I've been thinking of a design based on this. Lemme work up some
"Dan Zbichorski (bee HORS kee)" wrote:
> Some sort of distributed but interconnected system of buildings might be a
> better solution. Kind of like an Eiffel Tower with each leg being a
> building, each strut being a corridor capable of remaining intact with the
> removal of either support. Ideally this structure would have one building
> in the center and between three to five buildings surrounding. The center
> building would be the ideal evacuation path since it would probably be the
> most protected.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Clemmensen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Rebuild the World Trade Center
> > Miriam English wrote:
> > >
> > > Parachutes or paragliders, rope bridges to nearby buildings...
> > > But I still favor the idea of building down instead of up. Tall
> > > buildings always seemed a dumb idea since Towering Inferno. If you want
> > > a great view put an eiffel tower kind of structure up there and make it
> > > twice the height of the WTC buildings.
> > >
> > Miriam, if you were a terrorist, would you find it easier to attack
> > a 100-story hole in the ground or a 100-story tower? If you were
> > an office worker, would you prefer to evacuate from the 100th
> > floor of a tower or from the 100th sub-basement? In Manhattan,
> > remember that the third sub-basement is below the level of the
> > Hudson river.
> > Off the top of my head I can think of at least ten horrible
> > ways to kill all the people in a big hole in the ground. I'm
> > glad you brought the subject up. I've now thought about it
> > and I know that I never want to work in such an office.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:50 MDT