Why was it not rebuilt?

why was it not rebuilt?

by letting it be erased from existence, are we not letting the terrorists win?

would it not have been a huge symbol of strength to just erect the twin towers once again?

they were iconic architecture, a staple of the new york skyline. every time you see them in old films and whatnot, as an american you feel pain in the memory

i just think that pouring our resources (regardless of cost) into rebuilding the twin towers as they once stood would have demonstrated amazing resolve and pride from the united states.

besides the political reasons, the twin towers were simply beautiful works of art, and to have them replaced with something as ordinary an uninspired as the freedom tower is a disgrace. meanwhile, arabs are ironically building the most sophisticated skyscrapers on earth. does that not bother any nationalist/patriot of the usa?

It was just a prank bro.

The Americans built an even bigger tower to replace them. Seems like a big symbol of strength to me.

So when's CIA gonna blow up those one next?

1) Those mega-skyscrapers from the '70s are actually really hard to fill up (the Sears Tower has similar problems)

2) They were far from universally beloved prior to 9/11 and were actually considered obstructive eyesores by a significant number of people

That said...

>ywn live in the timeline where flight 93 was retaken, bin laden was caught at tora bora & we rebuilt the twin towers

its presence in the new york skyline is nothing compared to what the twin towers looked like

to let the twin towers fade into memory, to allow the most iconic city skyline be altered and one of the great feats in architecture remained destroyed seems like accepting defeat to me.

would the usa have allowed the same fate to, say, the statue of liberty?

We built a tower that is exactly 1776 ft high.

>why was it not rebuilt?
because the world trade center's design was hideous and didn't fit the rest of the skyline at all, everyone hated them before they were destroyed

Because you can only destroy them so much.

In all seriousness, the mark of martyrs and victims resonate more than the mark of overcoming something.

I believe this board is for events 30 years old or older.

But I'll bite: Larry Silverstein hated the buildings and thought they were a blight. He hated the architecture. He wasn't getting anywhere near the amount of retail square-footage out of the buildings that he could have been getting due to the way the towers were build, with its super-structure on the outside.

The new buildings and new designs will allow whoever owns that space to charge far more, make far more money, and that's essentially what it's all about. Let's not forget Larry made a further six billion off of the insurance for those two buildings alone.

They were inefficient buildings for the 21st century office-retail market and needed to be rebuilt, but there was no way in hell other than via demolition or natural disaster they would go. There is no way they would ever get permission to demolish even sections of the building due to the potential damage to surrounding areas and the fact it was packed with multiple tonnes of Asbestos.

Because they were full of asbestos and Silverstein destroyed them for the insurance money.

Silverstein mind

Hideous 70s trash

If the Twin Towers fell in any other way than a collapse on itself the death toll that day wouldn't have been 3500-5000, but closer to 20-30000 lives lost and far, far more buildings destroyed. IF the Twin Towers were to fall, there is no safe way to do so- but the SAFEST way for them to fall and minimize loss of life and building damage it would be if they fell the exact way they did.

>
>its presence in the new york skyline is nothing compared to what the twin towers looked like

I think that's kind of the point.

>to let the twin towers fade into memory, to allow the most iconic city skyline be altered and one of the great feats in architecture remained destroyed seems like accepting defeat to me.

The newer skyscraper is likely better engineered and safer than the old one. Suggesting we rebuild the Twin Towers out of symbolic value is preposterous. Leaving the buildings as rubble isn't admitting defeat; carrying on as a strong civilization is declaring victory.

>would the usa have allowed the same fate to, say, the statue of liberty?

The Statue of Liberty is an actual landmark. The Twin Towers didn't mean as much until they fell.

911 was fake, why would they put dumpsters outside the building full of diesel/oil?

Tah-Duh!

>he thinks the twin towers actually existed in the first place

yes, good goyim

ok smart guys, explain to me how they got all the explosives in there to demolish it without anyone finding out

Israeli private security took over a few weeks before Larry took over full control of the buildings. There was massive renovations occurring with dozens of Asbestos teams coming in and out of private elevators at all times. Towers 1, 2, and 7 had security shut downs all on the same day, unprecedented, for 48 hours while construction teams filtered in and out. Six Israelis, two of them intelligence agents, were arrested on the Washington Bridge filming the 9/11 events. Witnesses say they had been there before the first impact. This was all on mainstream news the day of, but vanished the day after.

I am not saying explosives took down the buildings. I am just saying it is not impossible based on events that occurred before the event.

>would the usa have allowed the same fate to, say, the statue of liberty?
Yes.

> beautiful works of art
You are missing the symbolic part of this.
They demolished the two towers and replaced it with one.
They even had the guts to name it the One World trade center to make explicit their intent.
>One World
Which is the monopolar world dominated by (((them))) which is born after the fall of the soviet block.
It is a satanic monument built by the murderers on top of the remains where the victims were killed. Pure evil.

>to let the twin towers fade into memory, to allow the most iconic city skyline be altered and one of the great feats in architecture remained destroyed seems like accepting defeat to me.

They were built in the mid-70s, they had only been there about 25 years, and they weren't particularly popular to begin with.

They weren't some wonderful old landmark, they were just ugly big generic skyscrapers.

Do you actually believe this?

Outside the pentagon?

Twin Towers are a meme

>you will never from a rooftop snipe the jews watching it from afar

I like how it looks kinda like a sword

It takes longer than 48 hours to set up a definition and the building has to be practically gutted, so no.

Welcome to Veeky Forums.

Or it's one world trade center because that's the fucking address, just like the old one world trade center

Also there's seven and four world trade center, and they're building the rest. The point is you're either an idiot or bating

That's clearly just what the Jewish world order wants you to think anonymous. wake up