Why the World Trade Center?

[Aaron Thrash]

I have been discussing this over in this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93467

And have a new question, previously unknown to me. Why the World Trade Center? Well, obviously it is a symbol of power. Power? Money? Trade? Did the terrorists want to do the most harm? If so, why not dive a plane into Indian Point a well known Terrorist attack point. Indian point is home to 3 nuclear power plants only 24 miles north of New York City. A well aimed 767-223ER could easily nosedive into the containment building and go right through to the core.

I would think that real terrorists would want to invoke the most devastation. I mean after all, our whole fear of Iraq was those darn WMD's. How about a nuclear fallout killing 20 Million Americans? How about 3 Nuclear Meltdowns? I mean after all they had 4 planes.

Why risk everything you've supposedly been planning for 6 years on a measly target like the WTC? And at 8:46 AM? Why not 10:00AM or 11:00AM when the buildings would be packed with thousands more people?

Why waste years of preparing and planning only to strike the side of the Pentagon which was under construction with only a modicum of fatalities and no real damage descerned? Was this the work of incompetent hijackers who accidently masterminded a plot to take down a "symbol" of freedom? Why not the Statue of Liberty? There are at least as many visitors to the Statue each day than were recorded at the WTC.

I'm just trying to be rational, and stay within the bounds of Occams Razor on this one. But, does this not seem strange to anyone else?

From: http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/mcrow2.htm

5. American Airlines Flight 11 followed the Hudson River down for at least the last 80 or so miles till it hit the north side of the north tower of the WTC at 8:45. On its way down the Hudson River, it didn't fly close by or next to, it literally flew directly over the number one terrorist target in the United States.

http://www.nonuclear.net/post911oppositiontoindianpointplantgrows.htm
http://www.attackonamerica.net/controllerstaleofflight11.htm

Indian Point has 3 nuclear power plants ( 1 is offline and the other 2 have been online since 1973 and 1976 ) which are only 24 miles north of New York City. If AA 11 hits Indian Point correctly in any of three different ways you could have up to 20 million people prematurely die from radiation poisoning and the whole northeast corridor would become a wasteland forever.

One, by hitting the section where cumulatively 65 years' of worth of highly radioactive waste is stored from these nuclear power plants. Two, the *Nuclear Regulatory Commission has come out and said that a large airliner or airliners full of fuel hitting a nuclear power plant would possibly cause a meltdown by causing out of control cascading problems ( I believe this to be the most likely scenario ). Three, and of course there is the way most people probably visualize it, a plane literally crashing through the containment building and going right through to the core. Well, containment walls are at least four feet thick and the domes are at least three feet thick. They are constructed of reinforced concrete laced with steel rods and tendons and lined with 1/4-inch thick steel sheets.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/jetcouldwrecknuclearnrcadmits.htm

A large airliner could possibly break through the weakest point, the 3 foot thick containment dome and cause a meltdown. If one plane didn't break through the Indian Point containment dome and cause a meltdown, two planes most definitely would have done the job. By the way, United Airlines Flight 175 flew very close to Indian Point, it was literally within a couple of minutes flying time.

So, are we dealing with benevolent terrorists on AA 11 who lengthen their mission by 38 miles and 8 minutes flying time by flying directly over their enemies' number one target? Are we dealing with benevolent terrorists on UA 175 who lengthen their mission by almost 150 miles and 30 minutes flying time by flying very close to their enemies' number one target? Why fly over Indian Point where you could possibly cause 20 million premature deaths? Why expose your mission for 8 or 30 more minutes to try to take down 1 or 2 of the towers of the WTC, where they ended up "only" killing less than 3,000 people? The mastermind behind these "terrorists" hijackers would have soon figured out their best shot against the strongest military foe in the world would have been to hit them first and hit them as hard as you can. Why didn't they hit Indian Point?

By the way, if the terrorists were targeting the WTC, don't you think they would have waited until around 11:00 when these buildings were full with 50,000 plus people? And of course, to cause the most deaths and destruction isn't it elementary to strike these buildings as low as possible, which would have been around the 25th to 30th floors? So, why did this well planned "terrorist" attack kill only 3,000 people when they could have easily killed ten times that many? This reasoning also goes along with the Pentagon attack. Why was the Pentagon hit on the so called "peaceful" side which was mostly under construction as opposed to the command center side of the Pentagon?

If anyone has a good answer please let me know.

-A

[Arken]

And have a new question, previously unknown to me. Why the World Trade Center? Well, obviously it is a symbol of power. Power? Money? Trade?

Exactly right. The World Trade Center was the symbolic economic center of the United States.

Did the terrorists want to do the most harm?

No, they wanted to create a sense of terror, hence the name terrorists. They are on a religious mission to scare the 'infidels' into becoming like them. Killing all of them wouldn't achieve this.

I would think that real terrorists would want to invoke the most devastation. I mean after all, our whole fear of Iraq was those darn WMD's. How about a nuclear fallout killing 20 Million Americans? How about 3 Nuclear Meltdowns? I mean after all they had 4 planes.

Iraq was a state, not a group of rogue terrorists. Terrorists wish to create terror as I said above. This is why they also go for embassies. The idea is to scare people into either joining them or being complicit in what they order, not to create the most devistation.

[Aaron Thrash]

Exactly right. The World Trade Center was the symbolic economic center of the United States.

No, they wanted to create a sense of terror, hence the name terrorists. They are on a religious mission to scare the 'infidels' into becoming like them. Killing all of them wouldn't achieve this.

Iraq was a state, not a group of rogue terrorists. Terrorists wish to create terror as I said above. This is why they also go for embassies. The idea is to scare people into either joining them or being complicit in what they order, not to create the most devistation.

Why not The Statue of Liberty? The very symbol of Freedom?

And if these so-called benevolent terrorists only wish to spread terror to get you to convert, then why the fear of WMD's? Surely they would not use those if there primary concern is to strike terror.

-A

[Arken]

Why not The Statue of Liberty? The very symbol of Freedom?

And if these so-called benevolent terrorists only wish to spread terror to get you to convert, then why the fear of WMD's? Surely they would not use those if there primary concern is to strike terror.

