"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not that I've got a terrorist mind or planning, but I would think at least the Statue of Liberty would be as "easy" to hit as the WTC. The difference is long-range visibility, since it's below the skyline. I doubt a pilot could get the angle on penn station--maybe from the west, but that would require talent these guys didn't have.

I would think the capitol would be easier to hit than the pentagon, since it sticks up a lot more.

But I'm not sure really what hte point of the debate is, since all the evidence suggests that to the terrorists who did this the WTC was a symbolic target, symbolizing american capitalism and world dominance (right or wrong, that's how they viewed it).

I think there are a number of things that have symbolism, and they would be inclined to pick and go with the targets that are also not as difficult to hit, and would leave out symbolic targets that are going to require a heightened level of skill to hit. I was responding to Slave because he didn't appear to take in the "reasonable chance of actually hitting the target" aspect of how targets might be picked. I know jack shit about where things are in NYC and what's near what, ditto for DC, thought I have a strong impression that there is not a whole hell of a lot of stuff (other than, like, trees and grass and flat highways and parking lots) around the pentagon for like a biiiiig long distance. I'm not sure why you feel the need to question what is really a pretty, to me, obvious thing. Yeah, maybe they could hit the statue of liberty, but I think it's a much much narrower target than the WTC. Maybe I am mistaken about that, and it's actually an incredibly gigantic thing sticking way way up and is obese.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Maybe I am mistaken about that, and it's actually an incredibly gigantic thing sticking way way up and is obese.

No, she's French. She eats well, but doesn't put on a pound. Damn her.

I think the reason the pentagon plane hit the ground first is because coming from the west the Pentagon is below a small hill. So you'd have to descend right after going over that hill, which probably isn't so easy at 500mph.

I think you're right, though--it's a constrained maximization problem. Of the potential symbolic targets the WTC was probably the easiest to hit because it is isolated (only really tall buildings until you hit midtown) and visually identifiable from miles away.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think there are a number of things that have symbolism, and they would be inclined to pick and go with the targets that are also not as difficult to hit, and would leave out symbolic targets that are going to require a heightened level of skill to hit. I was responding to Slave because he didn't appear to take in the "reasonable chance of actually hitting the target" aspect of how targets might be picked. I know jack shit about where things are in NYC and what's near what, ditto for DC, thought I have a strong impression that there is not a whole hell of a lot of stuff (other than, like, trees and grass and flat highways and parking lots) around the pentagon for like a biiiiig long distance. I'm not sure why you feel the need to question what is really a pretty, to me, obvious thing. Yeah, maybe they could hit the statue of liberty, but I think it's a much much narrower target than the WTC. Maybe I am mistaken about that, and it's actually an incredibly gigantic thing sticking way way up and is obese.

the surprising thing about the Pentagon isn't that they hit it. The surprising thing is we didn't have anything to shoot them down there. DC airspace is restricted, which means something should be there when a planes moves off path.

As to "difficult to hit," WTC I was the answer to that. I won already. Unless the Empire State Building has too many 1- Ways to get to it, there was a reason they drove to WTC instead.

[SlaveNoMore]

Diane_Keaton
I haven't placed my bet yet. I'm waiting for input from Grandma Obama

Apparently, she hedges:

From USA Today:

"Bringing such pictures that are trying to imply that not only is he a foreigner, he is a Muslim is wrong, because that is not what he is," scolded Sarah Obama.... "In the world of today, children have different religions from their parents," she said. She, too, is a Christian.

From the NYT

Sarah Hussein Obama, who is his stepgrandmother but whom Mr. Obama calls his grandmother, still rises at 5 a.m. to pray before tending to her crops and the three orphans she has taken in. "I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” Ms. Obama, 85, said in a recent interview in Kenya.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently, she hedges:

From USA Today:



From the NYT

That's because she cannot admit the truth, which is probably that she is fundamentally an animist.

LessinHoiAn, Vietnam

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not that I've got a terrorist mind or planning, but I would think at least the Statue of Liberty would be as "easy" to hit as the WTC. The difference is long-range visibility, since it's below the skyline. I doubt a pilot could get the angle on penn station--maybe from the west, but that would require talent these guys didn't have.

