines
> were shorter than in the one in Times Square, which turned out not to be
> true).
I've been in the building many times. I just never got up on top of it.
> The buildings themselves seemed pretty banal and ordinary on the inside,
> typical 1970's urban building architecture. Their monolithic quality on the
> outside did give them a cachet as a symbol, no question about it.
Huh, I thought the main concourse was pretty impressive.
> As others have said, the NY skyline seems *so* different without them there,
> much as Chicago would be changed without the Sears Tower, or San Francisco
> without the Transamerica Pyramid.
> Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have buildings without
> which their skylines would be *significantly* altered?
Las Vegas and it's Pyramid. There's St Louis with the Arch.
Hmmm, anything else?
Jason Quick
> Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have buildings
without
> which their skylines would be *significantly* altered?
I'd imagine there are lots of mid-sized cities who fit this bill. Omaha,
f'rex, only has two truly tallish buildings (one of which is still
incomplete). The absence of either would measurably alter the skyline.
Same goes for my hometown, Des Moines.
Jason
Mark Hanson
news:LJvJ8.972$%k1.7...@monger.newsread.com...
> Of course, the best alternative is to somehow engineer the world such that
> people aren't flying major airliners into buildings, but the Sec'y of
> Trasnportation seems down on allowing Air crews to go armed, so being able
> to shoot them down is the next best thingy.
>
idea. Better to have the doors to the cockpit simply be securable from the
inside. Personally, I'd want my pilot working on getting the plane on the
ground as quickly as possible with no distractions, rather than have him
thinking about starting a firefight with the terrorists in the aisles.
Mark
Carlos Hernandez
>"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
Toronto and the CN Tower.
Seattle and the Space Needle (kinda, it's not really part of the downtown
skyline).
Harbour Centre in Vancouver, though its only visible from some directions.
--
Carlos Hernandez Fisher | "Beef makes the crust!"
cahe...@nospam.sfu.ca | -- Gallery of Regrettable Food
remove 'nospam' to reply | www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>
>JB wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
>> aesthetic architectural requirement.
>>
>
>
>I don't, either, but I do remember that it was widely felt that they
>were "spoiling the skyline". Funny the difference thirty years or so
>make.
When they went up, they stood at the end of Manhattan like two giant
middle fingers screaming "Screw You!" to the rest of civilization, but
as the area changed they wound up looking more like Mama & Papa
Building, guarding their brood of Baby Buildings all around them.
Twenty-five years ago, we nicknamed 'em the "Colossus of Loads" cause
we all hated them....it took me (and many other New Yorkers)a long,
long time to get used to them & to grow to love them. Flying back home
to NY or driving in from being away, you'd catch a glimpse of them &
the sheer size of the towers would take your breath away.They were
particularly striking at night.
A lot of buildings go up & the first impression is not favorable.
Citicorp, with it huge slanted top was not well received at the
outset, but also came to be a dependable & appreciated part of the
skyline.
I cannot even begin to count how many times I was up at the
observation deck or stopped into Windows on the World or dragged
another out of town friend up top to see the wonderful views.
Boron
Boron Elgar
>JB <job...@carolina.rr.comtrimthispart> wrote:
>> Mark Hanson wrote:
>>> "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
>>> > The WTC towers were not astounding. Technically impressive, maybe.
>>> > Visually distracting, certainly. Totally out of character with the rest
>>> > of the skyline, without a doubt.
>>> >
>>> I guess you missed the part where I said *as symbols* they're astounding.
>
>> I guess you missed the part where I said they were not astounding, in
>> response to your statement that they were astounding symbols.
>
>>> In reality, and aesthetically, they were rather drab and boxy.
>
>> Yes. Drab and boxy, yet astounding symbols. --JB
>
>In the middle distance, yes drab and boxy, further back, thier impressive
>height alone lended them some beuty and up close the sweeping catherdral
>style windows near the base were appealing.
>
Indeed, John. You are quite correct...the almost Gothic arches of the
lattice work at the base...which could also look like flute champagnes
or large forks, depending on your sense of humor that day...they took
the eye upward & the parallax delight of the soaring buildings was
pretty nifty is all sorts of light.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> The WTC Towers became a visual anchor to lower Manhattan. It really
>> looks odd to me now with them gone. The vastness of them, the sheer
>> power and simplicity of the two huge slabs looming over it all...By
>> looking the length of the island & seeing the rise & fall of the
>> sklyine...the undulations of the various building-tops as the eye
>> follows them down the Hudson, culminating in this huge swoop skyward
>> at the tip...ahhhhh...they were truly magnificent that way.
>
>Nah. The WTC towers were simple cereal boxes without character.
>Compare the twin Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, though they had cometo be
held in decent architectural regard.
>
>In the 30s, improved building materials and techniques were pushing boxy
>buildings ever higher into the sky in Manhattan, and city fathers
>implemented aesthetic architectural requirements. That is why the
>Empire State and Chrysler buildings among others have setbacks along
>their heights and crown treatments. You can be sure that the
>builder/owners at the time, in the mentality of the time, would have
>built straight-up shoeboxes if that had been allowed, in order to create
>the greatest rentable floorspace on the available site.
THe ESB was built with budget & speed in mind & was one of the first
constructs to make extensive use of prefab.
Setbacks were not just from zoning & City control, but were very much
part of the Deco style that both the ESB & Chrysler had, though the
ESB is not nearly so decorated and prime an example. IF you google a
bit on the style, You will see what I mean. Plain was just not the
style of the day.
