Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

The other 911 question


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The other 911 question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 9:28:55 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Why the world trade center?

There is much talk about how, there is much talk about why the attack anyway, but why was that chosen as a target ? Think about it, the UN building was right there, the Empire State building was right there.

And why didn't they just fly all the planes into the pentagon ?

There has to be a reason. I have found that sometimes actions reveal their motives. This one has been perplexing me for a while now. Why the WTC ? There are taller buildings in this country, would it not be more symbolic to take out our tallest building ? Or is what they have to say more subtle ?

I am not talking about why NORAD and the scramblers failed. I am not talking about how they planned and executed the job, I mean why did they pick the WTC ?

Decades after the fact we know why JFK had to go, I can tell you about why Nixon had to go if you want, we know alot well after the fact. But this one eludes me even in supposition. That choice of a target means something.

You could demagogue or republicogue all you want that they hate our democracy and freedom all you want, but that is pure bullshit. Them people never even built a bomb until we came along. (well not quite, but)

They are not really evangelical and did not have the type of holy wars the Christians did. They fought, but it was more over territory and things like that. Whatever the squabbles were, they did not have wars for the express purpose of commiting more people to their religion. And they did not attack the WTC to convert us all to Islam. That is a totally ridiculous assumption.

Simple hatred, blind faith, even if true none of it explains why they picked the WTC as their target.

They could have destroyed national landmarks. Why didn't they hit the Liberty Bell over in PA ? That would be my choice, because if this is the lind of freedom for which it rang, it might as well be gone. But you see that would send that message.

Those planes could have destroyed the Whitehouse rather than going to NYC, why didn't they. If they percieve our country as the threat, would this not be the way ?

If they wanted to make a point about our morality and how wrong we are as a people, why not Los Vegas ? If they wanted to take the wind from our sails as a people, why not our tallest building ? If they wanted to hurt us financially why not Silicon Valley ?

No, I think they were out to make a point, and we still don't get the point. If a simple simple act of war, for example, why not a nuclear power plant ?

The fact of the matter is that they could've killed millions but only wound up killing thousands. Why ?

This is not stupidity, to carry out such an operation oneneeds a brain. It could bepolluted with religious ideas, but that is one thing. Yes it is a consideration.

Before 911 the WTC was not really considered any kind of a landmark, of course now it was our most prized possesion, but that is normal human nature. If I am delivering something into your house and scratch something you were going to throw out it becomes valuable all the sudden AND YOU KNOW IT. Don't try to jive me.

What I am saying is that if the PTB are right, and it was just religious zealots, they would not have picked those targets.

There is a reason for this, and my thought process in not proving helpful. I know this thread is going to be repleat with supposition and opposition (sorry Mod 11) but if everbody tries to be nice it will be fine.

Reverse logic is welcome as well. Just exactly what and who was supposed to be there at the time of the attack could be useful info. I'm pretty sure they weren't after Merc :-)

So whaddya think ?

T
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 10:22:26 AM   
DesertRat


Posts: 2774
Joined: 11/29/2004
From: NM/USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
They are not really evangelical and did not have the type of holy wars the Christians did. They fought, but it was more over territory and things like that. Whatever the squabbles were, they did not have wars for the express purpose of commiting more people to their religion. And they did not attack the WTC to convert us all to Islam. That is a totally ridiculous assumption.
T


Edited to correct some (but probably not all) inaccuracies.

Whoa T! You do know that the Moors conquered most of the Iberian peninsula (now Spain and Portugal) and subsequently ruled and otherwise dominated socially and culturally for a couple centuries, don't you? And that this was accomplished in the course of a campaign to take control of all of Europe, which was ruled by various "infidels". It was for territory, and it was a step in the process of establishing a worldwide caliphate. This, of course, has nothing to do with the attack on the WTC. Everyone knows that Saddam was behind that; he wanted to distract us while he hid all his WMDs.

Bob

< Message edited by DesertRat -- 4/18/2008 10:38:57 AM >

_____________________________

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro--Hunter S. Thompson
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide!--Chief Dead St. Knockout, 1933, Liverpool
Damn the crops. I'll only find peace at the end of a rope.--Winston Van Loo, 1911

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 10:36:43 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		I read somewhere years ago that BinLaden "hated" the WTC as a symbol of America.
It must have been like we were giving him the finger on both hands!
If that's the case he's going to *love* the new Freedom Tower if that cunt is still alive when it's finished.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DesertRat)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 11:01:28 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

What I am saying is that if the PTB are right, and it was just religious zealots, they would not have picked those targets.


I disagree. If the perpetuators are indeed who the PTB claims them to be, those targets make perfect sense. The towers represented the financial and monetary systems, the primary source and symbol of the PTB's power. Though I suppose that the Federal Reserve could have been included as well.

The Pentagon is the primary muscle of the PTB, and symbol of the MIC (military-industrial complex).

What doesn't make sense here?

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 11:13:56 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		 Why was the building attacked the 1st time?Answer that question, 1st.

BTW,I never hear "9/11 trutheres" explain away the 1st attack on the WTC by al-queda.Or how it doesn`t relate to the 2nd attack,by al-queda.

To answer the OP:

Because it was the tallest building(s) in the states,it was the World Trade Center and it was a huge symbol of American know-how and success.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

This Frontline report about the events leading up to 9/11,sheds a lot of light and clears a lot of smoke.

In one segment,a drinking buddy of O'Neil recalls a conversation with him about the WTC.

By this time,O'Neil had been fired by Bush/Rice from his anti-terrorist post in the FBI.He was recovering from the loss of his FBI job, when he took the job of head of security at the WTC.

O'Neil was absolutely obsessed with al-queda and bin-laden.He was absolutely convinced that they were preparing some sort of attack on us.He also wouldn`t let it rest, when it came to informing the new Bush administration about al-queda and bin-laden.He was also one of the guys in the FBI,who caught the 1st WTC bomber.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to the drink`n buddy.A shortly before the 9/11 attacks,O'Neil`s buddy(interviewed in the Frontline piece)said about O'Neil`s problems(pare-phrasing),

"well, at least you don`t have to worry that "they`ll" attack the WTC,again".

To which O'Neil replied,"oh no,.....they`re going to definitely try again".

On the day of the attack,O'Neil entered the building with the other firemen and police and died with them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IMO,had O`Neil not been fired by Bush,(as well as the demotion of "Terrorism Czar" Richard A. Clarke )9/11 would have been prevented.



At the very least,the 2nd tower and the Pentagon would have been saved.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 4/18/2008 11:21:43 AM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 11:24:49 AM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline 		I haven't got that far in my thinking. I'm still stuck on the earlier mystery.

You see, back in 1988 there was that Pan Am Flight 103 which blew up over Lockerbie in South West Scotland. The plane was heading out into New York on a flight path which would take it out into the Atlantic and on which - we are led to believe - there were terrorists and a bomb which caused the explosion.

Well then, how come those two planes managed to get through so much airspace INSIDE the United States before getting the the WTC? How come the planes weren't intercepted? How come tall buildings like WTC weren't evacuated?

Just wondering here..

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 11:30:59 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

Well then, how come those two planes managed to get through so much airspace INSIDE the United States before getting the the WTC? How come the planes weren't intercepted?

Because nobody had any idea what the hijackers had planned!! Up until 9/11 hijackers always demanded money or the end of Israel or the release of prisoners, or safe passage to Libya...certainly no reason to intercept and shoot down an airliner full of innocent people.
quote:

How come tall buildings like WTC weren't evacuated?

Are you kidding? Evacuate every building that might be a target? Get real!! As well, see the answer above.

