How Should High-Rises Remain Not Vulnerable After 9/11?

Brian forwarded the following article which mentioned that "High-rises
remain vulnerable after 9/11" on Wed Sep 25, 7:21 AM ET:

Patrick O'Driscoll USA TODAY

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&ncid=716&e=18&u=/
usatoday/20020925/ts_usatoday/4478793

" . . .CHICAGO -- More than a year after terrorists destroyed two of the
tallest skyscrapers in the world, few physical or structural changes
have been made to strengthen tens of thousands of other high-rises in
America. . ."

". . .Engineers who specialize in armoring embassies and other potential
terror targets now do similar jobs for high-rises and other commercial
structures. . ."

RESPONSE:
We have yet to face the need that towers must be armed to defend against
attacks. They are really no different than the old towers of Europe,
especially Florence, and the many castles, say, for example, along the
Rhine. All needed to be fortified by sentinals of one kind or another. There
is really no need to wait for an airforce to arrive at the scene, if towers
are fortified. In that sense we live in a time where people have regressed
to the Middle Ages, or earlier. But who calls the shots?

.H.

http://www.castellitoscani.com/sgimignano.htm






http://www.kaiku.com/florence.html



http://www.roadstoruins.com/directory.html


















http://www.vj.yu/english/en_struktura/Vidovi/rv_pvo/vojin.htm







Partial thread listing: