Would you work in the World Trade Center? (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

Solve an argument...

Hypothetically you were offered a great job that came with a 20% raise, would you work in the new World Trade Center?

This poll assumes you already work in NYC.

 

[Native]

If that means I had to live in NY/NJ then hell no.

 

[Super King]

If the job came with a parachute. Sure

 

[El Floppo]

Yes. No. I don't like heights.

 

[Freelove]

No, and if that means the terrorists have won, then scoreboard, I guess.

 

[matuski]

20% doesn't nearly cover cost of living adjustment, and I wouldn't want to live in NY... but regarding the point of your question - why not?

 

[RUSF18]

Sure.

 

[fantasycurse42]

20% doesn't nearly cover cost of living adjustment, and I wouldn't want to live in NY... but regarding the point of your question - why not?

The building is prob the number 1 terrorist target in the world. They are having a tough time finding tenants.

It was a target twice in 8 years and on the second try they took it down and killed 3,000 people, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable working there.

 

[matuski]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

 

[fantasycurse42]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Be very afraid of the undertoe.

 

[dgreen]

20% doesn't nearly cover cost of living adjustment, and I wouldn't want to live in NY... but regarding the point of your question - why not?

The building is prob the number 1 terrorist target in the world.

Link to ***OFFICIAL*** rankings?

 

[kentric]

I'd work there (work in the building next to it and watched it go up). Not sure who the tenants will be. I had heard that the Port Authority would take a chunk of it but the lease hadn't been signed as of about a year ago.

 

[matuski]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

 

[VA703]

yes and yes

whats the point of living afraid

 

[Rayderr]

Couldn't pay me to live/work in NYC.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Lots of fear mongering in this forum today. What happened?

 

[NCCommish]

Wouldn't want to be in NY for a lot of reasons to live. Too expensive mostly. But if I was there I wouldn't have any problem working in the Towers.

 

[Foosball God]

20% doesn't nearly cover cost of living adjustment, and I wouldn't want to live in NY... but regarding the point of your question - why not?

The building is prob the number 1 terrorist target in the world. They are having a tough time finding tenants.

It was a target twice in 8 years and on the second try they took it down and killed 3,000 people, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable working there.

Wouldn't that be the Pentagon, White House, or Capitol Building?

 

[Apple Jack]

Absolutely. It's not for everyone.

Mind you, I worked at 1500 Broadway on 9/11 and worked out of another office the next week or two for fear somebody was going to fly a plane into Times Square.

 

[Freelove]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

 

[Apple Jack]

Would seriously consider a BASE parachute in the office.

The flaw that allowed the attack to happen has been corrected.

 

[fantasycurse42]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

If someone wants to work there, that is fine and nothing wrong with it, but I personally wouldn't be comfortable. They are also having a lot of difficulty bringing in tenants and are projected to be just over 50% rented when it opens... Agree or disagree with the aforementioned, but terrorism def plays a role in the difficulty of finding tenants.

 

[Freelove]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

If someone wants to work there, that is fine and nothing wrong with it, but I personally wouldn't be comfortable. They are also having a lot of difficulty bringing in tenants and are projected to be just over 50% rented when it opens... Agree or disagree with the aforementioned, but terrorism def plays a role in the difficulty of finding tenants.

I would lose approximately 90% of my productivity watching the skies for signs of almost certainly nonexistent danger.

 

[Freelove]

"I'll BRB. Got to go to the other side of the building for a minute to see...um...Frank."

 

[joffer]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

 

[matuski]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

 

[Freelove]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Well, just to think of it a slightly different way...

...Yes, you can say a couple planes flew into that space once, in the entire billions-of-years history of the universe, and with the infinity planes that fly safely to infinity places every day, and the millions of work-hours and work-days that went by in the WTC utterly w/o incident, aren't we being a bit worry-wartish about it?

