Twin Towers Advocacy continued

[TalB]

After being with groups that are against the Atlantic Yds, it gave me a way to create debunking myths the way they did.

"The FT along with its assets was supported by the people and selected by them": This is a very interesting statement b/c according to Imagine NY, which placed all the 9 plans, the Gardens of the World, which is what it was called then, was actually dead last in the rankings. At hearings based on them, it was hardly ever liked and had numerous criticism against it. Another thing is that this plan featured other things that people didn't want such as running roads through the site, a cluster buildings on the sides, and even a memorial that is more vapid than remembering. The NY Times onced surveyed 1,000 people on the new designs and only 12 of them, which counted for 1.2% of the tally, supported it. Even when placed for a vote by the LMDC it was hated, though so was the WCC by Rafeal Vinloy, yet George Pataki overriden the results to make his favorite win. Wait a minute here? Weren't we just told that it was heavily supported? So much for consensus on backing it.

"By wanting the Twins rebuilt, you are against new designs": According to those who back the FT, if I would rather have them rebuilt, I must be against new things like the FT. This is not all true for one bit. I will never forget when Richard Meir once said "This is 2003, not 1963" as an excuse to claim that rebuilding the Twins is going backwards. Nobody is calling for using the same technology that was used then. Of course people will say things like these to make their opponents look bad, and there is a list of stereotypes, but I will not say them here.

"Only the FT or something new can have updated engineering": According to this, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, so it's just better to get a new one. While pro-Towers advocates like myself do want the Twins rebuilt, we do not support building status quo ante-bellum, which is an exact replication. If anyone read the Resotration Alternative in Article 24 of the DEIS that was made by the LMDC, it states that if rebuilding what was lost will be the final outcome, it will have to use updated engineering, so there is no excuse for that. On a side note, a number of skyscrapers that were built w/o the building codes of today are being rennovated to meet them, which makes them a lot better than being demolished.

"The Twins were poorly constructed and lacked in engineering": While it did collapse on 9/11, studies by FEMA found that they were not architecturally flawed. The fact that it took two hours to finally hit the ground prooved to them that it was much safer as oppossed to a building half that height, which would have been on the ground a lot faster. Taller buildings are needed to built with better structures so that they can withstand the wind as they are higher up. If the North Tower was really structurally flawed, then why was it given the OCEA in 1971? An award like this is not given to buildings that do not meet fire codes. However, the spray on fireproofing was not made for plane impacts hence it will not be used. Even Sally Regenhard, who founded the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, believes that rebuilt Twins are much more safer than the FT will ever be, though she originally deemed them unsafe but then changed after realizing how overrated the safety in the FT was.

"The Twins could barley attract tennants and was a white elephant": Actually, when they opened up in the years they were completed, they were 3/4 occupied, which was faster than any other skyscraper built before it. The ESB took 20 years to finally fill up after having less than half of it by being known as the Empty State Bldg. By the 1980's, they were filled up all the way in each and every building. As a matter of fact, the sediments that were pushed back from the bathtubs, created what is today BPC, which never existed prior to this. Also, businesses there were paying the PA of NY/NJ triple digit rents, so it wasn't cheap land. If you like the TTA petition, 22 business supporters, 23 returning tenants, and 20 PA members with their family said that they would work in the Twins if they were rebuilt, so that disprooves from saying that nobody would want to go back there.

"The WTC as a whole wasn't pedistrian friendly and was nothing more than a place of business": While this statement is true for office buildings, the WTC was more than just a bunch of office buildings. The top of 1 WTC featured a prestigous resturaunt known as Windows on the World, which is very expensive and was one of the first high level resturaunt since the Rainbow Room at the GE Bldg of the Rockefeller Ctr. The top of 2 WTC had an observation deck known as the Top of the World Observatory where the PA made revenues on that alone with billions visiting it for views of the area. It was said that 4 WTC had a museum dedicated to the complex and its history. The plaza featured flowerbeds and benches as well as vendors, while the Westfield Mall stood below it offering a number of shops. Not bad for a complex that many claimed to be lacking on aesthetics. As a matter of fact, since the Twins took so little space, as oppossed to the buildings of the official plan, there was plenty of room to make for other things there. On a sidenote, Pace University was known for having clases in 1 WTC.

