Further thoughts..

Further to my post in another thread -

I believe that if I were a terrorist with the resources to do something like this, that I'd choose better targets than the WTC early in the day and the Pentagon.

If I were aiming for maximum shock, terror (and being a terrorist, terror is what I'm supposed to cause, right?) and human injury, then a target such as a large sporting event like the superbowl would make more sense. The superbowl in 2001 and 2002 both had around seventy thousand attendees. A stadium large enough to hold that many people, even when hit with a plane say only on one side, would cause large numbers of casualties, and injuries, partly due simply to panic. If you wish to terrorize an entire country, an event which is watched by a large portion of that country on television would definitely cause mass terror.

Why would you choose to hit towers which, if you look at historical precedent, would in all likelyhood *not* collapse?. A few hundred deaths, while incredibly tragic, seems like a low terror payout for the amount of risk involved in hijacking four planes.

And the pentagon? Why attack one of the supposed best defended buildings in the world? Given the size and structure of the building, it would be unlikely, imo, that attacking a building like that would incapacitate retaliation or defense capabilities significantly, so other than a sort of childish "haha we got you where you live" concept, that too, to me, makes no sense. I would think that a higher psychological damage would come from attacking buildings that have a greater historical or patriotic significance, eg, the statue of liberty.

So yes, if I am a terrorist and my motive is to cause terror and injury in a large degree, and I have the resources to make what happened on 9/11 a reality, even if I risk an only 25% success rate, rather than a 75% success rate as happened, why am I so bad at picking targets, or why did I choose the ones that I did?.. I am not saying though, that I in any way consider what those people who have loss family and friends and dear ones went through as easy, it obviously was not.

But that's what, regardless of the varied theories about who did it, who covered up what, who knew what, which UFO hit which tower etc etc, that's what confuses me. Anyone spending a significant period of time watching the US's primary export of media, could not fail to realize that buildings which spent a relatively small amount of air time, would not achieve the maximum impact possible. So, why those targets?

I have a question. If you were a terrorist, with the resources to hijack four planes, and you hope that you have a minimum of 25% success rate, which targets would you choose, and why?

What I dont understand is, why did terrorists choose the targets they chose on 9/11.

Wouldnt it make more sense for a terrorist to attack the whitehouse, the symbol of power in the usa, that would sure bring terror.

Why not spend time to assasinate the president instead of killing many innocent people, it all dont make sense to me.

It was the World TRADE center. I guess it had something to w/ the fact that alot of important things financially occurred in thoses buildings on a daily basis so bringing them down would cripple the us. The pentagon was obvious because of its role in defense. BTW the white house was a target but was allegedlly shot down in a field in PA.

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
It was the World TRADE center. I guess it had something to w/ the fact that alot of important things financially occurred in thoses buildings on a daily basis so bringing them down would cripple the us. The pentagon was obvious because of its role in defense. BTW the white house was a target but was allegedlly shot down in a field in PA.

Yes now I seem to recall something about the White house.

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
It was the World TRADE center. I guess it had something to w/ the fact that alot of important things financially occurred in thoses buildings on a daily basis so bringing them down would cripple the us. The pentagon was obvious because of its role in defense. BTW the white house was a target but was allegedlly shot down in a field in PA.

If no building prior to 9/11 had collapsed due to fire, and the towers were designed to withstand significant shear forces, why would you, as the terrorist picking these targets assume total destruction?

If your objection to the US is based on capitalism, yes, trade is a reasonable target.

Did the attacks destroy or cripple US trade significantly?. Would you, as the terrorist planning the attacks assume that the world financial institutions etc housed within had zero data redundancy? Bearing in mind that banking as an industry is at the forefront of data storage and protection, because if you lose your data on even one customer, that has a cascading negative effect for your company.

Eg, those websites that have had customer databases cracked, including credit card details, where the perpetrators have posted 25 or so credit card details cannot assume that those are the ONLY numbers taken, and must therefore contact all customers to inform them of the necessity of cancelling all those accounts in order to prevent fraud.

The real damage to financial institutions would be the people lost, rather than data, in which case the choice for an early morning attack is the flaw in the design of that particular plan. More deaths = higher probability of key players being incapacitated = greater economic chaos.


Also, remember you can at best assume a 25% success rate in planning a venture as complicated as this, so if only one plane hit one of the WTC buildings, and the other was unaffected, how would this impact the success of your plan?

I'm not asking you to justify the choices of those targets, and yes, I'm aware of the fact that the 'failed' attempt that landed in PA was intended to hit the white house, I'm simply asking you to pretend you are a terrorist, come up with your (a) motivation for action and (b) choose hypothetical targets based on that motivation, with the understanding that you cannot choose four *associated* targets to achieve your goal, since you must assume that there is a possibility that one or zero of your four planes hits it's target - the odds of that happening is far greater than that of all four attacks being successful.

(if anyone disagrees I'd be happy to work through some hypothetical probability math to illustrate this).

I'm not trying to espouse any particular viewpoint, I am, instead, simply asking for critical thought and your justifications, based on what you know of the US and what you assume the goals of the the terrorist is.



[edit on 28-3-2007 by Inannamute]

@Inannamute
hey i agree with you but thats just the reasoning I've always heard from 'officials' on t.v and such. I personally dont buy it but thats just whats been said

I know. As I said, I have some views, but I'm trying to approach the idea from a hypothetical standpoint.

Another issue I have is with the idea that one would be smart enough to plan an attack of this scale, but not smart enough to (a) recognize the consequences of your actions, given the military might of the US, and your understanding of the sort of reaction something like this would result in or (b) pick targets that make more sense.

Whenever you plan something, you go through the following questions.

1-What do I want to achieve?

2-How do I achieve that?

3-Which choices do I need to make to achieve that?