-A

The WTC has the added advantage of being in the middle of a city, not isolated on an island, thereby sending the message 'we can get you anywhere.'

The fear of WMDs comes from the U.S. government. Al Qaeda has never claimed to have them.

[Arken]

The WTC is also a more important symbol to them. Despite Bush's claims that they hate us for our freedom, they don't. The WTC is a symbol of the things they hate about America- the deification of the dollar, the attempt to enforce this view on the world and unbridled capitalism (from their eyes that is, I'm not saying I agree with this perspective).

[seeker]

There were lots of targets that they could have chosen that might have killed more people but let's not forget they were playing to an audience. They oviously wanted to hit targets that were internationally recognized as symbols of the US greatness. The WTC was the tallest building in the world, one of the seven wonders of the modern world.

[Arken]

The WTC was the tallest building in the world, one of the seven wonders of the modern world.

No, there were taller buildings.

I think I need to clarify my explanation a bit more...

The targets of the terrorists were: The Pentagon- the center of the United States' military power, the World Trade Center- the center of the United States' economic power and presumably if it hadn't been thwarted, the White House- the center of the United States' governmental power.

The message was pretty clear: We can attack you at your very core.

The Statue of Liberty doesn't represent American power as much as it does French benevolence.

[Loren Pechtel]

And have a new question, previously unknown to me. Why the World Trade Center? Well, obviously it is a symbol of power. Power? Money? Trade? Did the terrorists want to do the most harm? If so, why not dive a plane into Indian Point a well known Terrorist attack point. Indian point is home to 3 nuclear power plants only 24 miles north of New York City. A well aimed 767-223ER could easily nosedive into the containment building and go right through to the core.

Yeah, we are lucky they didn't go for nuke plants.

I would think that real terrorists would want to invoke the most devastation. I mean after all, our whole fear of Iraq was those darn WMD's. How about a nuclear fallout killing 20 Million Americans? How about 3 Nuclear Meltdowns? I mean after all they had 4 planes.

You wouldn't get a meltdown. You would get basically a dirty bomb.

Note, however, that we might very well have considered this to be crossing the nuclear threshold. Had we had an exact location for OBL at that point I expect our reply would have been nuclear.

Why risk everything you've supposedly been planning for 6 years on a measly target like the WTC? And at 8:46 AM? Why not 10:00AM or 11:00AM when the buildings would be packed with thousands more people?

This one is easy--airline schedules. The farther you are going the more restricted you'll find the schedule. They couldn't dwadle over their targets, either--that would burn fuel and would make it more likely that we would have interceptors up that would stop them after the first hit.

Why waste years of preparing and planning only to strike the side of the Pentagon which was under construction with only a modicum of fatalities and no real damage descerned? Was this the work of incompetent hijackers who accidently masterminded a plot to take down a "symbol" of freedom?

No, it was the work of a hijacker who couldn't find his target (note his course--he approached the white house twice but apparently didn't see it. Then he went for the Pentagon.) and chose a convenient target of opportunity. He didn't have a lot of time to hunt, there was an interceptor inbound.

[Sauron]

I have been discussing this over in this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93467

And have a new question, previously unknown to me. Why the World Trade Center? Well, obviously it is a symbol of power. Power? Money? Trade? Did the terrorists want to do the most harm? If so, why not dive a plane into Indian Point a well known Terrorist attack point. Indian point is home to 3 nuclear power plants only 24 miles north of New York City. A well aimed 767-223ER could easily nosedive into the containment building and go right through to the core.

I would think that real terrorists would want to invoke the most devastation.

You would think wrong, then.

The point behind terrorism isn't devastation, it's terror. A flashy, high profile target like the WTC has both terror signficance as well as symbolic significance. Nuclear power plants do not. Put another way: if the 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill the maximum number of people, they would have simply targeted an NFL game in an outside arena. Death toll is not the desired goal. Maximum flashiness and symbolism are.


Why waste years of preparing and planning only to strike the side of the Pentagon which was under construction with only a modicum of fatalities and no real damage descerned?

Because the actual target was the White House. But the hijacker was unable to locate it from the air. The Pentagon is obviously easy to locate, given its shape. And it has both symbolic and terror significance - if a terrorist can hit the military headquarters of the USA, that raises their street credibility by a factor of 1000. The fact that it was only the side of the building was obviously bad piloting; I'm sure they would have preferred a dead-center explosion.

[Hyndis]

From the point of view of an evil overlord, they should have hit the government buildings first.

Destroying the White House and US Capital would have utterly crippled the US government for a while. And then any other aircraft could target other buildings at whim.

However, if this was the objective, then they should have waited until an event where the US Capital was having a joint session of Congress, or at least very full. Like a State of the Union address, or even a presidential inaugeration. Decapitating essentially the entire US government in a single blow would have been much more devastating than merely targeting a few important buildings. And I think ObL and crew have more hatred for the US government itself than capitalism in general.

And I did not think of this idea all by myself, either. Go read the last chapter of this book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425147584/002-9914404-1533623?v=glance)

Heck, Tom Clancy's book might very well have been the inspiration for the 9/11 attack. The guy is incredibly creative and plays the devil's advocate flawlessly. And if you actually read his stuff, there's numerous ways to mount devastating attacks on the US, and there is no defense against these acts save for going after the source, rather than the shut-the-barn-after-the-horse-got-away method.

[socratoad]

Well actually the preferred target in NYC was one particular Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise. The Islamist organizer for this particular escapade had eaten there and the resulting heartburn not only enraged the man but was the cause of a complete change of plans.

The original intent was a massive handing out of copies of the Koran at major shopping centres.

Only after much training concerning the revised mission/target did it become apparent that there was no way they could crash those big planes into the low rise KFC, and so the trade towers were reluctantly substituted, simply because they would be hard to miss.

I would very much love to supply the necessary official sources for this information, unfortunately all documents have mysteriously been reclassified to the "top secret" category

[reprise]

Hell, if I wanted to terrorise Americans, I'd try to take out a target in a manner which disrupted communications and the financial markets, too.

