response 26 of 51:

Jun 2 05:08 UTC 2002

I saw a movie today which I think had WTC in it (they weren't into
describing the landmarks, but they were off to wall street next thing,
and I can't imagine what else those twin towers could have been).  At
the base, there was a huge open plaza, slightly raised from street
level, but quite accessible by pedestrian traffic, which is what
happened in the movie.  It was clearly a popular place to be dropped off
by taxi.  The base of the tower that they showed had an open glass
walled lobby, with numerious glass doors and what looked like a internal
marble walled warren of elevator lobbies and what might have been 1st
floor offices or shops.  The movie didn't show what was under the plaza,
but I believe it was in fact the roof of a giant underground shopping
plaza, possibly multi-level.  I think I've also seen other shots of the
WTC lobby from the inside which had escalators going down and the like.

response 28 of 51:

Jun 2 07:50 UTC 2002

i've only been in one of the towers. entered by foot on one side, then took
the ecalator down to the 'lobby' where we exited into that plaza part where
the big sphere was. there was also a krispy creme. we were filming some shots
for a project we were doing for a large office furniture company which were
to be used in an interactive video wall were making for them for a big
furniture fair. the theme of the this scene was that myself and the other actor
were spies and were doing a briefcase handoff at the WTC. we looked shady as
hell and even staged a fake conversation with a security person while the art
director filmed from above. nobody seemed to think anything of it.

i think the underground shopping area you saw was when you come up from the
subway, like they have at most big stops where there will be lots of people
with money burning a hole in their pockets. 

response 30 of 51:

Jun 2 13:55 UTC 2002

Re #25:  Manhattan IS an island, you know.  There is at least the
potential to hit the target at such a time that the debris will
be falling toward water.  There is also the fact that pieces of an
aircraft will have a lot less energy, and much less concentrated
energy, than the intact article; this reduces the damage they can
do and probably makes the rest easier to deal with.  This is even
more true for attacks by cruise missiles, the pieces of which
would contain much less fuel and wouldn't burn much.

The mere presence of a missile battery would tend to deflect such
attacks.  There's no point in expending the effort only to fail
ignominously, and then have to deal with the response.

response 32 of 51:

Jun 2 18:56 UTC 2002

It would be easier to build radio-controlled destruct systems into
airplanes. (Great confidence boosters for the flying public - you are
guaranteed not to be flown into a building in the event of a hijacking...)

response 34 of 51:

Jun 3 18:58 UTC 2002

Hey, they've got it on the Enterprise.

response 36 of 51:

Jun 5 20:10 UTC 2002

 ..and give them all happypills!

response 38 of 51:

Jun 5 21:26 UTC 2002

I think they should build an office building/roller coaster on the 
site. You could make the cars of the coaster look like airplanes and 
then make them look like they are about to hit the building. You dont 
think that would be tacky, do you?

You know, WTC were cool in a kind of mid century glass and steel funky 
kind of way. They werent particularly beautiful except at night but I 
dont think they were *that* ugly either. I can see why folks might miss 
them. They *did* make the NYC skyline very distinctive. 

response 40 of 51:

Jun 6 02:40 UTC 2002

You should make them build a little Sears Tower for target practice!
And you should install hidden cameras first, then walk away.

response 42 of 51:

Jun 6 13:56 UTC 2002

What would happen if the whole world were better educated and a little 
bit richer? Wouldnt *that* be something to see? Ok, it's a little bit 
more cool than a roller coaster on a skyscraper although you have to 
admit that would be bitchin as HELL

response 44 of 51:

Jun 7 14:10 UTC 2002

re39:  that was stupid.  go learn some decent hygeine.

response 46 of 51:

Jun 17 17:19 UTC 2002

Re #45:  It would be military and covered by sovereign immunity.
(You thought anyone would allow a *private* anti-aircraft battery
in the USA?  Even *before* 9/11?  Helloooooo.....)

It's possible that the missile launcher itself could be located
elsewhere and only the radars put on the tower.  The point is to
be able to detect and neutralize incoming threats; where the
pieces of the system are located isn't terribly important so long
as it can do the job.  Microwave radar is line-of-sight, guided
missiles can turn.

If the radars were 1400 feet off the ground, the line-of-sight
distance to the horizon on a perfectly spherical earth would be
about 46 miles; an aircraft flying above the ground would be visible
from considerably further away.  That's quite a home-court advantage,
and ought to keep anyone from even trying to repeat the feat.

The radar-on-a-skyscraper could work for any city with tall buildings.

response 48 of 51:

Jun 17 18:35 UTC 2002

i'm pretty sure the US can already detect a missile being fired from wnywhere
in the world, before it could even make it over here. it just can't detect
which planes have been hijacked or not. planes fly over NYC all the time and
rather low too, since the airports are right there.