I would think the capitol would be easier to hit than the pentagon, since it sticks up a lot more.

But I'm not sure really what hte point of the debate is, since all the evidence suggests that to the terrorists who did this the WTC was a symbolic target, symbolizing american capitalism and world dominance (right or wrong, that's how they viewed it).

I would think that the WTC was seen as a symbol of power, and was therefore a better target than the Statue of Liberty, which is feminine, welcoming, and French.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dissent

1) They were ugly and everyone hated them

2) They cut off the entire West side and made Battery Park City as about as accessible as Roosevelt Island.

IMHO, they should re-impose the normal street grid and then build multiple mixed-use class A not-as-tall towers surrounding a one square block austere, simple monument to those lost in the attacks (and no one else).

But what the hell do I know, I'm only a New Yorker with a passing interest in commercial real estate - not a sleazy politician engaging in some politically correct version of real politik.

I used to run around those buildings as a summer job. The only thing uglier than their exterior was their cheap, shitty interior. Hellholes, in every regard.

But nothing would send a message to Radical islam like putting the fuckers right back up, with every detail replicated.

I'm petty like that. And watching the sunrise over clouds from the tops of those Towers was a cool thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would think that the WTC was seen as a symbol of power, and was therefore a better target than the Statue of Liberty, which is feminine, welcoming, and French.

It is a monument to the Infidels' double penii. It shall be struck down!

God is Great!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
the Statue of Liberty, which is feminine, welcoming, and French.

Sure, but you know what they think of women. Added bonus, the french don't fight back.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would think that the WTC was seen as a symbol of power, and was therefore a better target than the Statue of Liberty, which is feminine, welcoming, and French.

they blew up those big Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, and were feminine, welcoming and, well, Afghani.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they blew up those big Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, and were feminine, welcoming and, well, Afghani.

I don't think the people who blew up those Buddhas were feminine, welcoming or even Afghani. Most were transplant Arabs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my exchange student tells me that in Europe the idea that the CIA was behind 9/11 is not just for lunatics- it is semi-popular. he asked me what i thought. i thought about it, and said "no one here looked at the WTC as any symbol of American power. obviously people in other countries did, but if we were planning something to shock Americans I think we'd take out something else." of course the Pentagon was really good symbolism.

I think you're right that the Towers weren't regarded as a potent national symbol or icon.

Proved to be a very effective target, though.

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would think that the WTC was seen as a symbol of power, and was therefore a better target than the Statue of Liberty, which is feminine, welcoming, and French.

This is the problem with symbols -- you can't control what they mean. We want them to have tried to hit the Statue of Liberty (or, less ideally, the ESB) because that would better fit our national narrative of why they hate us. The WTC was a potent symbol for them and not us because it was the representation of an unQur'anic financial world. It was the financial equivalent of flying two planes into the Castro because you hate the gays.

They don't hate us because we're successful. They hate us because we don't follow the Qur'an. The WTC was a symbol of that, and destroying it wasn't designed to impress Americans. The symbolism wasn't for us.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is the problem with symbols -- you can't control what they mean. We want them to have tried to hit the Statue of Liberty (or, less ideally, the ESB) because that would better fit our national narrative of why they hate us. The WTC was a potent symbol for them and not us because it was the representation of an unQur'anic financial world.

By this logic, wouldn't the World Financial Center have been a better target than the WTC? Or the NYSE?

The WTC was a symbol of that, and destroying it wasn't designed to impress Americans.

Hey - it seemed to impress Hillary and Obama - given their current anti-Trade stances ;-)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is the problem with symbols -- you can't control what they mean. We want them to have tried to hit the Statue of Liberty (or, less ideally, the ESB) because that would better fit our national narrative of why they hate us. The WTC was a potent symbol for them and not us because it was the representation of an unQur'anic financial world. It was the financial equivalent of flying two planes into the Castro because you hate the gays.

They don't hate us because we're successful. They hate us because we don't follow the Qur'an. The WTC was a symbol of that, and destroying it wasn't designed to impress Americans. The symbolism wasn't for us.

Am I on ignore?