TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- WTC Replacement
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

I like the new design. At first I thought it would be better just to go back to the old structure, but then after contemplating it for a bit, I came to the realization that if we created a brand new construction, it could be percieved as America saying "If you choose to knock us down we shall partake in the opportunity to make ourselves better" or something to that effect.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen DrUg_Tit0 you dont need a full sunny day to get power, i know of some cloudy and foggy areas that have solar panels and produce electricity, of course not at its full potential.

I know, that's why I calculated the worst case scenario. On a sunny day you'd need only about 45m^2 of those solar panels to power up your home, or 22m^2 of good but expensive monocrystal solar panels.

quote:

i know you were kiding but building a nuclear power plant up there would be a bad idea if another 911 happens and the buildings collapse.

Well, here's a good thing about a nuclear power plant - you can build it underground, so that the terrorist attacks don't harm it. I say go for the nuke. And build some AA guns up there just in case.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus its full of coal plants.. not a hippie power station to be seen, and cities full of dirty industry, they all have negative envrionment ratings MUHAHAHAHA

Ah, comrade Yoepus, I see you're building your cities in the good old soviet style.

i remember reading ages ago that one of the choices for teh new WTC was a design by Antoni Gaudi? It looked like a spaceship, it would have had my vote

quote:

Originally posted by tathi i remember reading ages ago that one of the choices for teh new WTC was a design by Antoni Gaudi? It looked like a spaceship, it would have had my vote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2687565.stm


Definitely an interesting design. I guess such a building should be erected, if not for the WTC, then for something else.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2687565.stm Definitely an interesting design. I guess such a building should be erected, if not for the WTC, then for something else.

I dunno ... looks like something like that would be called the "penis tower"

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2687565.stm Definitely an interesting design. I guess such a building should be erected, if not for the WTC, then for something else.

Hehe, hehe, hehe, hehe...

Huh huh, uh huh huh, he said "erected", uh huh huh, huh huh.....

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I dunno ... looks like something like that would be called the "penis tower"

Just imagine...the penis tower - largest sex shop in the world!

Edit: Lol, I didn't even notice I said erected, haha.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I know, that's why I calculated the worst case scenario. On a sunny day you'd need only about 45m^2 of those solar panels to power up your home, or 22m^2 of good but expensive monocrystal solar panels.

oh okay, didnt read the whole thing

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, here's a good thing about a nuclear power plant - you can build it underground, so that the terrorist attacks don't harm it. I say go for the nuke. And build some AA guns up there just in case.

yes, but we were talking on top of the buildings to replace the wind tubrines

dirty mind occrider ;D

quote:

Originally posted by rizen yes, but we were talking on top of the buildings to replace the wind tubrines

Well, then you have 2 options.

1. Secure the nuke with AA flak cannons and missiles.

2. Build a coal power plant instead.

Freedom Tower, my arse!!

Nice building, and i'm with America 100% on this, it looks great. But surely they could come up with a better name?? Renaming french toast/fries was bad enough, but the "Freedom Tower" is just asking to be plowed into by a 737...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.