Ther was trouble renting space in it early on, garnering the nickname
of "The Empty State Building" for awhile.
>
>I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
>aesthetic architectural requirement.
You don't know too much about NYC, then.
Boron
JB
> The Chrysler Building is indeed a beauty,
> but you can see where copying it would diminish
> its singularity, and the process of healing, as well as stall time and inhibit
> inventiveness.
Finally, something of yours worth repeating. --JB
JB
> > Of course, the best alternative is to somehow engineer the world such that
> > people aren't flying major airliners into buildings, but the Sec'y of
> > Trasnportation seems down on allowing Air crews to go armed, so being able
> > to shoot them down is the next best thingy.
> >
> Most airline pilots seem to be down on it too,
Cite? Polls I've seen show pilots in favor of arming pilots.
> it generally being a bad idea.
In your opinion.
> Better to have the doors to the cockpit simply be securable from the
> inside.
Admirable on the face of it, but ignores the human response of a pilot
hearing a hijacker screaming through the door that he's got someone's
baby outside that door, and he will put its eyes out one by one unless
the door is opened.
> Personally, I'd want my pilot working on getting the plane on the
> ground as quickly as possible with no distractions, rather than have him
> thinking about starting a firefight with the terrorists in the aisles.
There are always two pilots. One can land the plane while the other
uses weapons to keep the hijackers out of the cockpit.
This actually happened a short while back, where the copilot used a fire
axe to subdue (kill?) a hijacker while the pilot brought the plane in.
--JB
Al Yellon
news:ad62fp$udmlb$1...@ID-57673.news.dfncis.de...
But are those buildings really *distinctive* (such as the Arch in St. Louis
or the CN Tower, which were mentioned elsewhere in this thread), or are they
just taller than the others?
IMO, tallness alone doesn't qualify here.
Al Yellon
> Mark Hanson wrote:
> >
> > <ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Of course, the best alternative is to somehow engineer the world such
that
> > > people aren't flying major airliners into buildings, but the Sec'y of
> > > Trasnportation seems down on allowing Air crews to go armed, so being
able
> > > to shoot them down is the next best thingy.
> > >
> > Most airline pilots seem to be down on it too,
>
> Cite? Polls I've seen show pilots in favor of arming pilots.
I haven't seen a poll either way, but a flight attendant friend of mine says
all the pilots *he* works with say it's a bad idea.
JB
>
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 03:37:00 GMT, JB
> <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>
> >Nah. The WTC towers were simple cereal boxes without character.
> >Compare the twin Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, though they had cometo be
> held in decent architectural regard.
Cite? I suppose some write favorably about the WTC towers just as some
write favorably about the Petronas towers (neither of which I favor - I
only mentioned Petronas since they were the only big twins I recall, and
having a modicum more design flavor than WTC). My personal
architectural favorite is the Chrysler Bldg, followed at some distance
by the Empire State Bldg, with Transamerica Pyramid a distant 3rd
(recently moved up, after many years a sneering last).
> >In the 30s, improved building materials and techniques were pushing boxy
> >buildings ever higher into the sky in Manhattan, and city fathers
> >implemented aesthetic architectural requirements. That is why the
> >Empire State and Chrysler buildings among others have setbacks along
> >their heights and crown treatments. You can be sure that the
> >builder/owners at the time, in the mentality of the time, would have
> >built straight-up shoeboxes if that had been allowed, in order to create
> >the greatest rentable floorspace on the available site.
>
> THe ESB was built with budget & speed in mind & was one of the first
> constructs to make extensive use of prefab.
So? Budget/speed/prefab are engineering/construction concepts and have
nothing to do with architectural design.
> Setbacks were not just from zoning & City control,
Yes they were. Read how the designers felt constrained.
> but were very much
> part of the Deco style that both the ESB & Chrysler had, though the
> ESB is not nearly so decorated and prime an example. IF you google a
> bit on the style, You will see what I mean.
> Plain was just not the style of the day.
Yes it was, when big money was involved. Do your own googling. In
those days, developers wanted bigger and boxier; architectural style was
legislated. For the most part, deco was for interiors, unless forced
otherwise.
> Ther was trouble renting space in it early on, garnering the nickname
> of "The Empty State Building" for awhile.
Let's see, could the depression have anything to do with that? And how
is that related to design, which is the topic here?
> >I don't know the political history of how the WTC towers evaded NYC's
> >aesthetic architectural requirement.
>
> You don't know too much about NYC, then.
You are wrong. The most you're entitled to say is that I don't know too
much about NYC architectural politics of the time, which is precisely
what I said originally. But I seem to know more about that than you do.
--JB
Joseph Nebus
>Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have buildings without
>which their skylines would be *significantly* altered?
Albany, New York, which has one large and several smaller tall
but very thin buildings as part of the Empire State Plaza. If you took
those buildings out, not only would Price Chopper lose the extremely
marginal advertising of having its name spelled out in the office lights
all night, but the buildings could no longer serve as the heat sink for
the whole Capital District, which would of course cause the Civic
Processing Unit to overheat.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ctc...@hotmail.com
>
> Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have buildings
> without which their skylines would be *significantly* altered?
Grand Rapids and that big Amway thingy.
Any small town and it's water tower and/or church steaple
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
Greg Goss
>It was clever in its time,
>and it's been done, but we've gotten over it. I'd like to see what comes next,
Someone, whom I think was the guy with the lease on the WTC (or at
least the land now), was speculating on what would go up there. One
suggestion was two 40 story towers with the "lights" memorial going up
from there.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Greg Goss
>No, if you want striking desing with load of character, it's the Chrysler
>Building.