"The Twins were nothing more than ugly boxes and were never a favorite": This answer depends on who is looking at it. I will not argue that the postwar era lead to a lot of third rate architecture, but it doesn't mean that it was bad all the way. What I liked about these buildings is they showed how great they can be w/o showing off. Their lobbies were like the interior of a gothic church. The PA liked this design so much that their airports copied this theme. If the Twins were really hated, then why did the AIA of NY rank them in the top 20 over so many other places? It sure didn't seem like they were hated at all.

"When the Twins were being built, there was no public input": I will not agrue against this. However, there weren't any public hearings then, but this doesn't mean that I am justifying it either, plus FT supporters have been known to use them to back their claim. If you really look back at the 1960's, they did a lot of things that were wrong then such as invent LSD as a comfort drug, KKK lynched a number of blacks when voting was declared a right by the US Constitution, soldiers where given marijuana in Vietnam, the Berlin Wall was being errected and urban renewal was at its highest. Just b/c they did something then, doesn't mean that it was right either. In the next decade, the 1970's, public hearings were given for any public project, but it exempted any that were done before. Again, I am not justifying the demolition of Radio Row, but unlike the Atlantic Yds, that wasn't for a private project like the one Bruce Ratner wants.

"Rebuilding the Twins will either forget/remember 9/11": This statement tends to dispute b/c some claim that it will remember that 9/11 occurred while others claim how it will forget that 9/11 happened. Make up your minds already. Does it forget or remember? Either way, I doubt that anyone is trying to forget that the attacks ever happened. If people will forget about 9/11, it will be b/c of time itself, not by having them rebuilt. Regaurdless, people are not trying to forget anything or strike reminders by wanting them back. As for families and survivors, 60 9/11 families and their closest friends, 43 9/11 survivors and their families, 16 of NYC's bravest with their families, and 16 of NYC's finest and their families signed the TTA petition and these are all people who lost somone or nearly died that day. I know that people say about September's Mission loosing their loved ones, but they do not own the site just b/c of that event and the PA still has the site. There are even people who claim that rebuilding the Twins will be disrespecting the dead yet they claim that having something else won't do that. If this was the case, then I can assure that all of Israel would be a memorial everytime a place was hit by either Hamas or Hezbollah b/c those were considered sacred ground.

"The Twins will just become a target again if they are rebuilt": By that statement the FT will not be one if its built. I will not argue that they were attacked twice, but they alone were not a target for Osama Bin Laden. Let's not forget that the Pentagon was also attacked by Al Qadea and it was only five stories, while the plane that landed in Shanksville, PA was said to hit either the White House or the US Capitol, which are even smaller. If those were hit, should we live in caves? The reason why they were hit was b/c of what they stood for. Bin Laden reguarded them as towers of human freedom and liberty. In reality, any place can be a target no matter how much the height, and I know this for being a native of Israel, where terrorism already existed. Perhaps the FT won't be a target b/c it represents how much we were afraid to have back what we lost, especially b/c it doesn't reach 1,776 ft by real floors not to mention that the building itself will have the ten of them unoccupied.

"It's too late to call for them to be rebuilt and the FT is already u/c": I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here by saying this, but just b/c the site looks like it's going smooth, it doesn't mean that it is all done. Over the last year since they claimed all was going well, the cost went up and both the PA and Larry Silverstein lost another lawsuit that had to do with the insurance. Even the rest of the officiall plan has been overbudgeted like the PATH station. The PA and LMDC have even claimed that the delays in the demolition of Duestche Bank can lead to a chain reaction on the site as a whole. It is not too late for Elliot Spitzer, who called the FT and Enron style debacle, to change his mind and be the people's lawyer as he said. Congress has never signed those leases that would get the NJ side of the PA to agree on the FT and this was way after the deadline. Sheldon Silver, who doesn't care what goes up, claims that unless the FT is completely filled and/or the PA doesn't have the money they need, it would just be another premature start as Pataki's photo-op in 2004 and they could end up as empty shells in being postoponed indefinately. If the PA or Silverstien can't get the insurance money they need, they will most likely have to postpone any further construction just to save it, buying time for it to be stopped. Let's not forget that the Westside Stadium and LOMEX were said to be done deals in the past but they wound up never being built.