< Message edited by Arpig -- 4/18/2008 11:31:30 AM >

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to stella41b)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 11:52:20 AM   
hisannabelle


Posts: 1992
Joined: 12/3/2006
From: Tallahassee, FL, USA
Status: offline 		i have to agree with termyn8or on the issue of conversion; historically where islam has taken over, generally it hasn't screwed too much with the locals. it wasn't until the catholics retook spain that the jews reallllly started having problems there (and then many went to morocco and lived side by side with muslims to escape being massacred), and hindus were still hindus during muslim rule in india (although since the partition it is a different story). not saying that minorities haven't suffered under islamic rule, because minorities suffer under all kinds of rule, but historically islamic rule isn't comparable to, say, the inquisition, or anything similar, in terms of wiping out other faiths or converting people.

i think the issue lies with the fact that the world trade center was an economic stronghold. it's symbolic, but not symbolic in the way that crashing the planes into las vegas would have been. las vegas is an example of the moral decline and ridiculous waste of money in america, but the wtc is something subtler and different. it's a symbol of the governmental and corporate monetary power, the "decadence" and "moral decline" in the way the real financial strongholds of this country work, if that makes any sense. blah, i don't think it does. but i see it as something akin to blowing up las vegas as you mentioned, maybe, but with a different idea as to what constitutes moral decline, and how money is a symbol of that.


_____________________________

a'ishah (the artist formerly known as annabelle)
i have the kind of beauty that moves...

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 12:00:50 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		And the Empire state Building is made from steel and concrete.
A jet hitting it probably wouldn't even make it sway.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to hisannabelle)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 12:43:06 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline 		They were far too slender, an obvious target. Added to that the fact they were the tallest buildings in the area; therefore the hijackers could easily aim for a clear direct hit rather than negotiating a forest of buildings and spreading the impact over a less focussed area. I'm not clear on at what stage they took control of the planes in terms of disposing of the pilots but I expect the limited training they had undertaken wouldn't have made them good enough at navigation to get near the buildings unaided. I suspect it was a case of 'now we see a thing to hit our turn to drive.' Who knows for sure?

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 1:03:28 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		a nuclear plant. now THAT is chilling.

the WTC was a high profile known place.

it apparatnly was more convenient to hit that- then other targets.

funny thing- isnt that Wall Street  area?  

maybe it was a "commentary"  on world trade- as in WTO- and the elites "plans" for the peons.

I note- that the WTC had taken an insurance policy out 1 month prior to the attacks.

lets examine WHOM made money off of it?

whom?   big oil per haps?

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 1:24:54 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline 		A nuclear plant is designed for worse case scenarios such as plane crashes. They don't take any chances with the design of such a structure. The problem is that people don't understand the process of risk assessments. i.e. the design is based upon not only the risk of occurrence but the severity of such an occurrence being realised. You don't have to worry about your nuclear plants when they can poison your water supply or detonate a petrol tanker in the middle of a city.

One of the most inherently strong shapes is the sphere; it's no coincidence the reactor core is surrounded by one in a lot of nuclear plants. That sphere is there for no other reason than the fact someone has considered the risk of planes falling from the sky long ago.

< Message edited by FullCircle -- 4/18/2008 1:26:53 PM >

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 1:40:05 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

i have to agree with termyn8or on the issue of conversion; historically where islam has taken over, generally it hasn't screwed too much with the locals. it wasn't until the catholics retook spain that the jews reallllly started having problems there (and then many went to morocco and lived side by side with muslims to escape being massacred), and hindus were still hindus during muslim rule in india (although since the partition it is a different story). not saying that minorities haven't suffered under islamic rule, because minorities suffer under all kinds of rule, but historically islamic rule isn't comparable to, say, the inquisition, or anything similar, in terms of wiping out other faiths or converting people.



I believe the problem is no religion can be trusted to govern. I do believe the US has the right idea…at least in theory… to separate church and state.

Many religions flourish in America and other countries that have followed their lead. Not to say it is not a constant battle to keep religious fanaticism and prejudices in check.

It seems to me that at anytime in history when a religion…and I mean any religion… attempts to govern it ends in human suffering.

Butch

(in reply to hisannabelle)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 1:46:05 PM   
hisannabelle


Posts: 1992
Joined: 12/3/2006
From: Tallahassee, FL, USA
Status: offline 		i have to agree with you there kdsub (although i'm still sorting through some of my personal beliefs on this, i do know that no religion has ever been capable of governing, and i love and cherish my separation of church and state, however imperfect).

i was just making the distinction between allowing minority religions to at least be present (islam in spain) and killing off anyone who doesn't agree with the majority religion (catholicism in spain). neither is justifiable and both have caused human suffering, but they are not the same thing.


