Hot Topics | World Tech Center

Q&As - HOT TOPICS

The most frequently asked questions about the vision.

What stage is this project currently at?

The World Technology Center is currently in the concept development and feasibility exploration phase.

Ongoing work includes design refinement, media outreach, technical studies, and long-term planning.

For long term goals, visit The Strategy

Do people still like to see the Twin Towers rebuilt?

The Twin Towers Alliance since 2003 has collected more than nine thousand signatures from 9/11 familes and the wider American community who explicity support a restoration of the twins. In 2005, MSNBC conducted a simple poll where 80% of 3483 respondents agreed to a new Twin Towers plan. A front cover from a New York Post newspaper from July 14th 2002 read "Half of New York wants the Twin Towers rebuilt".

Even today, dozens of people worldwide who were surveyed by our founder expressed that they would like to see the buildings come back into existance in some shape or form.

Therefore, the evidence suggests that deep down the American public would appreciate their rebirth.

Isn't the World Tech Center an exact copy of the original World Trade Center?

To clarify some of the online buzz on third party platforms in March 2026 and providing accurate context, the World Technology Center in its design from day one is completely different structurally and aesthetically, though it does share the same basic silhouette and tridents as the original legacy (their design by Minoru Yamasaki is not covered by the AWCPA).

The original design in the 1960s does not meet today's ASME building codes in fire safety and evacuation. Our design features a rugged UHPC core and concrete-filed box columns along with traditional I-beams for the floor members. The core would also have four pressurized stairwells and a fire service access elevator which exceeds the minimum for this type of building.

Moreover, the surrounding plaza and buildings in the complex (while inspired by the legacy) are also completely different in their design and appearance.

Is this project really feasible?

Large-scale developments typically evolve from early-stage conceptual visions into multidisciplinary efforts involving engineering, finance, governance, and public engagement. The World Technology Center is positioned within this early conceptual phase, and the project execution strategy goals can be found here.

City planning officials would approve a civil engineering project (even if it's controversial) if they see the potential of economic growth and benefits, and also providing that it meets environmental regulations (among other criteria). Contrary to some speculation, a project's controverial aspects are not deal breakers when it comes to getting planning permission, and while a public consultation (if it is a positive one) would help or illustrate feedback, they are not a major deciding factor in the approval process and it would be outweighed by the economic benfits.

Why Chicago instead of New York?

Chicago has been selected as the primary proposed location for the World Technology Center based on a combination of strategic, economic, and historical factors.

From a development perspective, the city offers greater flexibility in land use, enabling a project of this scale to be explored more feasibly compared to more constrained urban environments. This supports long-term planning, integrated infrastructure, and the creation of a cohesive multi-building campus.

Chicago is also emerging as a growing hub for science, technology, and advanced computing, including developments in quantum research, engineering, and data-driven industries. Positioning the World Technology Center within this evolving ecosystem allows the project to contribute to — and benefit from — a rapidly expanding innovation landscape.

In addition, Chicago holds deep historical significance in architecture and engineering. Widely recognized as the birthplace of the modern skyscraper, the city has long been associated with structural innovation and bold urban development. Locating the project here continues that legacy in a forward-looking context.

While New York remains an important part of the original World Trade Center’s history, the World Technology Center is a new, independent initiative with a distinct purpose, scope, and long-term vision. The selection of Chicago reflects a strategic decision aligned with the project’s goals in innovation, scalability, and future growth.

Alternative locations, including New York, have been considered as part of broader long-term planning; however, Chicago currently offers the most suitable balance of opportunity, scale, and alignment with the project’s objectives.

Are there other cities where this could be built?

While Chicago is the ideal place for the World Tech Center, Chryslar has considered possible alternate cities to host it in a contingency scenario (that things somehow don't work out for the primary). These include but are not limited to:

New York City - somewhere in another borough like Brooklyn and Queens

Houston, Texas - the state is experiencing a tech business boom. For this option, the city would upgrade its height restriction. While a definite site has not yet been established, it would possibly go in the downtown area (likely a 350 by 350 meter square).