About once a year I re-read the threads which were posted on various messageboards immediately following the WTC being hit. It's easy to forget some three years later the extent to which communication was disrupted within the US and the extent to which lack of accessible information struck terror into the hearts of Americans. There were - quite literally - times during the first 24 hours after the attack when those of us outside of the US were getting information faster via satellite feeds than people whose access to that information was dependent on the transmission towers located on top of the WTC were getting it. And all of this was happening in the context of a scenario in which "where are they going to hit next" was a valid question.

Now maybe the terrorists didn't plan for the "bonus" of the terror created by disrupted infrastructure, but it certainly sticks in my mind just how deeply those with whom I was in communication that day were affected by their inability to procure instant, accurate, information about what was happening both in a global sense and at the personal level of being unable to establish contact with friends and family.

[Happy Wonderer]

Don't forget that they had already tried for the WTC and failed. The successful attack would have been necessary to wipe out memory of the bungled one.

hw

[Born Free]

You would think wrong, then.

The point behind terrorism isn't devastation, it's terror. A flashy, high profile target like the WTC has both terror signficance as well as symbolic significance. Nuclear power plants do not. Put another way: if the 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill the maximum number of people, they would have simply targeted an NFL game in an outside arena. Death toll is not the desired goal. Maximum flashiness and symbolism are.


Because the actual target was the White House. But the hijacker was unable to locate it from the air. The Pentagon is obviously easy to locate, given its shape. And it has both symbolic and terror significance - if a terrorist can hit the military headquarters of the USA, that raises their street credibility by a factor of 1000. The fact that it was only the side of the building was obviously bad piloting; I'm sure they would have preferred a dead-center explosion.


I agree, I was looking for the right words but you've said pretty much what I would. Another thought I had on it was that not only were there Americans in the WTC, a porportion of victims were international and it was like strike one at the rest of the world, an attempt to thwart international support for the USA whereas the Pentagon was purely to humiliate the government. It was a nasty, very nasty personalised greeting card.

They want every American to be scared of the future, they want other countries to stand down in their support and leave America with next to no allies. Unfortunately Bush is helping them along with that very nicely, al-queda must be very happy about that.

[Toto]

There is this theory, published in Slate:

Attack on the architecture (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060207) The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences.

The story starts in the late 1950s, when Yamasaki, a second-generation Japanese-American, won the commission to design the King Fahd Dhahran Air Terminal in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. His design had a rectilinear, modular plan with pointed arches, interweaving tracery of prefabricated concrete, and even a minaret of a flight tower. In other words, it was an impressive melding of modern technology and traditional Islamic form. The Saudis admired it so much that they put a picture of it on one of their banknotes.

. . .

Having rejected modernism and the Saudi royal family, it's no surprise that Bin Laden would turn against Yamasaki's work in particular. He must have seen how Yamasaki had clothed the World Trade Center, a monument of Western capitalism, in the raiment of Islamic spirituality. Such mixing of the sacred and the profane is old hat to us—after all, Cass Gilbert's classic Woolworth Building, dubbed the Cathedral to Commerce, is decked out in extravagant Gothic regalia. But to someone who wants to purify Islam from commercialism, Yamasaki's implicit Mosque to Commerce would be anathema. To Bin Laden, the World Trade Center was probably not only an international landmark but also a false idol.

[seeker]

No, there were taller buildings.


Not that were habitable. The WTC were 1,776 ft high. I can find no other habitable building that comes close. http://architecture.about.com/library/bltall.htm gives a ranking. Note the only building listed as taller hasn't been built yet

[Duck!]

Not that were habitable. The WTC were 1,776 ft high. I can find no other habitable building that comes close. http://architecture.about.com/library/bltall.htm gives a ranking. Note the only building listed as taller hasn't been built yet

According to that site, the WTC was 300 ft higher than the Sears Tower, there's no freaking way that that's correct.


Duck!

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

they are posting the height of the proposed "Freedom Tower" which will be built on the WTC site.

The Freedom Tower will be 1776 ft (Because our country was founded in 1776, I presume).

You'll notice that, if you click on the link at that site, it leads you to a picture of a model of the Freedom Tower.

-B

[Chuck]

According to that site, the WTC was 300 ft higher than the Sears Tower, there's no freaking way that that's correct.


Duck!

If I'm not mistaken, the top 200 ft. or so are used by a windpower gathering apparatus, and are not for office space.

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Freedom Tower is to rise 70 floors and be topped by wind-harvesting turbines that designers predict will provide 20 percent of the building's energy.

The tower's height of 1,776 feet, symbolic for the year of American independence, includes a 276-foot spire.

The torqued tower -- its east and west sides twist as they rise -- and the spire are meant to echo the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

The tower is to have a concrete core and be encased in a steel cable netting that will brace the building. Childs likened the cables to suspension bridge cables, such as those holding up the Brooklyn Bridge.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/19/wtc.plan/

[Cynical-Chick]

Am I the only one that finds that rather ugly and very out-of-place?

[Sauron]

Am I the only one that finds that rather ugly and very out-of-place?

It's kind of.....well, cheesy. I was hoping they were going to go for something really exhilirating and organic, something like Santiago Calatrava would design:
http://www.calatrava.com/

Instead they appear to have mish-mashed something together because the public was clamoring to have its anguish memorialized as quick as possible. :rolleyes:

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Am I the only one that finds that rather ugly and very out-of-place?

I don't think it's ugly. Seems like a decent design to me.

[Arken]

Am I the only one that finds that rather ugly and very out-of-place?

Not at all. I thought it was hideous.

[erimir]

In the picture it seems to rise a bit too far above the rest of the skyline. It dominates too much.

Also, I think the name "Freedom Tower" is horrible. I hope they don't use it as the final name. It's far too cheesy and arrogant (obviously only America supports freedom :rolleyes: ).

[Arken]

In the picture it seems to rise a bit too far above the rest of the skyline. It dominates too much.

Also, I think the name "Freedom Tower" is horrible. I hope they don't use it as the final name. It's far too cheesy and arrogant (obviously only America supports freedom :rolleyes: ).

Could be worse. I read somewhere that Bush suggested it be called 'The American Patriot Freedom Tower.' Puke.

[Shrubageddon]

Well, I've just read through all of the rationalized garbage, and I'm thoroughly convinced that crashing the planes into Nuclear Power Plants and killing millions of people would have terrorized me much more than crashing them into the WTC.