_____________________________

a'ishah (the artist formerly known as annabelle)
i have the kind of beauty that moves...

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 2:32:03 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

i was just making the distinction between allowing minority religions to at least be present (islam in spain) and killing off anyone who doesn't agree with the majority religion (catholicism in spain). neither is justifiable and both have caused human suffering, but they are not the same thing.



I think Islam did the same to Christains in Spain.

There is a very good PBS documentary of the Moors. I am trying to remember so please if I get it wrong tell me…But I believe the ruler of the Moors decided he wanted to be the Caliph and declared himself so. Under his rule Muslims, Christians and Jews flourished together.

When he died and his son took over a more radical faction of Islam swept in from N. Africa and displaced his rule. They also slaughtered Christians in the streets.

This was the beginning of the end for Islam in Spain. But as you say it was also the beginning of the persecution of Jews.

(in reply to hisannabelle)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 3:16:54 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline 		It's as simple as the fact that the two tallest buildings in the largest city in the United States with upwards of 100,000 people in it them at any given time.  Most cities don't have 100,000 people in them.  They wanted to kill a lot of people, cause a lot of damage, and get attention.  They succeeded.  They did hit the Pentagon, and they were planning on flying that other plane into the White House if memory serves.  But how much coverage would there have been if all of the planes hit the Pentagon?  We only got to see security camera footage of it.  There are cameras everywhere in New York City, and every major news network broadcasts from there.  I think you're trying to read too much into it. 

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 6:05:18 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline 		One has to keep in mind that the goals of the attacker dictate target selection, not those of the defender.

The World Trade Center was chosen for several reasons:
  • They were the tallest buildings in New York City, giving them significant visual and name value.
  • The highly commercial nature of the target made it very appealing to Bin Laden in particular, who believes that America's monetary interests drive American policy in the Middle East.
  • Previously there had been an attack against the World Trade Center, and having failed to destroy it was a burden of shame to Al Qaeda.
  • The "name value" of the target was high.  Those outside of America would know when it was destroyed; eliminating a commercial symbol in the heart of the American homeland was considered to have high recruiting and visibility value.
Keep in mind there were also attacks on the Pentagon and potentially the White House / Capitol Hill for the same reasons.  These are global symbols of America; a double strike at the government and the commercial sector was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted.

I am not at all surprised by their choice of targets.


_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 6:27:59 PM   
windchymes


Posts: 9410
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline 		I read somewhere that there were originally 10 cities on the agenda for attack that day, including Chicago and Los Angeles, but only 4 planes were successfully taken over as they were.  Somehow, the remaining 6 were thwarted.  I don't think the WTC was singled out, I think it was just one of many Bin Laden had planned for a big dramatic day

_____________________________

You know it's going to be a GOOD blow job when she puts a Breathe Right strip on first.

Pick-up artists and garbage men should trade names.

(in reply to Real_Trouble)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 6:59:11 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes
I read somewhere that there were originally 10 cities on the agenda for attack that day, including Chicago and Los Angeles, but only 4 planes were successfully taken over as they were.  Somehow, the remaining 6 were thwarted.  I don't think the WTC was singled out, I think it was just one of many Bin Laden had planned for a big dramatic day


The others were abandoned as tactical objectives before the terrorists moved to the execution stage of their scheme.

In short, there is a degree of operational complexity that, once exceeded, makes detection far easier.  If you have too many people involved with a plot, too many targets, or too many moving parts, the chance that there is a screw up somewhere along the line increases exponentially.  Historically, the most successful plots are small, precisely targetted, and executed by individuals with significant training and a strong bond with each other.

A 10 plane plot likely would have been interdicted; notice that the whole liquid bomb plot was stopped for just that kind of reason a few years back.


_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to windchymes)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: The other 911 question - 4/18/2008 9:17:41 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		 I think he just wanted to poke the US in the butt with a sharp stick... just so we would do exactly what we did...lash out without thinking.

His plan all along was to unite a weak fragmented Islam and direct their anger against the West.

His plan is succeeding.

Butch


(in reply to Real_Trouble)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The other 911 question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094