Some people can't tell the difference. My wife made some mention of
the Empire State building in the Law & Order opening and I realised
that she wasn't aware that these were two different buildings.
http://www.salon.com/ent/masterpiece/2002/02/25/chrysler/
Greg Goss
>It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
>suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and mind
>you the alternative isn't all that great.
During an argument with someone about "why didn't they protect the
Pentagon when they had all that time after the WTC?" I suddenly
realized that there were very few places where you could drop a
jetliner in DC and kill ONLY a couple of hundred people. The wing of
the Pentagon that was under renovation was probably the safest place
to put that plane.
Greg Goss
>Harbour Centre in Vancouver, though its only visible from some directions.
From the other directions, the Wall center Bic lighter would be
obvious if it departed. And the new hospital is monumentally ugly
from almost anywhere.
Greg Goss
>They were money siloes, and you fail to recognize that with regard to history.
>You fail to recognize the passage of time, and that Modern Art Deco was radical
>and weird too. What's a fun thing to do in Boston? Go to the Hancock Tower and
>look at the reflection of a hundred years past, in the Trinity Church behind
>you.
I get a similar feeling looking at Vancouver's Sinclair Center
reflected in the Commerce building.
Bob Moissonnier
> JB job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART wrote:
>
>
> >Boron Elgar wrote:
> >>
> >> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In <03v9fu4g03jkt6nlb...@4ax.com> Scott P
> <qui...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
> >> >>be terrible.
> >> >
> >> >Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
> >> >everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back in
> >> >1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
> >>
> >> Not true. Though when they went up it was true that people were a tad
> >> taken aback at the stark design & we used to tease about being careful
> >> to take out of towners to see the skyline of NYC *from* the
> >> observation deck there so they didn't have to look at the towers
> >> spoiling it all.
> >>
> >> What they in fact turned out to be, was precursors of a style of
> >> architecture in the city. I looked very carefully at the skyline today
> >> & saw how many similar buildings have been built in Manhattan since
> >> then. A lot.
> >>
> >> For one thing, when the towers went up, that part of Manhattan hadn't
> >> anything new to compete with 'em..oh there were big buildings there
> >> from an earlier age, but the landfill from the excavation for the
> >> towers added a nice chunk of real estate & a huge slew of things went
> >> up. Couple that with the building boom of the 80' wowie..
> >>
> >> The WTC Towers became a visual anchor to lower Manhattan. It really
> >> looks odd to me now with them gone. The vastness of them, the sheer
> >> power and simplicity of the two huge slabs looming over it all...By
> >> looking the length of the island & seeing the rise & fall of the
> >> sklyine...the undulations of the various building-tops as the eye
> >> follows them down the Hudson, culminating in this huge swoop skyward
> >> at the tip...ahhhhh...they were truly magnificent that way.
> >
>
>
> You fail to recognize the passage of time, and that Modern Art Deco was radical
> and weird too. What's a fun thing to do in Boston? Go to the Hancock Tower and
> look at the reflection of a hundred years past, in the Trinity Church behind
> you.
I don't think the WTC was so bad, myself. In addition, interested
readers may want to peruse the following article on the Islamic
influence on the WTC architecture:
Greg Goss
Transmountain Pipeline building in Vancouver gets an honorable mention
somewhere here. The building is 25 (??) stories tall, but the
curtainwall only starts 20 or 30 feet up At ground level, all you
have is the service core. Not even posts for the outer walls.
The service core was built all the way to the top, then the building
was hung from that post There are girders hung over the center post
holding the TOP of the main wall posts in place.
I've been completely unable to google up a photo of the building. It
looks absurd the first time you see it, but it grows on you. I worked
across the street from it for a few months in 78.
Transmountain has moved since then. I don't know who owns it ow.
Boron Elgar
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>> You don't know too much about NYC, then.
>
>You are wrong. The most you're entitled to say is that I don't know too
>much about NYC architectural politics of the time, which is precisely
>what I said originally. But I seem to know more about that than you do.
>
Entitled? One needs entitlement on usenet? You must inhabit a
different planet than I. I re-iterate that you do not know much about
the city and I will also add that you know even less about its
architecture.
Boron
Rick B.
>
> "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
> news:3CF6D0BB...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
> > Mark Hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > <ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Of course, the best alternative is to somehow engineer the world such
> that
> > > > people aren't flying major airliners into buildings, but the Sec'y of
> > > > Trasnportation seems down on allowing Air crews to go armed, so being
> able
> > > > to shoot them down is the next best thingy.
> > > >
> > > Most airline pilots seem to be down on it too,
> >
> > Cite? Polls I've seen show pilots in favor of arming pilots.
>
> I haven't seen a poll either way, but a flight attendant friend of mine says
> all the pilots *he* works with say it's a bad idea.
Read a George Will column the other day in which he talked with three
pilots who were all against it. At least one said that he'd been
contacted for a poll commissioned by the Air Line Pilots Association
and that he thought that the questions therein were slanted to produce
a pro-gun response. Full text:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/2973721p-3838576c.html
Rick B.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> <ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
> news:LJvJ8.972$%k1.7...@monger.newsread.com...
>> Of course, the best alternative is to somehow engineer the world such that
>> people aren't flying major airliners into buildings, but the Sec'y of
>> Trasnportation seems down on allowing Air crews to go armed, so being able
>> to shoot them down is the next best thingy.
>>
> Most airline pilots seem to be down on it too,
Curious, do you have a cite or is that just your impression?