So, if your rationalized, and speculative conclusion, about the symbolism of the WTC were to prove correct (and, of course, we will never know, but there's always false confidence to fall back on), then the terrorists have the passive American Public pegged, psychologically.

The average American is so easily swayed by the superficiality of glitz (shock and awe, baby). The Nuclear Plan just wouldn't have provided enough readily visible action and carnage. Sure, it might kill millions of people, but there's nothing like a good plane or two crashing into the WTC to bring the dolts out to the box office in droves.

[Aaron Thrash]

I finally found this. I have been very busy researching other documents such as The Patriot Act 2 (http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/patriot2-hi.pdf) and The Police State Threat (http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/police_state/index.htm) as reported by The New American.

I kept coming back to Operation Northwoods, but had never read it. So, unless otherwise posted elsewhere, here is the Original PDF Document:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

This declassified document is a justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba.

-A

[Yeshi]

but let's not forget they (terrorists) were playing to an audience

This is an issue that troubled me a lot at that time (of 9/11/2001): why did no terrorist organization take the responsibility for the act? In all previous cases of terrorism, there is always a "happy organization" to claim the strike and recite their political goals.

Actually, in all the previous terrorist acts the MAIN GOAL was to publicize the political agenda. And in the case of WTC, there was never a political announcement made to follow the horredous act... :confused:

Well, I've just read through all of the rationalized garbage, and I'm thoroughly convinced that crashing the planes into Nuclear Power Plants and killing millions of people would have terrorized me much more than crashing them into the WTC.

I also hope that causing a thermonuclear meltdown (aka chinese syndrome) is not that easy to accomplish by breaking the secondary and primary cooling systems and/or destroying the electrical control: hopefully the design engineers have precautions like explosive charges that fire the cadmium rods into the reactor core, or the design that breaks the core into smaller pieces...
(effectively slowing/stopping the chain reaction)

I might be a naive engineer, but i think the heating up stage has to run for some time unchecked in order for the (literary) HELL TO BREAK LOOSE..

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Well, I've just read through all of the rationalized garbage, and I'm thoroughly convinced that crashing the planes into Nuclear Power Plants and killing millions of people would have terrorized me much more than crashing them into the WTC.

Except it might not have even worked. The containment on a nuclear reactor is pretty strong, and is designed to withstand the impact of a 747. Now, two planes would likely do the job, and they had two planes...but wouldn't the time delay between the two be enough time for the emergency systems to shut down the reactor? And then what would they have to show for it: A destroyed power plant, and a small amount of paranoia in the area from people who think they must be getting hit by radiation because they're afraid of nuclear. Very soon, the experts declare no radiation, people are assured, the plan is a failure. So it's a risky target- might not even really be effective.

-B

[Aaron Thrash]

From:

http://cfrterrorism.org/security/nuclearfacilities.html

How vulnerable are U.S. nuclear weapons sites?

Not very, most experts say. Nuclear weapons production and storage sites are guarded by security forces supervised by the Department of Energy. John Gordon, the administrator of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, has called such sites “one of the last places a terrorist would think about attacking and having hopes of success; the security basically bristles.� But a watchdog organization, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), charged last year that security at U.S. nuclear weapons complexes was inadequate and that hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium could be stolen, sabotaged, or even detonated.

....Finally, experts warn that terrorists might target the pools in which nuclear reactors’ highly radioactive waste (“spent fuel�) is kept. This waste, which is kept cool by water, could ignite if exposed to the air and cause what one nuclear expert, Robert Alvarez, has called a “catastrophic fire� that could be “worse than a reactor meltdown.�

Experts say that an attack on a nuclear power plant, all of which are guarded by private security forces hired by the plants and supervised by the NRC, couldn’t lead to a nuclear explosion. The danger, they say, is that attackers could cause a meltdown or a fire or set off a major conventional explosion, all of which could spew radiation into nearby cities and towns.

What would happen if a plane crashed into a nuclear plant?

No one knows. U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and small plane crashes. Their “containment walls� are typically made of two to five feet of reinforced concrete with an interior steel lining. But the NRC didn’t anticipate the type of attacks seen on September 11—large passenger airliners loaded with fuel slamming into targets. Both the NRC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have said that U.S. nuclear plants were not designed to withstand such an impact, and the NRC has ordered a study of plant designs to look at what would happen in such a scenario.

Apparently the information is inconclusive.

-A

[Rhea]

I wonder whether the nuclear plant was made aware of the fact that a hijacked plane was passing overhead? I hope this becomes part of the emergency plan in the future...

[ImGod]

Except it might not have even worked. The containment on a nuclear reactor is pretty strong, and is designed to withstand the impact of a 747. Now, two planes would likely do the job, and they had two planes...but wouldn't the time delay between the two be enough time for the emergency systems to shut down the reactor? And then what would they have to show for it: A destroyed power plant, and a small amount of paranoia in the area from people who think they must be getting hit by radiation because they're afraid of nuclear. Very soon, the experts declare no radiation, people are assured, the plan is a failure. So it's a risky target- might not even really be effective.

-B

After working in a Nuke plant, I would give 10 to 1 odds on a bet that the plane could get through the outerwall, 100 to 1 that it could get to the reactor area, and 1000 to 1 that it could get through the reactor containment vessel. Higher than that to actually breech the core.

The plant I worked at was designed to safely shut down after an earthquake of 8.8 and had the outerwall designed to withstand airborne debris from an F5 tornado (300 mph impacts). I'm sure the coastline plants have hurricane design criteria also. The inner containment vessel was a concrete container designed to hold the reactor core in the unlikely event of a meltdown. The reactor core is a thick steel vessel. This was all pre TMI design so the newer stuff is better. (Note: The big white hyperbolic things they usually show when describing a nuclear plant are not the reactor containment buildings. They are the cooling towers.)

Let's not forget the plane that hit the pentegon didn't even make it to the inner courtyard and those that hit the WTC didn't make it through to the other side in any noticable form. And those were mostly empty space office buildings. Maybe they get close to the core with a bunker buster, a 747 no.