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas - in a similar manner to Houston.

In a possible scenario where is no room for a complex of this size, the World Tech Center could evolve into a new city in its own right (just like SpaceX's Starbase). In this scenario, the WTC would be called "World Tech City" - a multi sq. km community with the Twin Towers as centerpiece, retaining its current name.

Why didn't they rebuild the Twin Towers?

Contrary to popular assumption, the reason why the twin towers were not rebuilt was not because of it being 'insensitive'. It was actually due to stakeholders' decision within the joint partnership of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Coropration (on behalf of Silverstein Properties - the leased owner of the site). They internally decided to "move forward with a completly new objective and future of the site" and chose to build the "Freedom Tower" behind close doors. Their design was criticized to a significant extent.

Do you have any strategies of how you would defend it against threats?

We are considering the implementation of an aerial threat detection and neutralization system on the roof of the towers. On the Science South Tower (the one with the spire reaching 1969 feet) would consist of a radar tracking system, radio interception and communication antenna (to validate the threat) and as a last resort either anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) or a multi-megawatt laser defense weapon (the type currently in use on specific US warships). The rooftop lasers or missiles would be mounted inside a secure housing that would be embedded in the crown strip moldings.

The advanced security and threat monitoring systems are being explored in alignment with federal regulations and modern high-rise safety practices. Any implementation would be subject to extensive technical, legal, and governmental review which is currently being explored.

Is it a good idea to rebuild the Twins? Is it ethical for the affected families?

The idea of rebuilding the Twin Towers is a long-time debatable topic that has both support and controversy, which will be explored in our upcoming comprehensive report.

While we acknowledge that our proposal is to some extent controversial we have uncovered archives, online polls, documentation, and the Twin Towers Alliance that have shown wavering support for the rebirth of the Twins. While it was aimed orignally for the Twin Towers II by Herbert Belton and Ken Gardner, to this day the alliance still receives statements.

Today, it has more than 9,000 supporting comments and signatures from 9/11 familes, relatives, and the wider community of firefighters, armed forces' veterans, former business tenants, and other people from around the world. The archive has been printed in its entirety and has been compiled on our website.

To be clear, Chryslar does not intend to downplay the tragic events of September 11 whatsover. It is rather to heal the nation by restoring those architectural symbols that meant so much for America, and raising the point in being not afraid of the past or intimidation from terrorists. The quote from the Twin Towers community (and in particular Donald Trump) states "by not rebuilding those towers, we are letting the terrorists win".

The decision to build the Freedom Tower instead was decided by private developers placed in charge of the site, without public debate or competition. Further reading on the history.

There are many case studies where society has picked itself up from tragic loss of life - such as the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters where the shuttle program was corrected of faults and resumed (Ronald Reagan contacted the astronaut's families of Challenger and they expressed their wish to continue the program). Another example is the Titanic - which despite having more than 1500 lives lost, has gained widespread fascination and cultural influence such as lego sets, films, and museums recreating the interior and exterior.

The proposal explores the possibility of reintroducing the Twin Towers concept within a modern, safety-driven and purpose-led framework. With this new political climate and spirit of boldness and patriotism, our proposal may be a win-win situation where America can finally heal from the unspeakaable events of 9/11 and aims to contribute to long-term cultural, architectural, and societal dialogue around resilience, memory, and progress.

Isn't the WTC Towers' design copyrighted?

Contuary to some belief, the original design of the World Trade Center (by architect Minoru Yamasaki) is fact in the public domain. This is due to the work being produced in the 1960s, well before the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) of 1990. The World Trade Center is thus ineligble for this protection because its design was produced between 1962 and 1968 and completed physically in 1973. Yamasaki passed away in 1986, and his firm closed in 2009. Obviously and tragically, his buildings no longer exist.