> it generally being a bad
> idea. Better to have the doors to the cockpit simply be securable from the
> inside. Personally, I'd want my pilot working on getting the plane on the
> ground as quickly as possible with no distractions, rather than have him
> thinking about starting a firefight with the terrorists in the aisles.
I'd rather have all options: Pilot getting things landed, Co-pilot ready
to shoot the bad guys, if the door fails in some manner, Tasers on the
flaight atendants and the possibility that there's an armed Marshal in the
back.
In fact, I'd like to see a volunteer air marshal program, letting all
interested folks carry on board if they can meet the background and
training requirements of the regular air marshals.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
>>suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and mind
>>you the alternative isn't all that great.
> During an argument with someone about "why didn't they protect the
> Pentagon when they had all that time after the WTC?" I suddenly
> realized that there were very few places where you could drop a
> jetliner in DC and kill ONLY a couple of hundred people. The wing of
> the Pentagon that was under renovation was probably the safest place
> to put that plane.
Yes, if you limit the options to buildings, but beginnning the process of
break up eariler would have helped greatly in reducing the death toll, and
as far as the pentagon goes, not too far out of DC is a whole lot of near
empty land where the wreckage could have gone (assuming your 'someone' was
talking about shooting down the airliner).
But the fact of the amtter is that we don't have that many jet fighters
ready to scramble and the areas covered by active ADA is very small (the
White House is rumored to have such things).
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>No, if you want striking desing with load of character, it's the Chrysler
>>Building.
> Some people can't tell the difference. My wife made some mention of
> the Empire State building in the Law & Order opening and I realised
> that she wasn't aware that these were two different buildings.
Wow. The ESB is far plainer, without the metal top and the truely (IMO)
cool art deco eagles. Hell Even the recent Spiderman movie had to have
Spidey hanging out on them for one scene.
Mark Hanson
news:Y3MJ8.731$Fr4.8...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > Most airline pilots seem to be down on it too,
>
> Curious, do you have a cite or is that just your impression?
>
by some common sense, and by my own personal feelings. I'd think you'd want
*fewer* guns on a plane. What's the pilot going to do if a terrorist
surprises everyone by dragging a 5 year old girl up to the cockpit and
demanding the cabin gun, or he'll cut her throat? It's just a bad idea.
Mark
groo
>
> In <03v9fu4g03jkt6nlb...@4ax.com> Scott P <qui...@ix.netcom.comNOSPAM> writes:
>
> >up. They were beautiful and for them to no longer exist forever would
> >be terrible.
>
> Let's back up to September 10th, please. The buildings were ugly to
> everyone except the designers. To quote some writeup or another back in
> 1970 [L], "they look like the boxes the WTC was shipped in".
>
Any tall building without gargoyles is an opportunity missed.
- groo
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> <ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
> news:Y3MJ8.731$Fr4.8...@newshog.newsread.com...
>> > Most airline pilots seem to be down on it too,
>>
>> Curious, do you have a cite or is that just your impression?
>>
> It's my impression,
That's what I thought. While there are some pilots who are against it, my
reading indicated that it was fairly evenly split on the issue.
> given strength by some interviews I've heard and read,
> by some common sense, and by my own personal feelings.
Yes, though many of those things are subjective and depend on the viewer.
> I'd think you'd want
> *fewer* guns on a plane.
You mean me personally? I want far *more* guns on planes because I think
that strategies that depend on disarmament are doomed to failure: Arm
everyone, just inspect them to make sure they have safety slugs before
takeoff, I say. But I'm a bit extreme in that regard
> What's the pilot going to do if a terrorist
> surprises everyone by dragging a 5 year old girl up to the cockpit and
> demanding the cabin gun, or he'll cut her throat? It's just a bad idea.
You shoot him. Right now, he's armed and no one else on board is, tho
admiteddly, enoguh determined unarmed people can take down a few with
knives at least in as much as causing a crash.
GrapeApe
>
>that strategies that depend on disarmament are doomed to failure: Arm
>everyone, just inspect them to make sure they have safety slugs before
>takeoff, I say. But I'm a bit extreme in that regard
Whatys wrong with lets say ...tasers?
They don't poke holes in the skin of the plane, they don't make noises that
alarm the passengers, they can be used from a safe distance.
Carl Fink
> They don't poke holes in the skin of the plane, they don't make noises that
> alarm the passengers, they can be used from a safe distance.
... they don't work if the target is wearing a jacket, they often
don't work period ....
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
>by some common sense, and by my own personal feelings. I'd think you'd want
>*fewer* guns on a plane. What's the pilot going to do if a terrorist
>surprises everyone by dragging a 5 year old girl up to the cockpit and
>demanding the cabin gun, or he'll cut her throat? It's just a bad idea.
Kind of a bad example. No one in their right mind would ever give someone a gun
to let a hostage go.
It has got to made well known that cockpit doors won't be opened in flight, no
matter what. If terrorists know this, they probably won't threaten to kill
anyone because it won't do them any good.
-Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
COPYRIGHT 2002, All Rights Reserved
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>-:
>-:>No, if you want striking desing with load of character, it's the Chrysler
>-:>Building.
>-:
>-:Some people can't tell the difference. My wife made some mention of
>-:the Empire State building in the Law & Order opening and I realised
>-:that she wasn't aware that these were two different buildings.
>-:
>-:http://www.salon.com/ent/masterpiece/2002/02/25/chrysler/
Are you really saying that your wife cannot tell the difference
between photographs of the two buildings, or that she's not sure which
is the Empire State Building?