[Shrubageddon]

After working in a Nuke plant, I would give 10 to 1 odds on a bet that the plane could get through the outerwall, 100 to 1 that it could get to the reactor area, and 1000 to 1 that it could get through the reactor containment vessel. Higher than that to actually breech the core.

The plant I worked at was designed to safely shut down after an earthquake of 8.8 and had the outerwall designed to withstand airborne debris from an F5 tornado (300 mph impacts). I'm sure the coastline plants have hurricane design criteria also. The inner containment vessel was a concrete container designed to hold the reactor core in the unlikely event of a meltdown. The reactor core is a thick steel vessel. This was all pre TMI design so the newer stuff is better. (Note: The big white hyperbolic things they usually show when describing a nuclear plant are not the reactor containment buildings. They are the cooling towers.)

Let's not forget the plane that hit the pentegon didn't even make it to the inner courtyard and those that hit the WTC didn't make it through to the other side in any noticable form. And those were mostly empty space office buildings. Maybe they get close to the core with a bunker buster, a 747 no.


I hear what you're saying, but would the alleged terrorist plotters have had all these details? Would they have conducted the rigorous research thoroughly enough to arrive at the same conclusions you have, considering Aaron has provided evidence that some experts have arrived at a conclusion contrary to your position in regard to your conclusion. Are Osama and his pals sophisticated enough to make this determination? It's a debatable question.

It seems that at times we're led to believe that the jihadists are supermen, and at other times they are a bunch of ass-backwards cave dwellers. Is it reasonable to assume that they can be both? I don't think so.

[JohNeo]

...I think the name "Freedom Tower" is horrible. I hope they don't use it as the final name. It's far too cheesy and arrogant (obviously only America supports freedom :rolleyes: ).

I agree with you. I still feel pain from 9/11 as much as most people, but to me the "Freedom Tower" is a little too reactionary, like Tim McGraw saying that a Boot Up Your Ass is the American Way or re-naming french fries "Freedom Fries." :rolleyes: I could see them naming it as such if it were still September 2001.

I love the United States and what it's supposed to stand for, but for cripe's sake NY already has the Statue of Liberty. Isn't that enough?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'd just like to point out the bleeding obvious for a second, if I may.

Only we call them terrorists; they call themselves "freedom fighters." Ironically what we called them, too, when we needed them.

If you ever call them terrorists again and claim that their mission is to inflict terror, then all you are doing is regurgitating our own propaganda and therefore offering absolutely nothing salient to the discussion. They aren't "insane" or "radical" or "crazed" or any of the other marginalization terms constantly being drilled into your naive, assumptive, cognitively dissonant minds. They are desperate.

They are David and we are f*cking Goliath. Get some f*cking perspective. We are the 800 pound gorilla in this world and they are the equivalent of gnats on our shit who occasionally bite us in the balls.

The only reason any of us are talking about them is because what they do is kept alive over and over and over again (deliberately and with transparent intent) by our press and Government. Three years ago, two buildings were hit and a couple thousand people were killed. Welcome to the f*cking world. The fact that it was "here" means absolutely nothing and the fact that it was "us" means absolutely nothing, except to anyone here so thoroughly brainwashed that they actually think our military posturing in the world is five rag-tag soldiers, lost in a strange land, just trying to find a kid whose four other brothers had been killed and everything's pretty good until "They killed Smitty! Those BASTARDS KILLED SMITTY!"

We are the iron boot that crushes everyone else's skull forever (just with a smiley face on it) and the sooner everyone here reallizes that and peeks out from our orgies and vomitoriums long enough to see what our Empire is doing in our f*cking name in every single country on this planet, the sooner these ridiculous "we don't do things like that" threads will end.

We do do things "like that" all the goddamned time; almost as a matter of foreign policy, one might say if one were high enough in the food chain to see above the clatter of the masses. We plan them. We fund them. We enact them and we have been doing all of that since the birth of our nation (just ask your friendly neighborhood native American Indian....assuming you can find one).

We are the terrorists. They are the ones fighting against that terrorism. Got that simple, incontrivertible fact? Or are you really so f*cking brainwashed as to think that the average human being out in the world wants to kill themselves and us because we have McDonalds and they don't? We are not a free society; we have never been a free society. We have comparatively more freedom, one could argue, than other societies, but that doesn't have anything to do with why a tiny handfull of freedom fighters from a primarily desert wasteland are trying to get the world to notice the decades of our attrocities repeatedly perpetrated against them.

This isn't rocket science, but the first thing one has to do is stop thinking that we're the hapless underdogs with hearts of gold. Average American citizens may very well think and feel and believe that way, but average American citizens don't make foreign policy and aren't controlling the world economies and geo-political balances as we have been doing and trying to do for the past century.

The difference is simple to illustrate for anyone who has ever been on a stage in their lives; either you're one of the faceless mass (and therefore are primarily irrelevant) or you are lead guitar in the Rolling Stones. One watches while the other creates; one consumes while the other produces; one pays while the other collects.

Just ask a any cop you know where the criminals are in your town. I goddamn guarantee you he'll not only tell you where they are, he'll explain why he doesn't really give a shit anymore and instead waits indifferently at the donut shop until his supperiors have a political reason/need to tell him where to make the next showing.

A friend of mine's a bartender in a cop bar up on the Upper West Side here in NYC. Last night he told me about a beat cop who came in depressed as hell and after a couple of drinks he told his tale. He and his partner had stopped a rented van with Ontario (Canada) plates because they were circling a certain block and just generally looking suspicious. Yes, the drivers and occupants (there were three total) were middle eastern. So, in keeping with what we've all been told about "terrorists" and what to look out for, they pulled them over and discovered that they had ten passports with them. Nothing too heinous. The passports hadn't been stamped yet, so, technically, not a crime.

They called in and were told to give the FBI a call. The FBI asked if the cops had anything they could arrest them for. Well, not really. So the FBI told them to call the terrorism task force for NYC (which at the time was busy protecting the Citicorp building and the like). They asked the same thing and when the cops told them, well, no, nothing we can hold them on, other than they were all Pakistani in a rented van from Canada with ten unstamped passports on them, who had been circling and circling one particular block for no particular purpose the cops could ascertain (i.e., they weren't trying to find a parking spot and they had observed this behavior for well over two hours as they covered their beat), no, there was nothing to actually arrest them on, the commander of the task force said, "Well, all of our agents are busy where they are, so let them go."