4-What are possible outcomes? Are there negative outcomes I need to guard against in order to minimize the risk?

We know the outcome, obviously. We know what happened, which targets they chose, what I would like is simply to figure out, if we were in their position, what answers we would give for especially points 1 and 3, assuming enough intelligence that our ability to successfully answer 2 in order to lead to the outcome of 4, which we know.

Well from a hypothetical stand point for #1 they wanted to achieve a myriad of things; they wanted the us to pay for killing there families in the middle east. An i guess another argument could be made that they felt we were forcing our christian/western ways onto the world. Also Jihad had started or they were trying to start it so the actual hijackers figured it was a win/win. Get ur point across and go to heaven. The others who planned and did not hijack just wanted to show us that we were vulnerable just like them. Moving on to #3 The choices that you would need to make is to do what they did, plan something that would kill alot of people at one time. Then you wanna attack things most people have seen before ie the capital in montana wont do the trick. But another point is the city of choice would have to be NYC b/c thats what most foriegnors associate w/ america. (That and hollywood) So after decideing on NYC you look at the skyline and what sticks out to you? those huge towers

---I'm not really sure I explained myself well, but those are my answers for #1 and #3 from a terrorists viewpoint

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
BTW the white house was ALLEGEDLY a target but was allegedlly shot down in a field in PA.

fixed that for you ... I hope you don't mind.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
BTW the white house was ALLEGEDLY a target but was allegedlly shot down in a field in PA.

fixed that for you ... I hope you don't mind.

Im surprised i didnt put that myself....Thats what i meant thanx

They tried the WTC before so what makes you think they wouldn't try to go after them again and redeem themselves for their first failed attempt? There was a reason they tried in the first place, so they had some reason why they picked WTC's. And sure, with planes as their weapons, it would've been alot easier to execute that attack on WTC rather than the supposed flying required to hit the pentagon and white house.....

Let me ask you a question....why attack 2 embassies in Africa. Why not the Middle East? Why attack a state of the art, heavily defended destroyer? So it would seem to be a mistake to assume that the Pentagon is supposedly too big and too heavily defended to deter anyone from targeting it. WTC-Economic power of the U.S, Pentagon-military power of the U.S., and finally White House-the leadership and political power of the U.S. In the minds of Jihadists, a strike against the heart of the infidels who considered themselves as untouchables.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by deltaboy]

you would think that instead of hitting the WTC they would have gone for wall street, seems that would have cause ALL the stocks to take a huge and hard dive, IMHO

It makes a lot more sense, but then I dunno how sprawled out it all is but it seems this would have more of a financial blow to western countries (unless you, the terrorist, owned stocks)

I would hit anything that would cause maximum damage for minimal effort
transportation hubs, food distribution centers, energy hubs, communication centers, be as disruptive to as many as possible.

I'm not sure anyone here is really answering the question I asked. I'm not asking you to explain the terrorists, I'm asking you to pretend you are one, and plan an attack, with the justifications for choice of target. Envision the *best* target you can to achieve your aim - in terms of financial impact, emotional impact, chance for casualties, ease of destruction.

Yes, the pentagon is a reasonable defense choice, but in terms of reducing the military capabilities of the US, OR in terms of casualties, a battle cruiser would be a better choice. An air force base, too, might be a better choice.

The funny thing about the WTC.. as a non-american, before they were destroyed, I'd never heard of them. I'd been living in the US for three years prior, and I'd never heard of them, never seen a picture.

well i would hit the white house, disney world (fl), disney land (ca), and some randon spot in the middle of the county. to prove the point that noone is safe. Im not sure how it would be done. (its not like ive spent alot of time thinking about it) Plus disney world/land is always busy and that would be 10 times more tragic than the WTC with the kids and all so that would effect us emotionally. If those places are hit no one would want to go any where so there goes your financial impact. So if I were out of my mind that would be my plan

if i was using a plane as a weapon i would stick with something easy to hit, like the WTC, in the heart of a big city where it would get the most attention, all you have to do is fly at them. So i guess i would go for a big skyscraper. Maybe the hoover dam would be a decent target too.

Originally posted by Cosmocow
if i was using a plane as a weapon i would stick with something easy to hit, like the WTC, in the heart of a big city where it would get the most attention, all you have to do is fly at them. So i guess i would go for a big skyscraper. Maybe the hoover dam would be a decent target too.

So your only goal is the choice of target as something you can find with both hands tied behind your back?

1-What do I want to achieve?

I want to show the U.S. mainland that it is not safe from me.
I want to show the U.S. military that it does not scare me.
I want to disrespect U.S. leadership.
I want ATTENTION.

Above all, I want to achieve SPECTACLE.

2-How do I achieve that?

Attack the largest buildings in the largest city.
Attack the hub of the military.
Attack the White House.

Do it in a SPECTACULAR fashion.


3-Which choices do I need to make to achieve that?

I need financing.
I need training.
I need to be prepared to die.

You want to show the US that it is not safe from you..

Surely you'd want to kill as many people as possible to achieve that end? As a terrorist, you cannot assume that plane + WTC = many deaths..

Remember, too, you're assuming only one plane can hit it's target, as the most likely success rate of your mission.

Your pentagon reasoning is the best I've seen so far though, thanks Essedarius.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Surely you'd want to kill as many people as possible to achieve that end? As a terrorist, you cannot assume that plane + WTC = many deaths...

Agreed...but I think that creating a spectacle of destruction was higher on the priority list than a body count. Part of that spectacle is that the WTC was a symbol of our economy...what many consider to be the pumping heart of the American way of life.

Another explanation could be that the terrorists truly wanted to attack the WTC when it was full, but felt that their greatest statistical chance for success in boarding an aircraft in the first place would be during the morning commuter rush.

Just speculations, of course...