It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why The WTC Buildings When A Meltdown Would Be Better

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:59 AM
Why The WTC Buildings When A Meltdown Would Be Better
I just want to pose a question from the alledged terrorists point of view.

Say you were a terrorist with nothing but hate for Americans & wanted to kill as many as possible.

You go to all the trouble of sneaking into America, spend a long time learning how to fly a jumbo jet, spend count hours on planning & preparation, then finally manage to get onto the plane & manage to then take control of said plane.

Now remember you are suppose to be so full of hate for Americans, you want make them pay for what they have done to your country & people, that you want to kill as many as possible & really make them suffer.

Why fly a plane into the World Trade Centre & only kill several thousand Americans, when you could fly into a nuclear power station & kill possibly tens of thousands with a meltdown & also poison the entire area for for possible generations to come. Plus course possible generations of sickness & birth defects for a race of people to really make them pay.

Surely if the planes are suppose to have caused an explosion powerful enough to have brought down such large sky scrapers as the WTC, then surely they could have breach the walls of a nuclear power station.

With 3 planes possibly 3 nuclear power station, causing possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths, & if 1 plane wasn't powerful enough to breach the nuclear power station walls, surely 3 plane crashes into 1 one nuclear power station would breach the walls & cause the required meltdown.

Has anyone else ever wonder about this.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 12:48 PM
Maybe that was not allowed. That would be one reason.

But that's what you're insinuating right?


posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:06 PM
Maybe the responce would be overwhelming if you know what I mean. Before I started doing research and balancing why knowledge of 911, I mentioned to more than one person the idea of locating each of the 19 highjackers hometowns and leveling them with tacticle nukes.

Now imagine our collective responce to a meltdown of a nuclear powerplant.

My blood is no longer boiling for revenge, only knowledge.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:28 PM
The way the terrorists made it sound (or what the news told us about what the terrorists said), by attacking the WTCs they were attacking symbols of freedom and liberty in our country, which is mostly what AQ's purpose was (or what the news said their purpose was)

Of course, this is all speculative towards the terrorists being AQ and not others within our own gov't infrastructure.

At any rate, the NY skyline is definitely lacking some of its nostalgia and beauty

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:27 AM
Another good reason they did not try for Nuclear plant.

Vulnerability from Air Attack. Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, and other extreme events. But deliberate attacks by large airliners loaded with fuel, such as those that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not analyzed when design requirements for today’s reactors were determined. A taped interview shown September 10, 2002, on Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which contains a statement that Al Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified concern about aircraft crashes.

In light of the possibility that an air attack might penetrate the containment building of a nuclear plant, some interest groups have suggested that such an event could be followed by a meltdown and widespread radiation exposure. Nuclear industry spokespersons have countered by pointing out that relatively small, low-lying nuclear
power plants are difficult targets for attack, and have argued that penetration of the containment is unlikely, and that even if such penetration occurred it probably would not reach the reactor vessel. They suggest that a sustained fire, such as that which melted the steel support structures in the World Trade Center buildings, would be impossible unless an attacking plane penetrated the containment completely, including its fuel-bearing wings. According to former NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, NRC studies “confirm that the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect public health and safety is low.

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:30 PM
The targets selected (Flt 11/Flt 175 Wtc towers, Flt 77 Pentagon, Flt 93
supposedly Capitol) on 9/11 were all large free standing buildings. In
fact there are (were) some of the largest buildings in the world. There
were no trees or other obstructions to hinder the approach. A nuclear
power plant is a squat building(s), the main reactor dome is made
of reinforeced concrete 10 ft thick. The reactor building is dwarfed by
huge concrete colling towers and steel transmission towers. Also many
nuclear plants are located on rivers and surrounded by trees on some
of the sides. A plane attempting to hit a reactor building would strike
one or more of these objects and fragment before striking the reactor
building and its reinforced dome.

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:41 PM
I pretty much agree with what has been said.

A nuclear plant would be a hard thing to destroy with a plane in a catastrophic way. And, if somehow, an attack was successful and resulted in the China Syndrome nightmare, the response from the U.S. would most likely involve nuclear weapons.

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by acrux

Unless you want to be a terrorist and do this kind of attack, it would be understandable. But since you are not, maybe you should think of the terrorist motives for attacking the WTC, Pentagon, and most likely the White House. Its more symbolic since they are all related then concerned about killing millions. That be great for them, but in terrorist attacks, you have to considered the limitations of achieving that goal. Use of media helps spread that fear of the attack achieving the same goals instead of trying really hard to kill millions. That would take thousands of planes to achieve and they don't have that type of personnel to achieve it. Things like that.

Here are some of my question that you could consider.

Why did they attack two embassies in Africa? Why no in the Middle East?

Why did they attack a destroyer instead of an airbase, etc.?

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:40 PM

Here are some of my question that you could consider.

Why did they attack two embassies in Africa? Why no in the Middle East?

Why did they attack a destroyer instead of an airbase, etc.?

Simple answer - accessability, the targets in Africa (Nairobi, Dar-es-Salem
embassies) and Yemen (USS Cole) were close to Al Queda recruiting
and operational area. Operatives could easily travel and blend in the
scene without attracting attention.

Remember that the bombing of the Cole was the 2 nd attempt to sink an
American ship - 10 months earlier the terrorists tried to sink the USS
Sullivans (name after 5 brothers lost in WWII). The boat was overloaded
and sank.

Pentetrating the US, even before 9/11, was more difficult and
expensive. The 9/11 plot took over 2 years to execute and cost around
$500K. At several points almost came apart. Now trying to smuggle
in terrorist operatives is (hopefully!) much more difficult.

new topics


log in