"Pro-Towers supporters are using the terror card to get them rebuilt": This is not completely true. The first priority to having them rebuilt is not to say Osama you loose, it is to restore the skyline. I will not argue that pro-Towers supporters, with myself included, are saying things like if they are not rebuilt, it is a victory for terrorists, but there is more to it than just that. IMO, rebuilding the Twins shows that we are getting the cure, while the FT represents just the bandaid for pain, while only dealys it. According the TTA, Al Qadea is b/w and they will see that if the Twins aren't back that they really did destroy an important symbol [which they believe] and left their mark. The FT does show that they changed us and even makes us think that important things are expendable. Honestly, would anyone really want to tell their children or grandchildren that something different went in place of something so grand? It is like they would be saying, "If the Twins were so important to NYC and the world, then why weren't they just rebuilt?" The FT tends to be built out of fear b/c of the fact that it will only be 82 floors with only 69 of them occupied along with a spire that stretches it to 1,776 ft when the roof is nowhere near that. God forbid that the ESB or Lady Liberty got destroyed and something totally different went in their place.

"The TTA is only one sect of pro-Towers supporters and doesn't represent everyone": I don't represent TTA or any other pro-Towers group in that matter, but I do know that the TTA is not a distinct group belonging to only one idealogy. As a matter of fact when Margret Donnavon and Richard Hughes, who are the founders of TTA, went to Washington to speak to Congress, they actually spoke to senators who were on all sides of the political spectrum, and this included Chuck Schummer, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Charles Rangel, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and others. A lot of those congress members do not agree on everything yet they spoke to a lot of them. TTA does not donate or even endorse any specific candidates. I know that there are many pro-Towers supporters who are liberal and those who are conservative, but we can all agree on one thing and that is to bring back a worldwide symbol. However, I won't argue that TTA doesn't represent all pro-Towers advocates b/c there some who won't side with them, but I won't mention any names here. On a side note some may say that TTA is like the union of groups and individuals similar to DDDB on the Atlantic Yds.

[cincobarrio]

1/3 of those so called myths are just opinionated statements and the rest are pretty much common knowledge around here, or so i would expect. wake me up when those world class debunking skills touch up on some new ground.

[bagel]

I'm still kind of puzzled about this whole advocacy thing. Ok-- You're advocating for the people who want the twins back. But to whom are you addressing your advocacy? Who's listening?

What's it going to take for you to stop advocating? There's already steel coming up (albeit slowly). When 1 World Trade Center is built, would you still be advocating for rebuilding the twins?

Granted there are so many problems with 1 WTC both in design and in process, but it's already going up.

This isn't an attack. I'm just curious about the idea of advocacy in the context of the times, as a building is already being constructed.

[TalB]

Sometimes progress doesn't mean everything. If you look at the timetable, it isn't very specific with dates, plus it mentions that it could rise somewhere in the first half of next year. However, timetables do not predict the future. After recent incidents with demolising Deustche Bank, it has created setbacks, which was made by the PA. Also, recent loss in a lawsuit with Larry Silverstien and the PA against Swiss Re means that they will not be getting the insurance money from them, and the PA does not want to raise taxes just to build it. As for claiming with steel, I can name a number of projects that looked like they were going smooth with foundation but were put on hold either after building partly or just after foundation work. Tel Aviv has a number of buildings that were stalled durring construction. As a matter of fact, the FT could end up being what occurred on the Aizrieli Sq Tower when it was stopped for three years after being 1/4 of the way up due to the lack of money, though this is a private project.

[Taylorhoge]

Talb Im sorry but I think you have beaten the dead horse enough whether you like it or not Atlantic Yards and Freedom Tower will eventually be built theyre is no stopping it. Personally I wish they could have added a second tower I think the other three designs of WTC 2,3,and 4 are great designs I do like WTC 2 the best especially the top.

[TalB]

Taylorhodge, not everything is a loosing battle or even beating a dead horse. By that logic a criminal should not even think about going to trial b/c he/she is probably just going to be found guilty, and should save the humilation just be pleading guilty b/c they have no case. Either way, I can probably write a whole book about defying the odds. Maybe fighting to end slavery wasn't much of a victory b/c it took centuries to finally end it. The priority of fighting for what one believes in is to show that they can stand up for what they believe rather than just be on a bandwagon. If people didn't stand up to corrupt governments in ancient times, then they would still be ruling today rather than the democracies that modern world has now. Either way, my fight for having the Twin rebuilt doesn't mean that I am stopping others from liking the FT. Historically, did I even try to stop anyone here from liking it? The answer is no, and my posts are proof of that. If you would like to talk to me about this in person, then come over to the Jane Jacobs exhibition at the Urban Ctr, located in the Villard Homes, at Madison Ave between 50th and 51st Sts next Sunday afternoon, especially if you have yet to see that exhibit, though I haven't either. Of course on that same day, is the pro-Towers holiday party over at Empire Hunan at 98th St and Broadway, and RSVP to Joy Goldberg if not already.

