Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 02-25-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
What occurred to me very strongly at the time, was how low-key the attacks were. I know that sounds bizarre, but the targets were always more symbolic than designed to inspire terror.

I haven�t seen discussions, but to me if I had a fully fuelled Jumbo & wanted to inflict maximum damage, I wouldn�t target a single building, even one as massive as the WTC, I would target a nuclear reactor or a dam.

My BIL works in petrochem & their risk management is extensive, but in all their detailed risk analysis, the meetings usually close with �well that�s about it except for a meteor or a jumbo�, because in reality defences against attack from above are nearly impossible to prevent. That has always been my fear since then, because as frightening as it may seem, 3 fully fuelled jumbos can actually kill a lot more than just a few thousand people.

I think the reasons a more "militarily strategic" target such as a dam wasn't chosen is because the attacks were done by military strategists. I think that the WTC was chosen more for symbolic reasons if anything. The WTC represents American financial power as well as global power. To hit your enemy's symbol of power is probably going to mean more to those doing the deed, assuming their not in their respective countries' defense dept or military. Think about it....With the acrimony that is felt by those subject to the imperialistic nature of the US, I would think that any type of blowback received is going to be taken out on targets that stand out visibly in the American eye....a WTC or a Pentagon would be such targets. To hit America's pride right where it lies. In objects that are uniquely American symbols...I'm surprised there wasn't a crash in the White House actually. I think the dam targets are going to be where a defense head would choose.

echidna · 02-25-2003, 09:40 PM

It's worrying that the strategy isn't predictable & that even more deadly targets exist.

Me and Me · 02-25-2003, 11:29 PM

Technically the Pentagon is a millitary installation, and not a civillian one.

The link to that story about put stocks being purchased is

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2..._pt1print.html

echidna · 02-26-2003, 12:38 AM

Dead link M&M.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2003, 09:40 PM	#92
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	It's worrying that the strategy isn't predictable & that even more deadly targets exist.

02-25-2003, 11:29 PM	#93
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	Technically the Pentagon is a millitary installation, and not a civillian one. The link to that story about put stocks being purchased is http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2..._pt1print.html

02-26-2003, 12:38 AM	#94
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Dead link M&M.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.