In considering another matter in another substack, concerning the dense fog of history and how it is manipulated by many forces, I am reminded of a question that has bothered me for over 20 years. This question does not even seem to prompt a scintilla of interest from others, although all manner of expostulations and theories seemed to take off during this event at the dawn of the Internet.
World Trade Center - the myth
It is hard to even see the World Trade Center these days. Tongue-in-cheek, of course. It is discussed with reverent awe, as though it is a symbol of something so important we cannot exactly describe it. It is 9-11, dammit! You know what that means.
The date has become a secular holiday, like the landing of the Pilgrims on the Rock, or any other event that is symbolized but not quite the same now as it was when it happened.
World Trade Center - the reality
I’ve been to the observation deck, before the first attack. It was nothing really notable, a general disappointment, the building which seized the height record from the august Building of the Empire State in midtown. It represented awfulness in architecture, two prisms and nothing more. It was viewed with annoyance and dislike by most people who contemplated it. It had no identity other than an obligatory observation deck at the top of the South Tower, where you could go way up and see way down. There was no beauty of design, no Art Deco museum of the time, entirely functional, just boxes - like two shipping trailers upended into the sky. There was nothing there, there.
The First Bombing.
On February 26, 1993 a huge explosion took place in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. This was the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center Towers. The epicenter was the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center, where a massive eruption carved out a nearly 100-foot crater several stories deep and several more high. Several “Islamic radicals” were apprehended - first Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, and Ahmed Ajaj, and then others. It was said that they planned to attack other New York landmarks - the U.N. building, the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and others. But target #1 was the World Trade Center Towers. Why? (ref. FBI)
The Second Attack
As we know, on September 11, 2001, a bundle of attacks were planned against various targets in the United States. Target #1 was the North Tower of the World Trade Center. This building was targeted by a commercial airline hijacking. It is not remembered often, but Target #1 had a back-up plan for destruction - the second commercial airline hijacking. Target #1 would seem to have been very important.
There were also several other subsidiary targets designated for attack on that day. As before, none of the attacks were successful, but for one against a side of the Pentagon.
Prime Target
As before, the subsidiary attacks were asserted to be intended for much more notable buildings. These attacks in both instances may have been cover for the Target #1 attack. In both cases, had there been attacks on the UN or the Capitol, the World Trade Center North Tower would have been “and also the North Tower” at the bottom of the lead story.
It’s much easier to coordinate a handful of independent air operations, and then finalize target selection later, I suppose. One can be flexible in target selection. I’m sure this is all standard US Air Force doctrine. Redundancy leads to greater certainty in target destruction.
For all we know, all of the 9-11 air missions were targeted on the North Tower, and then distributed to subsidiary targets once the likelihood of destroying target #1 was sufficient. The woeful 1993 bombing of the parking garage failed, and there was no immediate back-up plan in case the blast in the garage failed.
In 2001, the obliteration of Target #1 could be guaranteed. The remaining capacity could be re-directed to other, more famous, but strategically unimportant targets.
What’s in the Box?
This is the un-contemplated question. If porch pirates are stealing Amazon boxes off your property this holiday season, they’re probably not doing so for their private collection of empty Amazon boxes. It’s what’s inside that counts.
The World Trade Center Towers were nothing but enormous, boring office buildings before they became the secular obelisks of - whatever they represent to us today.
It’s what’s in the box.
I’ve never seen a decent inventory or list of the many hundreds of offices within the North Tower. I suspect that one, or several, contained the object of what the Bin Laden Group were after. All that work, time, money and training were focused on achieving that success.
The gathering romantic symbolism that has accreted upon the Myth of 9-1-1 serves to obscure, not enhance, the inquiry into what actually was intended, and succeeded. Not the obliteration of the Boxes ‘o’ Freedom that were the World Trade Center Towers, but the destruction of a very important location of a very important operation in the North Tower, which was the purpose of the operation.
The true victims never came forth to say, “Hey, you guys destroyed our New York Operation X Office!” That’s a sign that the target was not a publicly esteemed on. If they were after “Save the Children,” you would have heard from “Save the Children” in annoyance. But I suspect the purpose needed to be kept under wraps by the victims as well as the perpetrators. Even the “Iraq Mission” could have been a diverting joyride for W, persuaded that this strike was retaliation for something uninvolved with Saddam Hussein.
There. I’ve finally got it out. I sure want to hear what you folks think. Say something.
Well, Steve, I've got a couple of things to say about that.
First, I visited the WTC just once, many many years ago (not sure when) and I loved it; the vast enormity and height of it. I think I permanently damaged my neck looking up. And to my strange mind those chrome-like 5-story Art Deco pillars were beautiful and unforgettable.
Second, there's a movie called The Walk about the guy who ran a wire between the two towers and walked that tightrope for an hour. Unbelievable courage (or ignorance). But I can't watch the movie again, gives me vertigo. (I get dizzy if I stand up too fast.)
Finally, I've never been much of a conspiracy guy, but when I watched those twin towers come down on TV, I see a controlled demolition - not sure of the correct term, but if you want to intentionally bring down a tall building for rebuilding or whatever- that's pretty well the perfect example of how to do it. Both buildings - straight down - bam. I think to my dying day I'll still believe they were initially built to come down like that when the time came (not for conspiracy stuff, just to come down to be replaced by newer building.)
What I still see is a perfect textbook controlled demolition.
So that's my thoughts on the World Trade Centre.
ps, amazing that the destroyed WTC was all cleared away and a new building up in its place. I have trouble putting the cover on my BBQ in the wind and these guys build a new Tower.
OK, time for my milk and cookies.