...But, when you take a career there, you're pretty much committed to M-F, 8-5, give or take, for the next few decades. When that spot has been the site of two successful and tragic terror attacks over the last eight years of operation (along with who knows how many thwarted but credible threats), do those numbers really make you feel like we're talking about finding a penny in the ocean? If I took a nice, lucrative deal there in 1980, I'm not sure I'm reflecting on how fortunate and tranquil my last two decades have been as a 747 bears down on my corner office. I'm going to go ahead and call taking the job a mistake and spend my last fleeting seconds wishing I'd just gone ahead and bought that hot dog cart.

 

[Rayderr]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Seems like you're in much more danger just commuting there than working there.

 

[Apple Jack]

I think the number of planes going in and out of Laguardia would numb you to the sound of airplanes. I think you'd ease into working their pretty quickly. But I always assumed they'd have trouble filling the place with tenants early on, primarily for this reason.

 

[fantasycurse42]

About 5% of the previous employees of this building died... So comparing that to going to bed (unless you are 100), doesn't make sense.

Cantor Fitzgerald lost 2/3's of their workforce as they were on the 101-105th floors.

I don't think it is crazy someone wouldn't want to work here and it is evidently clear in the fact that they are struggling to find tenants.

 

[Ignoramus]

Yeah, even a +20% income isn't going to get me very far coming from Houston where my cost of living is so much lower than NYC. According to this calculator, I would need +120% to break even so if you made it a nice, round +150% then I'd absolutely do it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I voted YES and STILL YES, but I was assuming the question meant that I'd be leaving another job that was already in NYC. If the question means would I move from where I was now to work there, than the answer would be NO and NO. And it would have nothing to do with terrorists.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I voted YES and STILL YES, but I was assuming the question meant that I'd be leaving another job that was already in NYC. If the question means would I move from where I was now to work there, than the answer would be NO and NO. And it would have nothing to do with terrorists.

Sorry, didn't make it clear - This poll assumes already working in NYC.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I voted YES and STILL YES, but I was assuming the question meant that I'd be leaving another job that was already in NYC. If the question means would I move from where I was now to work there, than the answer would be NO and NO. And it would have nothing to do with terrorists.

Sorry, didn't make it clear - This poll assumes already working in NYC.

That's what I thought, but then I read everyone's reply. I'd have no problem working there.

 

[dgreen]

About 5% of the previous employees of this building died... So comparing that to going to bed (unless you are 100), doesn't make sense.

Cantor Fitzgerald lost 2/3's of their workforce as they were on the 101-105th floors.

I don't think it is crazy someone wouldn't want to work here and it is evidently clear in the fact that they are struggling to find tenants.

I'm not sure anyone would really say it's crazy to not want to work in the new building. But, if someone could come up with a good way to calculate the death probability of working in the new tower, I think many people would be surprised to see what other activities carry a similar (and higher) probability of death.

I think rather than saying people are crazy, it's better to say that they are likely overestimating the risk. I wouldn't say someone is crazy for not wanting to fly, but I'd be willing to say they likely overestimate the probability they will die.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Yes but you're over-representing the risks of plane rides, for one. 1 in 1.2 million plane flights end in a crash and the average American's annual risk of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million; there's no way the odds of another lethal terrorist attack on the new World Trade Center during X years of employment approach anything like that. September 11 wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the towers.

Also, I think when people compare mortality rates they forget to factor in the horror of the incident itself. Yes, car crashes are much more likely to kill you, but (1) you can mitigate the risk; and (2) the incident would likely occur out of nowhere and likely kill or incapacitate you quickly. That's a much more pleasant thought than facing the choice between jumping from a 100 story window to your death or allowing yourself to be burned alive. There's value not just in avoiding death but in avoiding that particular kind of death.

 

[Freelove]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Yes but you're over-representing the risks of plane rides, for one. 1 in 1.2 million plane flights end in a crash and the average American's annual risk of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million; there's no way the odds of another lethal terrorist attack on the new World Trade Center during X years of employment approach anything like that. September 11 wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the towers.

