I thought you might enjoy reading this article from yesterday's Torygraph. Written by Armando Iannucci - a name I feel I should recognise, but don't - it looks back at 'Ground Zero' from the future. Well, I found it interesting anyway!

"And so, five months on, it was time to take stock of where America was and how it should move on. The war had been an undoubted success, with all its aims achieved; most of al-Qa’eda was now somewhere else, the Taliban had been pushed to another bit of Afghanistan and everyone was afraid of George Bush’s foreign policy. But back home there was still the contentious issue of how best to fill the space tragically cleared at Manhattan’s lower tip. What was to replace the Twin Towers?

There were two camps of thought. On the one hand, the minimalists argued there could be no more moving memorial than a beautiful empty space. Amid the chaos and clutter of Manhattan’s otherwise crowded avenues, the emptiness of Ground Zero would take the beauty of eternal verities and give it a clear shout above the din. But this argument was generally recognised by most people to be weird.

The more popular view was that, since the World Trade Centre was a monument to the capitalist ideal of the American dream. the best form of memorial would he a building in which as many people as possible could make money. And the building would have to be big. Space was at a premium in New York, and overcrowding in the city had got considerably worse now that everyone refused to fly or move more than a mile away from their house.

Because of this fear of travel, in the space of five months the population of Manhattan had trebled. The city fathers clearly had to find something these people could go and work in. Something the size and shape of the original Twin Towers would seem to fit the bill.

So there was stalemate. The advocates of the replacement Twin Towers held back, fearing it would look both embarrassing and provocative to come up with a memorial no different from the building being remembered. The proponents of empty space, though weird, were, like all weird people, rather loud and forceful, and swiftly gained ground.

It was at this point that the new Mayor suggested the compromise solution of going for both options. The Twin Towers were to he rebuilt, copied exactly from their original designs, but built downwards into the ground. The two structures would soar 15,000 ft beneath the surface of the earth, bottoming out with a restaurant on the 110th underground floor, from which tourists could look out on spectacular views of sedimentary rock.

Building was completed two years later, and 30,000 people dropped to work each morning. Free from the threat of airborne attack, sealed by solid granite that could muffle the most intense fires, the subterranean towers looked magnificent and impervious.

Soon the idea caught on, and more and more very low buildings were being sunk all across America. By 2024 it was estimated that nearly half of the population lived and worked underground. Entire cities dropped beneath the surface. People got used to waking up to panoramas of mud, and in San Francisco a new tourist industry grew up providing underground helicopter tours of the San Andreas fault.

More importantly, America discovered it could withdraw from what its President described as “earth’s troublesome surface”. Tired of hatred and opposition from countries further afield, it could now quietly get on with its own deep concerns. With no one to trade with but itself, it had few geopolitical interests above the earth’s crust.

By 2032, all of the United States disappeared from view.

What it left behind was not the lush paradise environmentalists had hoped for. Thousands of miles of ventilation turrets peaked from boggy marshland, the habitation and breeding ground of racoons and pink flamingos that later proved a pestilential threat for most of the rest of the Americas.

But beneath the surface, caked in soil, the United States grew strong and happy and encased".

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Answers

I'm sure I've watched a programme with Iannucci in it, it was a comedy I think, he was the main star.

His article there seems slightly unrealistic, but you never know :)

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Isn't he the guy who's done all the research into the history of NUFC ?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Hope you enjoyed your holiday.

Isn't he the guy who's done all the research into the history of NUFC ?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

I think he's Steve Coogan's mate. Plays a few of the characters in the first Alan Partridge tv series & also in the radio series.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Who am I thinking of then ? If his name's Smith, I'm away for a lie down.:-{E}

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

The NUFC historian bloke isn't him, similar name though.

I think it's Paul Joannou or something like that.

I've got one of his books which is basically a brief history of NUFC over the last few years and the grammar and spelling is awful in it, I honestly don't believe he's read through it more than once.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Armando Iannuci co-wrote and produced The Day Today (and I'd hazard a guess, On the Hour before that) - hence the Coogan connection. He also presented/wrote Friday or Saturday Night Armistice or whatever it was called, and recently his own 'The Armando Ianucci Shows', on C4 IIRC, which was pretty good.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Thankyou Paul. It's still a bit worrying that Ianucci isn't really that much like Joannou, so I think I still might have to have a lie down. :-{E}

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Yes, thanks PB had a fantastic week in St. Lucia - ran into more Geordies in b&w shirts than you could shake a stick at.

Feeling distinctly jet-lagged today, but really looking forward to tomorrow night and welcoming 'Special K' and Steve Howey back to SJP - followed by a Toon victory of course.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Hi Clarky - good to have you back. Hope your holiday was warm and refreshing!

For some reason, I never get to read Saturday`s Telegraph. An intriguing article, full of symbolism. However, as I`m only on my first cup of coffee, I`m just not ready to tackle the deeper meaning. (:o)

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2002

......apparently no one else is either, Gal!

We had a wonderful time in St. Lucia - lovely island, friendly people, fabulous resort, good food, splendid weather, warm aquamarine sea, white sand beaches.

Actually, I didn't want to come back - until I remembered tonight's match! Haway the Lads.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2002