the thread [thread=38806]what if the casualties were less on 9\11][/thread]
got me thinking about how nations need their symbols.
In that thread, there is a discussion of whether the shock of the attacks was due to the number of dead people, or due to the physical damage.
Personally, I think that the media emphasizes the death toll only to avoid appearing callous and uncaring. The real shock was the falling buildings. The collapse of the towers is so vivid-showing how possible it is to destroy the infrastructure of our entire society. And that is what really scares people.
The plane that hit the pentagon is only mentioned as a sideline in the 9/11 story. Partly because the damage was less than in New York, but also because the Pentagon is not a vital part of the American psyche. (Sure, it’s the central office building for the military, and has a distinctive shape, but it is not an iconic symbol to most American citizens, and doesn’t convey emotional impact.)
But what about the 4th plane? It was heading towards Washington, presumably intending to hit the White House. Suppose it had succeeded, and destroyed most of the White House. And suppose that the President wasn’t out visiting a school that morning, but had been at home, along with the Vice President, and they had both been killed?
How would that have affected how we see 9/11 ? Because almost everyone (from all parties and of all political stripes) can agree that the White House and the elected president are the most potent icons of American society–the symbol of our stability.
Would images of the White House in flames be more moving that images of the WTC ? And would the nation be more united as a result?
I think the emphasis was on the WTC rather than the Pentagon for a couple of reasons. Obviously, there was larger loss of life in New York. Also, the events in New York were shown live on television (at least after the first plane hit). Mostly we heard rumors about what was happening in Washington. (We heard, for example, that there was an explosion or fire on the Mall.) And of course there’s the totality of the destruction of the towers.
Aside from that, the Pentagon attack had enormous symbolism.
I think you’re overestimating the importance of a building, or even two people, on the stability and infrastructure of our country. If the White House had been destroyed, and the pres & vp survived, there wouldn’t have been much of an upset. Even if one or both of them had been killed, we have plans in place to deal with it.
However, if the 4th plane had hit Wall Street and managed to bring down the majority of the global stock exchange… That would seriously impact the price of toilet paper in Nebraska.
In pretty much every cheesy aliens-attack-the-Earth movie, a few landmarks always get blasted: Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, Taj Mahal – and the U.S. Capitol. I suppose one could argue that an attack on the Capitol would have packed even more symbolism than the WTC.
However, I think the images we did see on 9/11 were horrifying enough. How much shock is too much?
Sure but if you hit a jumbo jet flying at you at 300 mph, it’s not going to just stop in its tracks. It’s going to keep moving in the direction it was last headed in: right at your face. :eek:
Let’s suppose Dubya had been home that day and gotten pancaked. Cheney is now the big cheese. I’m sure he would have gone after Afghanistan still. But I think he would have gone after Saudi Arabia because the terrorist were from there, bin Laden was from there, the support came from there and, of course, THE OIL comes from there. It wouldn’t have been the “shock and awe” we saw in Baghdad. It would have been sneaky back room maneuvering, certain princes with “questionable” alliances disappearing, the current King handing power over to someone more acceptable, expansions of our bases while the people were given more say so in their government (which would have been controlled from DC not Riyadh).
I have a story about this. About 2 months before 9-11-2001, I was working on 1510 K Street NW Washington DC which is extremly close to the White House.
Anyways, I was an HVAC mechanic and we were hired to put a chiller unit on the roof. The people that owned this building were the Al Jazeera news station. As we were completing the project, the building manager informed us that Al Jazeera were selling the building and moving immediately. I thought this was rather strange and sudden. I came in after the weekend and the place was a ghost town, the building was completely empty, everything packed up and gone ! I have never seen such a large move so fast in my life.
About 7-8 weeks later, 9-11 took place. This could be total coincidence, but I have a strong feeling that it wasn’t. I feel they knew what was going to take place.
Were the missiles on top of the White House prior to 9/11? Because I would have thought the Pentagon would have been as well defended, but apparently not.
And as for targeting the White House, I heard speculation after 9/11 that, because of its location in the middle of the city, the White House would be a difficult target for a plane.
As a former DC resident, I’ve always beeen rather surprised at those who seem to be sure that the White House was one of the primary 9/11 targets.
From the North, East, or West, there are taller buildings in the flight path. That means that the only way to hit it from those directions is in a dive, and that’s much more difficult to achieve than “level-flight” hits as happened at the WTC in New York. From the South, the Washington Monument severely restricts the angle at which a high-speed approach could take place without some serious piloting skills, and it’s my understanding that the 9/11 hijackers were at the training level of “just sufficient to carry out the plan”.
The President was out of town on the day of the attacks, and it’s possible that this was known by the attackers (I’ve seen no evidence either way). Destroying the White House while POTUS isn’t there would have greatly reduced the symbolism.
The US Capitol, on the other hand, stands proudly on the top of its eponymous Hill, and is visible (and thus would have been vulnerable to air attack) from many directions – DC was planned with these sightlines being paramount! When I lived on Capitol Hill (Maryland Ave at 8th St NE), I figured that, had the USSR ever sent a sub-launched cruise missile at the Capitol, there was a fair chance that it would have passed right down the center of my street.
IMHO, the US Capitol is a much more powerful symbolic target than the White House – especially if the latter doesn’t have the President in it at the time.
As a non-American, I might add that that possibly isn’t the case globally. I’ve met people who not only can identify a picture of the White House but not the Capitol, but who actually think the White House is the seat of government. I remember I did as a kid too. It’s much more prominent in the popular culture exported by the US.
This must be a true “IMHO” thing then, TheLoadedDog. I’m a born-and-raised Brit currently living in the US, and although I’ll admit that seeing the White House for the first time was a “moment”, it didn’t mean as much to me as seeing The Capitol.
I first arrived in DC by train, already knowing that Washington was going to be my home for the next couple of years at least. One walks out of Union Station and THERE IT IS – the US Capitol. It’s the hub around which the entire District of Columbia is laid out: although it’s east of the center of DC, the whole street layout (NW/NE/SW/SE) is in reference to The Capitol. [Plus, I lived within a few blocks of it for 3+ years.] YMMV, obviously .
[I’ll be the first to admit that my personal view of “Capitol vs White House” has been greatly swayed over the years by the particular occupants of the respective buildings…]
I do agree with the OP that the loss of the White House (with or w/out Prez) would’ve flipped people out even further. Same with the Capitol. The Twin Towers were astonishing because they were so big; the iconic buildings in D.C., that feels even more personal.
I don’t know that we would’ve done a better job of uniting afterwards, though; it’s impossible for me to even speculate on our country’s response to that additional damage (and theoretical loss of life involving elected officials). Our collective fear would’ve been greater, and angry people wanting bloody revenge would’ve been even louder. I think that IS a factor in the public’s support of the war in Iraq - some of us wanted 3,000 dead in return, somewhere, anywhere.
Instead we have a story of quiet, determined heroics on the part of ordinary people. Much healthier rallying point.
You can’t bring down Wall Street with an attack. Do you mean an attack on the NYSE? Companies can appoint new specialists quickly and trades can continue.
NASDAQ doesn’t have a central exchange, it is all computer trading.
The huge OTC market wouldn’t really be affected too much.
We survived 4 days with no trading and a 600 plus drop in the DJIA when trading on the NYSE resumed.
If bin Laden really wanted to fuck with out government he would have waited until the State of the Union. Imagine the effect on American morale if all but handfull of Congressmembers were killed and somone who’s name 99% never heard before were elevated to the Presidency. Of course it’d be alot harder to pull-off than 9/11.
.