--
This space left intentionally blank
Bob Ward
>-:>You mean me personally? I want far *more* guns on planes because I think
>-:>
>-:>that strategies that depend on disarmament are doomed to failure: Arm
>-:>everyone, just inspect them to make sure they have safety slugs before
>-:>takeoff, I say. But I'm a bit extreme in that regard
>-:
>-:Whatys wrong with lets say ...tasers?
>-:
>-:They don't poke holes in the skin of the plane, they don't make noises that
>-:alarm the passengers, they can be used from a safe distance.
Two words:
Rodney
King
Dana Carpender
Dunno, but the problem is common. Summer of, oh, I think it was '98,
the Chrysler building took a beating at the movies -- it got taken out
in Armageddon, Deep Impact, and Godzilla, all three. Yet repeatedly in
movie reviews I would read about the Empire State building taking the
hit. Irritated me no end.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Al Yellon
news:3CF75817...@sprynet.com...
Thanks for finding this column; I had read it in the paper but couldn't find
the link. What's most interesting here, I think, is that the pilots
mentioned in the article were in favor of having cameras in the cabins. Not
only is that a good idea for the reasons mentioned, but I think having some
sort of video system that would be an adjunct or backup to the "black boxes"
is also a good idea.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
And they don't work as well as folks would like them to. Not that I'm
opposed to them, and if that's the only weapon they'll let the crew have,
then they'll have to do.
Al Yellon
> Cite? I suppose some write favorably about the WTC towers just as some
> write favorably about the Petronas towers (neither of which I favor - I
> only mentioned Petronas since they were the only big twins I recall, and
> having a modicum more design flavor than WTC).
A "modicum" is about it. IMO, the Petronas towers are the WTC with a spire
on the top, which was added for the *SOLE* reason to make the buildings
taller than the Sears Tower.
Al Yellon
news:csbefusc9mu81rsak...@4ax.com...
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> >It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
> >suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and
mind
> >you the alternative isn't all that great.
>
> During an argument with someone about "why didn't they protect the
> Pentagon when they had all that time after the WTC?" I suddenly
> realized that there were very few places where you could drop a
> jetliner in DC and kill ONLY a couple of hundred people. The wing of
> the Pentagon that was under renovation was probably the safest place
> to put that plane.
Are you suggesting here that the passengers on flight 77 might have done the
same thing that those on flight 93 did, only with less time to react?
Al Yellon
news:8898eb74.02053...@posting.google.com...
>
> I don't think the WTC was so bad, myself. In addition, interested
> readers may want to peruse the following article on the Islamic
> influence on the WTC architecture:
>
> http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060207
Very interesting take, and I think there's something to this.
FWIW, I was astounded to read that Yamasaki was able to design a
*SYNAGOGUE* -- North Shore Congregation Israel, in Glencoe, IL (to which my
family used to belong when I was a kid, FWIW), with Islamic influences. I
guess the synagogue's leaders either didn't realize this or didn't care.
Here's some photos of that building:
http://www.m-yamasaki.com/projs/shore.html
groo
>
> "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
> news:3CF6DC73...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
>
> > Cite? I suppose some write favorably about the WTC towers just as some
> > write favorably about the Petronas towers (neither of which I favor - I
> > only mentioned Petronas since they were the only big twins I recall, and
> > having a modicum more design flavor than WTC).
>
> A "modicum" is about it. IMO, the Petronas towers are the WTC with a spire
> on the top, which was added for the *SOLE* reason to make the buildings
> taller than the Sears Tower.
>
I can understand that you may not like them, but they don't really look
much like the WTC. Roundy, not squarey.
http://www.skyscrapers.com/english/worldmap/building/0.9/106014/
- groo
Al Yellon
Point taken, but I still find them very similar in concept, if not
execution, to the WTC.
GrapeApe
>>by some common sense, and by my own personal feelings. I'd think you'd
>want
>>*fewer* guns on a plane. What's the pilot going to do if a terrorist
>>surprises everyone by dragging a 5 year old girl up to the cockpit and
>>demanding the cabin gun, or he'll cut her throat? It's just a bad idea.
>
>Kind of a bad example. No one in their right mind would ever give someone
>a gun
>to let a hostage go.
I think they should allow guns, but they should be the type Wile E. Coyote gets
from Acme, and they should shoot the person pullling the trigger in the face.
Dhubghall
> Gary S. Callison <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> : Frankly, if they wanted to build a 2x version fo teh chrystely bulding on
>> : the WTC site, complete with massive art deco Eagles, I'd be all for it.
>> : Just put Phalanx CIWSs on the corners of it.
>> Firing a couple thousand extremely high-powered machinegun bullets in any
>> direction in downtown Manhattan is going to kill a bunch of people.
Remember that the Phalanx also fires depleted uranium slugs. While the
radioctave aspect of that ammunition may be overplayed the fact that it's
a fairly toxic heavy metal should not be forgotten.
> It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
> suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and mind
> you the alternative isn't all that great.
Actually I would question whether the CIWS would do much to an aircraft
attempting what your suggesting. You still have a LOT of mass and fuel
heading in the same direction it was, and the phalanx isn't that long
ranged. That and most of the sailors I know said that CIWS stood for
"Crist, it won't SHOOT!!!".
Dougall
Bob Ward
<aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>-:"JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
>-:news:3CF6DC73...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
>-:
>-:> Cite? I suppose some write favorably about the WTC towers just as some
>-:> write favorably about the Petronas towers (neither of which I favor - I
>-:> only mentioned Petronas since they were the only big twins I recall, and
>-:> having a modicum more design flavor than WTC).