[BigMac]

While I accept the new construction at the World Trade Center, I do miss the notion of supertall twins on the New York skyline.

I'm sure there are developers and architects who want to build supertall twins in the city at some point. Already, we have the Time Warner Center.

[TalB]

Due to the weather that would be occurring on Sunday, the holiday part is being moved to this Saturday night to avoid it, and the place is the same, but still RSVP if you haven't already.

[redbaron_012]

I know this will never happen but....Last night I had a dream.....the WTC was to be rebuilt to original shape but the towers this time had completely different construction beneath the skin. Strong concrete cores etc...and instead of the load bearing facades the twin towers were glass...Their simple shamfered corners and tops looking like two giant shafts of crystal...absolutely beautiful ! This is the new WTC going up in Beijing China....If you squint and imagine a hidden twin behind this looks a little like my dream.
By redbaron_012

[TalB]

http://www.twintowersalliance.com/pe...o-small-dreams


Do you think that “rebuilding” of the World Trade Center should be decided strictly by access to money and “good-ole-boy” networks of power? Do you think that what is concocted on Madison Avenue should matter more than what real people think and feel on Flatbush Avenue — or on Main Streets and Elm Streets across America? Do you believe everything you read in the papers?

If the answer is “no”, then you are in a New York State of Mind and this tribute is dedicated to you and to all who wonder how we could abandon those two unforgettable towers and let four nothing-special buildings go up in their place.

The images are presented as we saw the Twins, from early morning to late at night. Nothing could ever replace them, except for better versions of themselves. They were glamorous, awe-inspiring, and comforting. After being away, they were the lights of home. We want them back.

There was no rivalry between the landmarks that made New York New York. They were all born of the same exuberant, extravagant, extraordinary spirit. They complemented each other — congratulated each other — for being among the best of the best — and it’s still not too late to put these two landmarks back where they belong.

The Towers deserve another chance — and so do we.

A variation of Goethe’s well-loved maxim to “Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men…” played a key role in building the Twin Towers forty years ago. Austin Tobin, the Port Authority of New York’s Executive Director, was well-known for inserting that advice in the many, many speeches he gave to build support for the project. His belief in what he was doing was infectious, as we hope this campaign will be in waking people up to the real possibility of the Twin Towers’ reappearance — with all that would do for our spirits and our world.

This video is still a work in progress that we hope to have finalized in a day or two — so watch it and then watch it again tomorrow. And then, please send a link of this video to everyone you think might appreciate seeing it. We hope to make millions aware of this campaign. Postcards that promote the tribute are now being sold by New York vendors and a poster is planned.

[TalB]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12262007...lay_338202.htm
9/11 MEMORIAL'S TRAGIC DELAY

December 26, 2007 -- THE ISSUE: Delays at Ground Zero, including the failure to tear down the Deutche Bank building.

I am not too surprised that the memorial will be delayed, along with everything else in the official plan for Ground Zero ("Tear It Down, Already," Editorial, Dec. 26).

This is not the first time that a deadline was missed for the WTC site.

Reflecting Absence was over-budgeted, especially with fountains that are too expensive to run on a daily basis.

It just shows how rebuilding the Twin Towers with a more simple memorial would not only be time-saving, but also money-saving, as opposed to the Freedom Tower with a complex and vapid memorial.

Tal Barzilai
Plesantville

****
The level of bureaucracy that has hamstrung the rebuilding of Ground Zero is not only mind-boggling, but unconscionable, as well.

If this state, let alone this country, had any moral fortitude, we wouldn't have deferred to all the bleeding hearts, and the rebuilding of the Twin Towers would have been well on its way.

That was, is and always will be the only response to what occurred on that horrific day.

Due to the fact that rebuilding the towers was never truly considered, even if we were to eradicate every single radical Muslim fundamentalist from the Earth, they would still have an eternal victory over us.

Shame on the powers that be.