Granted, this is all anecdotal hearsay, but there was no reason for anyone involved to lie. Aggrandize, perhaps, but my friend was telling me it was more like the guy had just had his bubble burst for the first time; like he really was still a rookie thinking that this was the kind of thing everyone had been talking about and that he and his partner were "making a difference" and his supperiors were too busy guarding the money to even send out an agent.

And, granted, I'm against holding someone without sufficient cause, but his point was that all they were ultimately doing was temporarily inconveniencing these guys in order to clear them during a time of High alert, just as they were instructed to do and when they reported it up the chain of command, the higher ups couldn't give a shit about them because they had priorities elsewhere and those priorities didn't have anything to do with how actual "terrorists" would be caught (by the beat cops investigating suspicious activity where it is least expected) and everything to do with making a big show of protecting the money.

Think of the psychology of that and how it trickles down and how it illuminates the true state of affairs and you'll begin to see with eyes wide shut :D.

To everyone but Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public, "terrorists" are nothing more than annoying gnats on our shit; necessary gnats that justify outrageous military, paramilitary and police funding. You have more chance of being killed or hurt by your f*cking neighbor or own family member than by "terrorists."

Thus endeth (yet another) of my largely rhetorical rants. Sue me. I'm just so tired of this shit and the people who think we're the victims.

:rolleyes:

[Shrubageddon]

but to me the "Freedom Tower" is a little too reactionary,

Hey! I have a great idea! How about we name it Bush Gardens?

Oh, wait a minute............

[Jabu Khan]

I think the WTC was picked for the same reason the WTO doesn't seem to be able to meet anywhere without causing a ruckus. The multinational corporations are using there power to influence governments around the world. Buying and selling people like slaves from their leaders. They are also forcing cultures to assimilate towards their desired structure. Many view the US miltary as being sort of a global police force to institute the policies of these corporations.

[Aaron Thrash]

After working in a Nuke plant, I would give 10 to 1 odds on a bet that the plane could get through the outerwall, 100 to 1 that it could get to the reactor area, and 1000 to 1 that it could get through the reactor containment vessel. Higher than that to actually breech the core.

The plant I worked at was designed to safely shut down after an earthquake of 8.8 and had the outerwall designed to withstand airborne debris from an F5 tornado (300 mph impacts). I'm sure the coastline plants have hurricane design criteria also. The inner containment vessel was a concrete container designed to hold the reactor core in the unlikely event of a meltdown. The reactor core is a thick steel vessel. This was all pre TMI design so the newer stuff is better. (Note: The big white hyperbolic things they usually show when describing a nuclear plant are not the reactor containment buildings. They are the cooling towers.)

Let's not forget the plane that hit the pentegon didn't even make it to the inner courtyard and those that hit the WTC didn't make it through to the other side in any noticable form. And those were mostly empty space office buildings. Maybe they get close to the core with a bunker buster, a 747 no.

I would not like to argue with you at all, considering I have never worked at a Nuclear facility, nor have I lived near one. So, I decided that considering the Nuclear Plant in question is a specific one and not a "generic" Nuclear facility, I decided to look up the particular plants specs.

From:

http://www.closeindianpoint.org/history.htm

INDIAN POINT'S SAFETY RECORD

When Unit 1 was built, the Atomic Energy Commission had no siting criteria for atomic reactors, thus it was built on an active earthquake fault line 24 miles from New York City. The reactor had no emergency core cooling system and because of that was forced to close in 1974. The reactor had never received a full operating license; instead it had run 12 years on a "provisional" license. However, since the site already had been approved for the reactor, and even though the site failed 5 of 6 site criteria according to 1979 NRC rules, IP-2 and -3 were allowed to be built and operate.

Jan, 1976: Robert D. Pollard, NRC safety engineer and project manager for IP2 resigns, calling IP2 "an accident waiting to happen," and citing design deficiencies in both IP plants.

Sept 1979: UCS, NYPIRG, and WESPAC petition the NRC to decommission IP1 and suspend operations at IP2 &3, citing over 60 unresolved safety deficiencies, including problems in plant design.

May, 1994: After an NRC directive forces the utility to inspect its spent fuel pool at IP1, Con Ed admits that water has been leaking for four years, with estimates of up to 150 gallons of radioactive water leaking each day.

August 20,1998: NRC proposes $55,000 fine against Indian Point 3 plant operator for violation involving emergency system design change: NYPA modified two emergency diesel generators so that they "would have failed due to room overheating or loss of fuel unless operators recognized the loss of power to the auxiliaries and took appropriate action to manually restore power." The NRC also cited NYPA for a violation for failing to address a degraded valve that supplies cooling to reactor pump components.

Dec. 03, 2001 - A majority of Indian Point 2 control room operators were unable to properly solve simulated emergencies that, had they been real, would have resulted in damage to the nuclear reactor or the release of radiation into the atmosphere. (READ JOURNAL NEWS ARTICLE (http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_120301.htm))

"When you simulate something like this," said David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "if the operating crew is not able to do all the things that are required in a certain time frame, one consequence is people get an unnecessary dose of radiation."

Hell, Indian Point didn't need to fear a terrorist threat, the threat was in it's own flawed design and incompetent crew. Still think two well-aimed 757's or 767's would do no damage at all?

-A

[Aaron Thrash]

I think the WTC was picked for the same reason the WTO doesn't seem to be able to meet anywhere without causing a ruckus. The multinational corporations are using there power to influence governments around the world. Buying and selling people like slaves from their leaders. They are also forcing cultures to assimilate towards their desired structure. Many view the US miltary as being sort of a global police force to institute the policies of these corporations.

Ahh, The Hegelian Theory! It's precepts are far beyond our mindless comprehension.

-A

[ImGod]

...
Hell, Indian Point didn't need to fear a terrorist threat, the threat was in it's own flawed design and incompetent crew. Still think two well-aimed 757's or 767's would do no damage at all?

-A

I don't want to argue either, since I know little of the operation of the facility.
Here's some more information about the structural design of the plant; though the source may be biased, the design information seems reasonable.