The original blueprints have been published online in 2002 in the wake of 9/11, and are freely accessible to the public on the Internet Archive. The original copies are stored in an archive in Michigan, and electronic files preserved by the Library of Congress.

The World Tech Center is similar to the original World Trade Center Towers but strictily and only in rough external appearance such as the tridents. There are plenty of major differences structurally and aesthetically. Drawings of the building's structural composition can be found here.

Raphael Chryslar had consulted his attorneys beforehand and his design has been assured clear of any potential disputes or copyright issues in accordance with AWCPA and the US Patent Office.

Has this project been formally approved?

The World Technology Center is currently in its conceptual and early development phase.

While Chicago city planning representivies are interested in our project, no planning/construction approvals or solid funding have been finalized at this time.

What safety features would the towers have?

The World Tech Center's Twin Towers will be engineered to be one of the most robust, safest and protected civillian structures on Earth. The buildings consist of three main elements that improve massively from the legacy:

The central core will be made from Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC). It will comprise of a 29 by 41 m (95 by 134 ft) rectangle with 1 m thick walls with plenty of reinforcement rebar and girder plates to connect the floor beams. This material has superior compressive and impact strength and it's commonly used to build nuclear reactor contaiment buildings (being able to absorb a plane impact theoretically up to 1,610 km/h or 1000 mph). The core would be made from slip-forming techniques just like many modern skyscrapers today.

The floor beams in question are a traditional I-beam design with superior fireproofing expanding materials. The I-beam has an excellent second moment of area - which minimizes its deflection when loaded. It has a web depth of approximately 1 m (3ft). They will be bolted to socket plates on the central core, and to brackets on the perimeter columns. The beams are made from A514 structural steel - the strongest civil engineering grade of steel in industry, with a yield strength of 700 MPa. Typical structural steel is usually half that figure.

The outer wall (or perimeter columns) are also made from A514 structural steel, and consist of seven major columns on each of the four sides, each a vertical box column 1 m (3ft wide) and varying thickness from 5 cm (2 inches) to 20cm (8 inches) nearer the base. The 19 tridents connect the foundation pallets past the lobby, to structural transfer trusses on the 6 and 7th mechanical floors. These use a statically indeterminate structural configuration (where internal forces calculation require stiffness matrices instead of the traditional equiliberum equations, thus regarded as safer). The corner columns are cast from UHPC concrete with steel girders embedded within.

All structural steel will have the latest in fireproofing materials that are rated for at least six hours.

Internal safety and security features include but not limited to:

4 large stairwells in each tower, equipped with a pressurized ventilation system to keep smoke out.
Sky lobbies containing a permanant firefighting crew stationed 24/7.
Fire hydrants on every floor which are connected to the top floor's liquid tuned mass damper (to serve as an emergency reservoir), as well as foam sprinklers and fire extinguishers throughout (in case of a laboratory fire).
A fire service elevator with plenty of backup generators, with its own pressurized lobby.
Fire-rated safety doors throughout the core and floors.
A high-tech extendible platform near the sky lobby where firefighting drones can deploy and land.
An aerospace-grade fighterfighting foam (used in aircraft hangars) that would deploy from special sprinklers, extinguishing any laboratory fires within a few seconds.

Are there other Twin Tower buildings around the world?

Yes, there are strikingly similar buildings that currently exist in the United States and around the world (mainly in China) that are directly inspired or loosely based from the original World Trade Center in New York. They are:

The Ruitang Plaza Twin Towers in Wuhan China, built in 1996. Its 105 metres tall and features a striking resemblance of the WTC tridents.

The Zhejiang Gate Towers in Hangzhou, China. Standing approximately 300 meters tall and expected to be completed in 2026.

China WTC Tower III near Beijing. Completed in 2010 and standing 331 meters in height.

AON Center in Chicago, standing 362 metres high (the tallest in this group) and completed in the same year as the New York World Trade Center opening - 1973.