Also, I think when people compare mortality rates they forget to factor in the horror of the incident itself. Yes, car crashes are much more likely to kill you, but (1) you can mitigate the risk; and (2) the incident would likely occur out of nowhere and likely kill or incapacitate you quickly. That's a much more pleasant thought than facing the choice between jumping from a 100 story window to your death or allowing yourself to be burned alive. There's value not just in avoiding death but in avoiding that particular kind of death.

There's still more value in avoiding feeling like you have to worry about the horror all the time. Which I totally would.

 

[HughHoney]

Lots of fear mongering in this forum today. What happened?

People are siding with the guy running people over in the zombie walk thread, thinking people getting plowed over by an idiot behind the wheel is normal. I'd be afraid too if I thought that was acceptable behavior.

 

[matuski]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Yes but you're over-representing the risks of plane rides, for one. 1 in 1.2 million plane flights end in a crash and the average American's annual risk of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million; there's no way the odds of another lethal terrorist attack on the new World Trade Center during X years of employment approach anything like that. September 11 wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the towers.

Also, I think when people compare mortality rates they forget to factor in the horror of the incident itself. Yes, car crashes are much more likely to kill you, but (1) you can mitigate the risk; and (2) the incident would likely occur out of nowhere and likely kill or incapacitate you quickly. That's a much more pleasant thought than facing the choice between jumping from a 100 story window to your death or allowing yourself to be burned alive. There's value not just in avoiding death but in avoiding that particular kind of death.

Your argument sounds like an attempt to avoid fear. If that works for you, so be it.

 

[sporthenry]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

If someone wants to work there, that is fine and nothing wrong with it, but I personally wouldn't be comfortable. They are also having a lot of difficulty bringing in tenants and are projected to be just over 50% rented when it opens... Agree or disagree with the aforementioned, but terrorism def plays a role in the difficulty of finding tenants.

Does it? Prices for higher floors are actually more so that would seem to refute your point. I imagine price is the biggest hindrance especially with finance companies facing more constraints and shipping jobs to lower cost of living places. Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned. Hijacking a plane isn't really possible anymore and the building is structurally designed to resist most anything. A structural engineer who was designing it said they were getting random loads and forces from a firm that deals with explosives and the like.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Yes but you're over-representing the risks of plane rides, for one. 1 in 1.2 million plane flights end in a crash and the average American's annual risk of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million; there's no way the odds of another lethal terrorist attack on the new World Trade Center during X years of employment approach anything like that. September 11 wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the towers.

Also, I think when people compare mortality rates they forget to factor in the horror of the incident itself. Yes, car crashes are much more likely to kill you, but (1) you can mitigate the risk; and (2) the incident would likely occur out of nowhere and likely kill or incapacitate you quickly. That's a much more pleasant thought than facing the choice between jumping from a 100 story window to your death or allowing yourself to be burned alive. There's value not just in avoiding death but in avoiding that particular kind of death.

There's still more value in avoiding feeling like you have to worry about the horror all the time. Which I totally would.

Yup. We're not actuaries. The % chance of loss of life isn't the only downside here.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't feel like doing the research, but didn't they have trouble filling the original WTC when it first opened, too? It'll get filled.

 

[fantasycurse42]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

If someone wants to work there, that is fine and nothing wrong with it, but I personally wouldn't be comfortable. They are also having a lot of difficulty bringing in tenants and are projected to be just over 50% rented when it opens... Agree or disagree with the aforementioned, but terrorism def plays a role in the difficulty of finding tenants.

Does it? Prices for higher floors are actually more so that would seem to refute your point. I imagine price is the biggest hindrance especially with finance companies facing more constraints and shipping jobs to lower cost of living places.Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned. Hijacking a plane isn't really possible anymore and the building is structurally designed to resist most anything. A structural engineer who was designing it said they were getting random loads and forces from a firm that deals with explosives and the like.