Indian Point (http://www.safesecurevital.org/safety/index.html)

It could very well have other issuses that make the facility unsafe overall. It's usually not a good sign when they say NRC inspectors work full time at a facility. I just don't think a jet will get through, based on the multiple concrete and steel walls. From your previous information, I'm glad to see the goverment is considering further study.

[Jabu Khan]

I wasn't implying that it was a antithesis to some thesis. I just was implying that if you force people to work in slavish conditions manufacturing narcotics rather than a dependable food source in direct conflict with the decisions of their overthrown democratic government they might be a little resentful.

[JohNeo]

I'd just like to point out the bleeding obvious for a second, if I may.

Only we call them terrorists; they call themselves "freedom fighters." Ironically what we called them, too, when we needed them.

The only reason any of us are talking about them is because what they do is kept alive over and over and over again (deliberately and with transparent intent) by our press and Government. We are the iron boot that crushes everyone else's skull forever (just with a smiley face on it) and the sooner everyone here reallizes that and peeks out from our orgies and vomitoriums long enough to see what our Empire is doing in our f*cking name in every single country on this planet, the sooner these ridiculous "we don't do things like that" threads will end.

We do do things "like that" all the goddamned time; almost as a matter of foreign policy, one might say if one were high enough in the food chain to see above the clatter of the masses. We plan them. We fund them. We enact them and we have been doing all of that since the birth of our nation (just ask your friendly neighborhood native American Indian....assuming you can find one).

We are the terrorists. They are the ones fighting against that terrorism. Got that simple, incontrivertible fact? Or are you really so f*cking brainwashed as to think that the average human being out in the world wants to kill themselves and us because we have McDonalds and they don't? We are not a free society; we have never been a free society. We have comparatively more freedom, one could argue, than other societies, but that doesn't have anything to do with why a tiny handfull of freedom fighters from a primarily desert wasteland are trying to get the world to notice the decades of our attrocities repeatedly perpetrated against them.

This isn't rocket science, but the first thing one has to do is stop thinking that we're the hapless underdogs with hearts of gold. Average American citizens may very well think and feel and believe that way, but average American citizens don't make foreign policy and aren't controlling the world economies and geo-political balances as we have been doing and trying to do for the past century.


To everyone but Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public, "terrorists" are nothing more than annoying gnats on our shit; necessary gnats that justify outrageous military, paramilitary and police funding. You have more chance of being killed or hurt by your f*cking neighbor or own family member than by "terrorists."

Thus endeth (yet another) of my largely rhetorical rants. Sue me. I'm just so tired of this shit and the people who think we're the victims.

:rolleyes:

Okay, so we have the power and they don't. Big deal. Okay, maybe I'm brainwashed, maybe I am content having conveniences like McDonald's or affordable gas, and on and on. Sue me. I don't think we are victims; only those who actually died in the disasters deserve that title.

Maybe I should just step aside and let people both desperate AND insane enough to kamikaze airliners into towers run the show. I'm sure if they are willing to submit to a f*cking asshole god that will give them however many virgins in paradise--and then kill for this monster and expect the survivors to submit or die, they are more than qualified to determine the course of the world's future. What do you think they have planned if they could only gain power? If the United States and Western Civilization rules with an iron boot, what do you think they would rule with?

Okay, call me a nationalist imperialist American. But it beats the shit out of being whatever you call the death pilots. Maybe I'm just brainwashed. But I somehow don't think that these freedom fighters are trying to make sure that the world will live in peace and harmony, or that we can improve technology beyond our imagination, or be free to enlighten ourselves. I don't think that their manifesto includes exploring other worlds and helping to ensure the survival of our species.

I hope you will not write me off as naive or pseudo-patriotic. I see plenty of signs that Western Civilization is fucking up and not carrying the torch for the realization of full human potential, and things need to change. But don't try to tell me that these theocratically-bent "freedom fighters" are getting us any closer or are worthy of support. Sorry, but I don't think their form of freedom fighting should win a lot of sympathy among rational thinkers. It's nothing but wasted human potential.

JohNeo

[Amen-Moses]

But what do you think they have planned if they could only gain power?


Freedom? That's usually what freedom fighters fight for.

In the 1770's the likes of Ben Franklin and George Washington considered themselves as freedom fighters, the "power" of the day called them some other, much different, things.

Amen-Moses

[JohNeo]

Freedom? That's usually what freedom fighters fight for.

In the 1770's the likes of Ben Franklin and George Washington considered themselves as freedom fighters, the "power" of the day called them some other, much different, things.

Amen-Moses

Yes, I'm sure they want to be free of Western influence. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But what concerns me is the political vacuum that would inevitably be the result. If they repeat history, they become the next rulers of the planet or at least their corner of the world. Not so bad if they have good intentions, I suppose. I don't think they are just looking for freedom for their little enclave. Show me their Declaration of Independence. Will their Constitution limit the government from establishing a state religion? Freedom of speech? Granted the U.S. government infringes on our rights and doesn't provide such rights beyond the borders, but at least it still has a constitution.

I'll see you in Heaven before the freedom fighters would even make such promises for their own people, given the chance to rule.

JohNeo

[Yeshi]

ImGod, could you maybe comment on the issues of nuclear plant security, i.e.

i somehow feel that flying in kamikaze into the (tripple hidden) core is not efficient for the attackers. What if some 20 armed and well informed suicidal attackers tried to take over the nuclear plant and drive it into meltdown?

They would need turn off all the cooling systems and also disable the security shutdown mechanisms. Assuming they knew technically how to do that, what time do they need heat the core in order to effectuate a metdown? 2-3 hours or more/less?

A meltdown of a bigger plant could irradiate maybe a fifth of the USA...

[Jimmy Higgins]

i somehow feel that flying in kamikaze into the (tripple hidden) core is not efficient for the attackers. What if some 20 armed and well informed suicidal attackers tried to take over the nuclear plant and drive it into meltdown?Not effective? Last time I checked, the airline industries were finally just getting back to normal flight demand. Flights after 9/11 were empty because of the attack. Probably 1000 to 2000 people were killed in the initial impacts. Rather effective for 10 suicide attackers.