Louie Rey
East Meadow

[TalB]

http://www.twintowersalliance.com/pe...ere-from-here/
Taking the High Road | Those who are trying to force their botched version of a new World Trade Center on the rest of us must have noticed that nothing they are doing has gone smoothly. They should start asking themselves if that is because it’s just not meant to be. For those of us who know why we should rebuild the Twin Towers, but wonder if it can actually be accomplished, just remember that building 21st Century Twin Towers is superior to the current approach in every way. So, when spin finally gives way to reason and the win-win nature of the Twin Towers alternative is considered, there is no sound reason why many of those who are currently opposed would not reassess their positions.

After all, those who want to make the WTC a magnet for people and commerce just need to open their eyes to the fact that the plan favored by New Yorkers and visitors from around the country and the world, as well as the easy favorite among construction workers, and first responders — rebuilding the Twin Towers alongside a fitting memorial — is going to be the far better bet for all concerned. And no amount of fancy PR footwork can hide the truth that it is the only noble course.

Larry Silverstein | As Silverstein Properties prepares to shift into high gear at the WTC site, we need to ask why the people should accept a project that has been damned with faint praise by politicians and critics alike. That’s a fair question and we believe that any effort to formulate an answer will illustrate how flimsy the reasons for moving forward with it are. It certainly isn’t acclaimed by the people. And, there is every reason to resist the pressure to build anything that does not live up to the stature of what we lost.

Mr. Silverstein has said that he wants to build a 21st Century Rockefeller Center (which is notable by the way, for its symmetry) — but we are in danger of being saddled instead with a latter-day Penn Station — a tribute to lack of vision. In this case, there is every reason why foresight should be 20-20. The outstanding feature of the current plan is its random quality — a lack of connection between the buildings to each other and the people to our past. That is why it has failed to capture the imagination of the world or attract the Tier One tenants — resulting in the state and federal governments, a/k/a the taxpayers — propping up the “Freedom Tower” because it cannot stand on its own. But we’re not stuck and neither is he.

Mr. Silverstein has been doing his best for all these years to deal with the results of Pataki’s chicanery in the face of his massive investment. Granted, it is alleged that he paid significantly less for the 99-year leases than they were worth, and then he underinsured the buildings, resulting in all the legal wrangling which he has now lost and which is unlikely to be overturned. But if Governor Pataki had behaved as a Governor instead of a shill for certain vested interests — if he had upheld his oath of office, instead of selling us out for imagined political capital — then Mr. Silverstein would be leasing space right now in a marvel of the Western World: fabulous new Twin Towers.

When it comes to the Port Authority vs. Larry Silverstein, he is undoubtedly the one who got the short end of the stick. There is every reason to believe that he originally intended to rebuild the Towers, as his contract explicitly bound him to do, and as his implicit contract with the people of New York required. But Governor Pataki had other ideas. What is it called when a Governor not only doesn’t enforce a contract that supports the public’s interests, but, without bringing the matter to the people, actually abrogates it? Start with “abuse of power”.

But what if his original intent could still be accomplished without impairing his legitimate interests? One way of going about it would be for Governor Spitzer to recognize that the merits and benefit of what we are advocating and to announce that, in consultation with Governor Corzine, he has decided to drop the street grid foolishness, return to the protected superblock, and, to offer to rescind the the 2006 swap — giving Silverstein his Towers — and an enduring legacy — back.

Furthermore, in recognition of the rollercoaster ride he has been on for six years, due to the bad faith of Governor Pataki’s regime, the Port Authority could give Silverstein Properties a break on land elsewhere in the city where he can put up Towers 2, 3, and 4 — singly or together — or would buy the plans from him. He would come out ahead and the architects involved also win by not being in the unenviable position of encroaching on another architect’s domain. And, given the building boom in New York and the strong support in the building trades for rebuilding the Towers, it is doubtful that those with contracts would sue rather than accommodate the changeover. So there are no real impediments.

Mr. Silverstein fought hard to buy the rights to the Twin Towers to begin with, and it wasn’t just for the 10,600,000 sq. ft. of office space. He wanted control of one of the premier landmarks on earth and the only way he will ever have that is to put them back. Otherwise, he will be letting us all down and history will not applaud. This is about so much more than dollars and cents. He says on his website that he is a dedicated New Yorker. This is his chance to prove it.