They just cut pricing by 10% and haven't had any takers since.

 

[butcher boy]

Voted yes, but I would invest in a jetpack so if a plane hit, I could just fly out the window.

 

[Freelove]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)

I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

Fair enough, I think you are over representing the risk you are "mitigating" by not working in a specific building.

Yes but you're over-representing the risks of plane rides, for one. 1 in 1.2 million plane flights end in a crash and the average American's annual risk of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million; there's no way the odds of another lethal terrorist attack on the new World Trade Center during X years of employment approach anything like that. September 11 wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the towers.

Also, I think when people compare mortality rates they forget to factor in the horror of the incident itself. Yes, car crashes are much more likely to kill you, but (1) you can mitigate the risk; and (2) the incident would likely occur out of nowhere and likely kill or incapacitate you quickly. That's a much more pleasant thought than facing the choice between jumping from a 100 story window to your death or allowing yourself to be burned alive. There's value not just in avoiding death but in avoiding that particular kind of death.

There's still more value in avoiding feeling like you have to worry about the horror all the time. Which I totally would.

Yup. We're not actuaries.

If I were, I would gladly accept any position I felt increased my risk of death.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Voted yes, but I would invest in a jetpack so if a plane hit, I could just fly out the window.

They should build a second tower, exactly the same. That way if one went down, you could just go over to the other one. Problem solved.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Wouldn't want to be in NY for a lot of reasons to live. Too expensive mostly. But if I was there I wouldn't have any problem working in the Towers.

 

[kentric]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

If someone wants to work there, that is fine and nothing wrong with it, but I personally wouldn't be comfortable. They are also having a lot of difficulty bringing in tenants and are projected to be just over 50% rented when it opens... Agree or disagree with the aforementioned, but terrorism def plays a role in the difficulty of finding tenants.

Does it? Prices for higher floors are actually more so that would seem to refute your point. I imagine price is the biggest hindrance especially with finance companies facing more constraints and shipping jobs to lower cost of living places.Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned. Hijacking a plane isn't really possible anymore and the building is structurally designed to resist most anything. A structural engineer who was designing it said they were getting random loads and forces from a firm that deals with explosives and the like.

Good points. You can't make a blanket statement about the percentage of the building rented until you know what prices are being asked for and compare them to new builds in the area. I wouldn't discount however that some firms just won't think of entering into a lease in the building due to uncertainty about how their employees could feel about it.

 

[sporthenry]

You probably shouldn't ever swim in an ocean or river again.

Or get on a plane.

Or drive a car.

Or go to sleep (people die in bed all the time you know).

Or...

Good comparison.

I agree, choosing to do these things is way more risky than working in the World Trade Center.

I accept the risk on things I have to do. (Pick up milk from the store; sleep at night.)I mitigate the risk on things I choose to do. (Don't swim in riptides, or stray too far from shore, or splash about with seal fat in my pockets)

Where there is risk, and no way to mitigate it, and I'm free to choose? Why bother with the headache? (I do not skydive, and have no interest in doing so. I do not fault those who choose to partake. Ditto WTC jobs.)

If someone wants to work there, that is fine and nothing wrong with it, but I personally wouldn't be comfortable. They are also having a lot of difficulty bringing in tenants and are projected to be just over 50% rented when it opens... Agree or disagree with the aforementioned, but terrorism def plays a role in the difficulty of finding tenants.

Does it? Prices for higher floors are actually more so that would seem to refute your point. I imagine price is the biggest hindrance especially with finance companies facing more constraints and shipping jobs to lower cost of living places.Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned. Hijacking a plane isn't really possible anymore and the building is structurally designed to resist most anything. A structural engineer who was designing it said they were getting random loads and forces from a firm that deals with explosives and the like.

They just cut pricing by 10% and haven't had any takers since.

What is that price in relation to other properties? Are other properties more expensive?