>-:
>-:A "modicum" is about it. IMO, the Petronas towers are the WTC with a spire
>-:on the top, which was added for the *SOLE* reason to make the buildings
>-:taller than the Sears Tower.
Not in my opinion - they certainly appear to have a lot more texture
in this picture at http://scrapbook.designcommunity.com/47.html
Bob Ward
<aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>-:"groo" <gr...@groo.org> wrote in message news:3CF7B2FF...@groo.org...
>-:> Al Yellon wrote:
>-:> >
>-:> > "JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
>-:> > news:3CF6DC73...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
>-:> >
>-:> > > Cite? I suppose some write favorably about the WTC towers just as
>-:some
>-:> > > write favorably about the Petronas towers (neither of which I favor -
>-:I
>-:> > > only mentioned Petronas since they were the only big twins I recall,
>-:and
>-:> > > having a modicum more design flavor than WTC).
>-:> >
>-:> > A "modicum" is about it. IMO, the Petronas towers are the WTC with a
>-:spire
>-:> > on the top, which was added for the *SOLE* reason to make the buildings
>-:> > taller than the Sears Tower.
>-:> >
>-:>
>-:> I can understand that you may not like them, but they don't really look
>-:> much like the WTC. Roundy, not squarey.
>-:>
>-:> http://www.skyscrapers.com/english/worldmap/building/0.9/106014/
>-:
>-:Point taken, but I still find them very similar in concept, if not
>-:execution, to the WTC.
The concept being a tall office building? How mant ways can you
package that?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Thanks for finding this column; I had read it in the paper but couldn't find
> the link. What's most interesting here, I think, is that the pilots
> mentioned in the article were in favor of having cameras in the cabins. Not
> only is that a good idea for the reasons mentioned, but I think having some
> sort of video system that would be an adjunct or backup to the "black boxes"
> is also a good idea.
Definetly a good idea.
Bob Ward
>-:Al Yellon <aye...@removecolgatethisalumni.org> wrote:
>-:> Thanks for finding this column; I had read it in the paper but couldn't find
>-:> the link. What's most interesting here, I think, is that the pilots
>-:> mentioned in the article were in favor of having cameras in the cabins. Not
>-:> only is that a good idea for the reasons mentioned, but I think having some
>-:> sort of video system that would be an adjunct or backup to the "black boxes"
>-:> is also a good idea.
>-:
>-:Definetly a good idea.
>-:
>-:
>-:John
See
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/air_travel/1031safety.html
for one story on the concept.
Jason Quick
> "Jason Quick" <jsq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd imagine there are lots of mid-sized cities who fit this bill.
Omaha,
> > f'rex, only has two truly tallish buildings (one of which is still
> > incomplete). The absence of either would measurably alter the skyline.
> > Same goes for my hometown, Des Moines.
>
> But are those buildings really *distinctive* (such as the Arch in St.
Louis
> or the CN Tower, which were mentioned elsewhere in this thread), or are
they
> just taller than the others?
Well, mostly just taller than the others. Couple of 'em are recognizable in
their own right, I guess:
Ruan Center, Des Moines, IA:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H346228F
For about 25 years the tallest building in Iowa.
EMC Insurance Building, Des Moines, IA:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T256518F
(We call it the Absolut Building, for obvious reasons.)
The Equitable Building, DSM:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H5C6428F
A very distinctive structure.
And the gorgeous Iowa State Capitol Building:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W347248F
Jason
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> Gary S. Callison <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>>> : Frankly, if they wanted to build a 2x version fo teh chrystely bulding on
>>> : the WTC site, complete with massive art deco Eagles, I'd be all for it.
>>> : Just put Phalanx CIWSs on the corners of it.
>>> Firing a couple thousand extremely high-powered machinegun bullets in any
>>> direction in downtown Manhattan is going to kill a bunch of people.
> Remember that the Phalanx also fires depleted uranium slugs. While the
> radioctave aspect of that ammunition may be overplayed the fact that it's
> a fairly toxic heavy metal should not be forgotten.
Eh, the toxicity of the metal is very overplayed in general. Regular
machinguns fire lead slugs, and lead poisoning has killed or made ill far
more people than Uranium.
>> It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
>> suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and mind
>> you the alternative isn't all that great.
> Actually I would question whether the CIWS would do much to an aircraft
> attempting what your suggesting. You still have a LOT of mass and fuel
> heading in the same direction it was, and the phalanx isn't that long
> ranged.
No it isn't. It's a Close In Weapon System after all. But that being
said, causing the plane to begin breaking up early would make the
difference between the building stranding but damaged and collapsing.
> That and most of the sailors I know said that CIWS stood for
> "Crist, it won't SHOOT!!!".
Heh, that or get's too sensitive and hoses the shit out of sea gulls and
wave tops.
Boron Elgar
<aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>"Bob Moissonnier" <bob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8898eb74.02053...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> I don't think the WTC was so bad, myself. In addition, interested
>> readers may want to peruse the following article on the Islamic
>> influence on the WTC architecture:
>>
>> http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060207
>
>Very interesting take, and I think there's something to this.
>
>FWIW, I was astounded to read that Yamasaki was able to design a
>*SYNAGOGUE* -- North Shore Congregation Israel, in Glencoe, IL (to which my
>family used to belong when I was a kid, FWIW), with Islamic influences. I
>guess the synagogue's leaders either didn't realize this or didn't care.