Perspective | Many notables, including the esteemed Jane Jacobs, expressed the belief that we would be better off if we waited ten or twenty years before rebuilding the site. We don’t agree with that assessment, but acknowledge that the passage of time helps weed out the conflicting interests and politics and correct the blind spots. We can’t afford to forget that we aren’t just building for our generation, but for those that follow.

Eight years after President Kennedy announced the goal of landing a man on the moon, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on its surface. We’re not asking for the moon — just our Towers back. We should be able to cut the timetable for a moon landing in half and put magnificent Twin Towers back where they belong in just under four years, in time for September 11, 2011, if we all pull together in the same direction. There is no good reason why not.

Consensus | We are not stuck with the fake WTC they are forcing on us. There is no getting around the fact that the World Trade Center site is the public’s land and that the billions spent and the billions pledged is the public’s money. In a representative democracy, the majority does not rule, but it does set the agenda. Its opinion matters. If it is to be overruled, there must be good reasons — not high-handed dictates. There have been nothing but dictates for over six years and now it’s time for answers.

Officials would have us believe that it is too late to clean up the mess they made. That is absurd and offensive. If we’re on the wrong track, why would we keep on going in the wrong direction, instead of pulling the emergency brake and figuring out how to get where we really want to go? This is much too critical to be so unconcerned and out of touch. Common sense has been the missing element from the beginning — the predictable result of excluding the public from playing a real part in the recovery. But we can still prevent a terrible mistake. We can do much better. We CAN get there from here.

[Martin S]

Like many people on this forum, I've never seen eye to eye with Tal as I don't believe that reconstructing the original twins is an essential response to 911. However, I respect his views and expect him to do the same.

Whilst I don't see anything wrong with constructing a completely different set of buildings on the site, there are some aspects of this redesign that I am surprised are not debated more on this forum.

Firstly, there is the memorial, Reflecting Absence. As a public artwork there is probably nothing wrong with it and I can see it attracting large numbers of tourists but as a memorial, I can't see the relevance to the twin towers (except of course that the memorial occupies the footprints).

Do people consider that a waterfall is the most appropriate memorial to the office workers, police and firefighters that died on 911? If there is some symbolism there, it escapes me. Surely having the pit without water would be a more appropriate symbol of what has been lost. Waterfalls may be more attractive but is that what is important here?

Secondly, how much of Liebeskind's masterplan has survived? The Freedom Tower bears very little resemblance to the original 'Statue of Liberty' design and, of the three towers so far designed for the site, only one, the Foster design, has incorporated the sloping roof detail that was such an important part of the masterplan. (The idea being that the sloping roofs of the towers would point to the sites of the twin towers).

In addition, the use of the towers as sundials to indicate by the shadows cast the precise moment when the planes struck and the towers collapsed seems to have been watered down as existing buildings will obstruct direct sunlight. Liebeskind has appeared to accept this point but says that the shadows will be cast in reflected light, which sounds rather odd.

Another feature, the exposure of the slurry walls as a relic of the original construction, seems to have been deleted.

Rather than having this endless sterile debate about whether or not the twins should be rebuilt (something that can only lead to a lot of bad temper as that is now extremely unlikely), might it not be more appropriate to debate issues such as the ones I have outlined?

[TalB]

Just found another video on Youtube, and if you notice the person looking at the Belton-Gardner model, that's me.

[TalB]

http://www.twintowersalliance.com/petition/bulletins
12/31/07 — “By all means, rebuild it if we can.” The last comment of the year really sums up why we are fighting. We certainly can rebuild, most Americans think we should rebuild, and we have yet to hear anyone tell us why we shouldn’t rebuild. So, by all means, we are pressing this case. This was a very solid year. Our gains were cumulative and we think that 2008 will reward our efforts. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE. Thank you for your encouragement and support.

[TalB]

Just yesterday, I typed World Trade Center + plaza into the Google and noticed a pic of me looking at the Belton-Gardner Plan over at the Trump Tower back in 2005, though there are some comments made at my weight.

[cincobarrio]

pay no attention talb; normal people aren't supposed to be that mean.

[nygirl]

Actually the Trump reference was kinda clever. Lol @ pie eatting contest.

[philvia]

Originally Posted by TalB

As Shaina Twain would say it, "That don't impress me much."

...

[nygirl]

As Gia usually says: Who the fk do you think is trying to impress YOU?