BOK Tower in Tulsa Oklahoma. It was opened in 1976 and standing 203 m, and indeed it was designed by the same WTC architect - Minoru Yamasaki. He was hired because the developer’s CEO wanted a replica of Yamasaki’s Twin Towers design in Oklahoma, citing his impression with the New York WTC.

The new Spectra building at the University of Hertfordshire College Lane Campus, Hatfield, UK. Built between 2021 and opened in late 2024, it’s loosely based from the WTC according to a promotional document press kit from 2021. It’s resemblance are notably the rectangular windows, vertical gray facade, and all steel skeleton. It’s 25 m high.

How much would the project cost to build?

It is currently estimated to cost $15 billion, plus or minus $5 billion.

When would this project be realized?

While speculative at the present time, the goal is aimed for construction and completion in the 2040s, or 2050.

References
(non exhaustive)

Gelinas, N. (2005). New York Post Online Edition: Opinion on Twin Towers rebuilding [online] Web Archive/New York Post. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20050408024114/http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23038.htm [Accessed 5 May 2024].
Hakala, J., Gardner, K. and Halle, H. (2004). TimeOut New York Article - Towering Ambition. [online] Triroc.com. Available at: https://www.triroc.com/wtc/tony/index.htm [Accessed 2 Feb. 2023].
Hill, J. (2005a). WTC = World Trump Center? [online] Blogspot.com. Available at: https://archidose.blogspot.com/2005/05/wtc-world-trump-center.html [Accessed 2 Jan. 2026].
Hill, J. (2005b). Yep, They’re Twins Alright. [online] Blogspot.com. Available at: https://archidose.blogspot.com/2005/05/yep-theyre-twins-alright.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2025].
Murdock, D. (2004). Deroy Murdock on World Trade Center on National Review Online. [online] National Review. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20040808062611/http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403041627.asp [Accessed 19 Dec. 2024].
Murdock, D. (2005). Trump Card: the Donald Gets behind an Alternative World Trade Center Plan. [online] National Review. Available at: https://www.nationalreview.com/2005/05/trump-card-deroy-murdock/ [Accessed 28 Jul. 2025].
Panero, J. (2005). Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt? - The New Criterion. [online] The New Criterion. Available at: https://newcriterion.com/dispatch/should-the-world-trade-center-be-rebuilt/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2025].
Shuster, D. and Moran, M. (2005). MSNBC - Rebuild the Twin Towers. [online] Web Archive/MSNBC. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20050317065539/https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013421/#050225b [Accessed 2 Oct. 2023].
Staff, N. (2004). Twins Rise Again. [online] National Review. Available at: https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/03/twins-rise-again/ [Accessed 15 Jun. 2025].
Steinhauer, J. (2005). Trump Proposes Putting up 2 Towers at Trade Center Site. The New York Times. [online] 19 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/nyregion/trump-proposes-putting-up-2-towers-at-trade-center-site.html [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
Twin Towers Alliance (2004). The Twin Towers Alliance» All Signatures. [online] Twin Towers Alliance. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20240723230242/https://twintowersalliance.com/all-signatures/ [Accessed 22 Sep. 2023].
Walker, H. (2015). Trump’s post-9/11 Twin Towers plan. [online] Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-911-twin-towers-plan-2015-9 [Accessed 25 May 2025].
Westcott, J. (2004). Tower Power. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2004/jun/11/architecture.september11 [Accessed 20 Jul. 2024].
Wikipedia Contributors (2020). Twin Towers 2. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Towers_2 [Accessed 1 May 2021].
TripAdvisor (2005) Strong push being made to rebuild the Twin Towers [online] TripAdvisor. Available at: https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g60763-i5-k110595-o20-Strong_push_being_made_to_rebuild_the_Twin_Towers-New_York_City_New_York.html
Associated Press Archive (2015). Donald Trump presents his proposal for World Trade Centre site. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB3PYcRyna4 [Accessed 21 Oct. 2025].