They would need turn off all the cooling systems and also disable the security shutdown mechanisms. Assuming they knew technically how to do that, what time do they need heat the core in order to effectuate a metdown? 2-3 hours or more/less?Assuming that the plant isn't just shutdown during the process. There are safeguards. Chernobyl happened because the engineers kept on turning off each safeguard. The plant's staff would have enough time to probably hit the few buttons that would shut the place down well before any attackers had a chance.

A meltdown of a bigger plant could irradiate maybe a fifth of the USA...1/5? Can you cite that?

[ImGod]

ImGod, could you maybe comment on the issues of nuclear plant security, i.e.

i somehow feel that flying in kamikaze into the (tripple hidden) core is not efficient for the attackers. What if some 20 armed and well informed suicidal attackers tried to take over the nuclear plant and drive it into meltdown?

They would need turn off all the cooling systems and also disable the security shutdown mechanisms. Assuming they knew technically how to do that, what time do they need heat the core in order to effectuate a metdown? 2-3 hours or more/less?

A meltdown of a bigger plant could irradiate maybe a fifth of the USA...

Even a meltdown may not do anything more than pool the core and reactor vessel into the bottom of the concrete shell. Chernobyl was an absolutely flawed design in regards to the reactor, safety systems, and containment, and it still took horrendous operator error to cause an explosion of the reactor. The meltdown of the remaining stuff inside was contained (some say poorly) and the rest of the reactors on site are still operating today. There are no US plants with anything close to the design flaws of Chernobyl.

I’m sure the security at the plants has increased considerably since I worked at one, and even then, they had double razor wire fences, truck barriers, bomb detectors, metal detectors, random searches, heavily armed separate security (i.e. not controlled by the plant manager), guard dogs, motion detectors, etc. Each entrance had a locked door you carded into, a small hallway, another locked door you carded into, and a security guard monitoring the process to insure only one person went through at a time. If two people were in the hallway or you were carrying anything undeclared, they locked you in between the doors and several heavily armed gentlemen came to speak to you personally about your violation of federal regulations. If that happened, your day was usually shot.

They also did the force protection exercises mentioned in the websites where US military Special Forces would test the security.

The older plants were more vulnerable to accidents because they were built with humans as the primary protection. Computers were not sophisticated enough to control the plant. New plants not only use better computer controls systems, they also use passive systems to cool and shutdown the plant so there is less equipment to control. Water is circulated naturally instead of by pumps and the core shuts down by gravity in the event of a complete loss of power. Most older plants have been updated in some form or another to take advantage of the improvements in physical or control system design.

I think you would need very detailed knowledge of the type of plant, operating scenarios, computer control systems, security, and a massive sabotage to be able to affect anything. All your efforts may still only result in turning the plant off passively. Even if you pick the right plant, the task of getting through the outer and multiple inner perimeters unnoticed or by brute force would be extremely difficult.

An inside job would also be difficult. I spent 2 days doing psychological evaluations and 7 days of training to get into the plant site. I never got access into the main operating areas of the plant other than an escorted tour. The FBI did a thorough background check on me before I could even begin training. They do this before employees or subcontractors get access to the site.

On top off all of that, it’s more than likely, that this post/thread is or will be evaluated by someone in the official government chatter division.

[Jimmy Higgins]

(snip)
On top off all of that, it’s more than likely, that this post/thread is or will be evaluated by someone in the official government chatter division.
Nice post.

In case someone actually is reading this as chatter, here's a link to the best thread ever at II. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=66561) :)

[Loren Pechtel]

ImGod, could you maybe comment on the issues of nuclear plant security, i.e.

i somehow feel that flying in kamikaze into the (tripple hidden) core is not efficient for the attackers. What if some 20 armed and well informed suicidal attackers tried to take over the nuclear plant and drive it into meltdown?

They would need turn off all the cooling systems and also disable the security shutdown mechanisms. Assuming they knew technically how to do that, what time do they need heat the core in order to effectuate a metdown? 2-3 hours or more/less?

A meltdown of a bigger plant could irradiate maybe a fifth of the USA...

I wouldn't think such an attack would stand a chance. It's not that easy to drive a US plant into a catastrophic meltdown. In TMI the NRC guys who stepped in basically tried to do this (not deliberately, they were just being asses assuming that their authority meant they knew how to handle the plant better than the operators) and achieved partial melting of the core. No harm done.

Second, suppose there was a practical method of doing so. Would they be permitted to carry it out? No way! The army would storm the place first.

Third, you way overestimate the size of the catastrophe. Chernobyl is about as bad as a reactor accident can get. Full core meltdown and a low grade atomic explosion, a total breach of the containment system. The exclusion zone around it isn't anything remotely resembling a fifth of the US in size.

US reactors are much harder to mess up like this because they use water as a moderator as well as coolant--anything that takes away the coolant inherently stops the reaction.

Besides, my understanding is that the are means of forcefully driving the control rods in in case of disaster. If the reactor is being taken over I would think the operators would activate such a system rendering the reactor temporarily useless.

[Amen-Moses]

If they repeat history, they become the next rulers of the planet or at least their corner of the world. Not so bad if they have good intentions, I suppose.

You assume that there is such a measure as "good intentions"?

The founders of the US only had "good intentions" with hindsight, at the time they were seen for what they were, treasonous scum who used terror to steal land from those it belonged to. (basically just how you seem to view Sadr et al)

The problem in Iraq is that the puppet government is made up mostly of ex-terrorists, criminals and ("converted") baathist extremists. The people of Iraq aren't stupid and can see that this has nothing to do with freedom and democracy and everything to do with controlling the oil markets.

Sadr is the one claiming to be fighting for democracy, he is the one calling for early democratic elections not Allawi!

Amen-Moses

[Jimmy Higgins]

You assume that there is such a measure as "good intentions"?

The founders of the US only had "good intentions" with hindsight, at the time they were seen for what they were, treasonous scum who used terror to steal land from those it belonged to. (basically just how you seem to view Sadr et al)You mean like how the British stole it from the Natives?

Sadr is the one claiming to be fighting for democracy, he is the one calling for early democratic elections not Allawi!

Amen-Moses
Please tell me you're playing devil's advocate!