>Here's some photos of that building:
>
>http://www.m-yamasaki.com/projs/shore.html
This is not an unusual design trait, if you look at other Yamasaki
buildings linked to from your page above. He has a lot of buildings
around Detroit & the Wayne University Campus that I sort of "grew up"
around.
Additionally, Moorish design has been used frequently for synagogues,
a preference, I assume left over from when the Jews were in Moorish
Spain.
Here's one with minarets!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/nyack.html
And even much older, from Sephardim, I suppose...
http://www.fol.it/sinagoga/inglese.htm
Boron
Al Yellon
news:hrgffuchqivj9vrib...@4ax.com...
>
> See
> http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/air_travel/1031safety.html
> for one story on the concept.
>
This is about transmitting video to and from cockpits. It would be a good
idea IMO to have some sort of record on the ground, too, in case the video
is lost in a crash or explosion on board.
In the case of uneventful flights, the video record would be destroyed.
GrapeApe
>idea IMO to have some sort of record on the ground, too, in case the video
>is lost in a crash or explosion on board.
>
>In the case of uneventful flights, the video record would be destroyed.
Black box.
John Hatpin
>I want far *more* guns on planes because I think
>that strategies that depend on disarmament are doomed to failure: Arm
>everyone, just inspect them to make sure they have safety slugs before
>takeoff, I say.
>
>But I'm a bit extreme in that regard
No, John, you're not extreme. On top of several hours of boredom,
confinement and drinks trolleys, let's give all passengers guns, and
let's pray they use them wisely, and that all the people who get shot
and killed are genuine terrorists, not kids or staff or normal people
or anything.
You're not extreme, John, you're just insane.
--
John Hatpin
Bob Ward
<aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>-:"Bob Ward" <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
>-:news:hrgffuchqivj9vrib...@4ax.com...
>-:>
>-:> See
>-:> http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/air_travel/1031safety.html
>-:> for one story on the concept.
>-:>
>-:
>-:This is about transmitting video to and from cockpits. It would be a good
>-:idea IMO to have some sort of record on the ground, too, in case the video
>-:is lost in a crash or explosion on board.
>-:
>-:In the case of uneventful flights, the video record would be destroyed.
Didn't you read the story, Al?
At a demonstration here earlier this week, wireless telecommunications
giant Qualcomm Inc. showed off the latest entry: a system based on
high-speed satellite Internet service that can transmit video, sound
and flight information in real-time to controllers on the ground.
Blinky the Shark
news:20020530234951.976$W...@newsreader.com:
> "Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>>
>> Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have
>> buildings without which their skylines would be *significantly*
>> altered?
>
> Grand Rapids and that big Amway thingy.
>
> Any small town and it's water tower and/or church steaple
Following through on that scale, if it happens to be a county
seat, if it happens to be Back East, and it happens there's a
chance that it has a prominent - and historic - county courthouse.
And, speaking of Michigan, a small state capital (small town, not
small state) like Lansing would look pretty different downtown, if
the capitol dome wasn't there.
--
Blinky
Greg Goss
>"Greg Goss" <go...@mindlink.com> wrote in message
>> I suddenly
>> realized that there were very few places where you could drop a
>> jetliner in DC and kill ONLY a couple of hundred people.
>
>Are you suggesting here that the passengers on flight 77 might have done the
>same thing that those on flight 93 did, only with less time to react?
No, there was no way for anyone to know that this side of the Pentagon
was nearly empty. And no way to guide the impact point without having
enough control to keep the plane flying. Staying in the air is easier
than hitting a particuar building.
I had been in mid-rant that nobody had a fighter in the air when the
realization hit me. If they had pulled a 93, then the resuts might
have been worse.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Greg Goss
>>-:Some people can't tell the difference. My wife made some mention of
>>-:the Empire State building in the Law & Order opening and I realised
>>-:that she wasn't aware that these were two different buildings.
>
>Are you really saying that your wife cannot tell the difference
>between photographs of the two buildings, or that she's not sure which
>is the Empire State Building?
She hadn't realized that the ESB was not the top art deco skyscraper
of the era. She had conflated her internal images of both buildings
under the label ESB in her mind.
The stainless steel is not prominent in photographs. I had not
realized it until I read the article I linked to. And the photo that
triggered the realization was a night shot.
GrapeApe
>was nearly empty. And no way to guide the impact point without having
>enough control to keep the plane flying. Staying in the air is easier
>than hitting a particuar building.
Probably most of the people inside had some idea.
ctc...@hotmail.com
> A "modicum" is about it. IMO, the Petronas towers are the WTC with a
> spire on the top, which was added for the *SOLE* reason to make the
> buildings taller than the Sears Tower.
I original read that as "with a spite on top", which may actually not
be such a bad reading.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
ctc...@hotmail.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> >It's certanly going to carry that risk, no doubt about it. Still A
> >suprising amount of space is not acutally covered by human flesh, and
> >mind you the alternative isn't all that great.
>
> realized that there were very few places where you could drop a
> jetliner in DC and kill ONLY a couple of hundred people.
Not counting passengers? I think there would be lots of places.
I've never heard of a plane crash killing more than 30 or so bystanders
before then, and see no reason to think this would be different.
> The wing of
> the Pentagon that was under renovation was probably the safest place
> to put that plane.
I think the 14th Street bridge would be safer.
Al Yellon
news:20020601180442.087$7...@newsreader.com...
> "Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>
> > A "modicum" is about it. IMO, the Petronas towers are the WTC with a
> > spire on the top, which was added for the *SOLE* reason to make the
> > buildings taller than the Sears Tower.
>
> I original read that as "with a spite on top", which may actually not
> be such a bad reading.
Actually, it sounds better than the way I said it.
Randy Poe
wrote:
>Hell, I've lived in the greater NYC area all my life. I've always
>posponed going up to the top of the WTC becuase I figured I'd have time
>for it later and besides the line was always way too long.
My wife and I had lunch once in Windows on the World. Always
meant to take the kids up there some day, but it never
seemed to be on our itinerary when we were in NY.
>
>Now, I've got regrets.
>
Indeed.
- Randy
Randy Poe
<aye...@REMOVEcolgateTHISalumni.org> wrote:
>Other than Washington DC, what other cities in the US have buildings without
>which their skylines would be *significantly* altered?
Pictures of Philadelphia always show two art deco towers in
the center of town. They're a very characteristic part of
the skyline.
Unfortunately, I understand they aren't all that successful
financially. I've heard they've had trouble with occupancy.
- Randy
Alan Hamilton
Lemonjello Jr.) wrote:
>It has got to made well known that cockpit doors won't be opened in flight, no
>matter what. If terrorists know this, they probably won't threaten to kill
>anyone because it won't do them any good.
Though as George Will noted, a pilot might be tempted to open the door
to save a passenger because, "Hey, I've got a gun."
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
ra...@westnet.poe.com
Sure, after all, we know that as soon as you put a gun into someone's hand
they turn into a homicidal maniac. Say, why do you trust the police
again?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On 31 May 2002 16:42:51 GMT, newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan
> Lemonjello Jr.) wrote:
>>It has got to made well known that cockpit doors won't be opened in flight, no
>>matter what. If terrorists know this, they probably won't threaten to kill
>>anyone because it won't do them any good.
> Though as George Will noted, a pilot might be tempted to open the door
> to save a passenger because, "Hey, I've got a gun."
There are these nifty things called gun ports.
GrapeApe
>> to save a passenger because, "Hey, I've got a gun."
>
>There are these nifty things called gun ports.
Thats what I call sitting in the gallery.
Attention Passengers. Please remain seated as your captain makes his final
approach towards Aisle seat 15 B with his Glock 45 hollowpoints, safely exiting
from the cabin door to the front of the plane.
Bob Ward
>-:Alan Hamilton <al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote:
>-:> On 31 May 2002 16:42:51 GMT, newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan
>-:> Lemonjello Jr.) wrote:
>-:
>-:>>It has got to made well known that cockpit doors won't be opened in flight, no
>-:>>matter what. If terrorists know this, they probably won't threaten to kill
>-:>>anyone because it won't do them any good.
>-:
>-:> Though as George Will noted, a pilot might be tempted to open the door
>-:> to save a passenger because, "Hey, I've got a gun."
>-:
>-:There are these nifty things called gun ports.
>-:
>-:
>-:John
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> John Hatpin <ag...@brooremovemekview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>>>I want far *more* guns on planes because I think
>>>that strategies that depend on disarmament are doomed to failure: Arm
>>>everyone, just inspect them to make sure they have safety slugs before
>>>takeoff, I say.
>>>
>>>But I'm a bit extreme in that regard
>> No, John, you're not extreme. On top of several hours of boredom,
>> confinement and drinks trolleys, let's give all passengers guns, and
>> let's pray they use them wisely, and that all the people who get shot
>> and killed are genuine terrorists, not kids or staff or normal people
>> or anything.
>> You're not extreme, John, you're just insane.
> Sure, after all, we know that as soon as you put a gun into someone's hand
> they turn into a homicidal maniac. Say, why do you trust the police
> again?
Hmm, and in case you read my previous post litterally, "arm everyone" is
short hand for "Arm everyone who cares to go armed".
ra...@westnet.poe.com
Sure, but you'll not see the terrorist standing by the door demanding to
be let into the cockpit.
Terrorist: "Open the door or I'll cut thees little Girls Eyes out right
now!"
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 16:45:37 GMT, ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>>-:Alan Hamilton <al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote:
>>-:> On 31 May 2002 16:42:51 GMT, newsg...@aol.comNOSPAM (Stephan
>>-:> Lemonjello Jr.) wrote:
>>-:
>>-:>>It has got to made well known that cockpit doors won't be opened in flight, no
>>-:>>matter what. If terrorists know this, they probably won't threaten to kill
>>-:>>anyone because it won't do them any good.
>>-:
>>-:> Though as George Will noted, a pilot might be tempted to open the door
>>-:> to save a passenger because, "Hey, I've got a gun."
>>-:
>>-:There are these nifty things called gun ports.
> When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
True, but then everyone's life is already in the pilot's hands.
Bob Ward
>-:GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:
>-:>>> Though as George Will noted, a pilot might be tempted to open the door
>-:>>> to save a passenger because, "Hey, I've got a gun."
>-:>>
>-:>>There are these nifty things called gun ports.
>-:
>-:> Thats what I call sitting in the gallery.
>-:
>-:> Attention Passengers. Please remain seated as your captain makes his final
>-:> approach towards Aisle seat 15 B with his Glock 45 hollowpoints, safely exiting
>-:> from the cabin door to the front of the plane.
>-:
>-:Sure, but you'll not see the terrorist standing by the door demanding to
>-:be let into the cockpit.
>-:
>-:Terrorist: "Open the door or I'll cut thees little Girls Eyes out right
>-:now!"
>-:
>-:*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
>-:
>-:
>-:John
Why would it be preferable for the hostage to be shot by an airline
pilot with a John Wayne complex than to have her eyes cut out by a
terrorist?