9/11esque Targets in Beyond NYC/DC

[Whanztastic]

I'm not trying to be morbid or anything but I was thinking about 9/11 if it was not focused on the east coast but rather targeted several targets in several cities. And so I started thinking about the west coast instead. But not too many things stick out in my mind.

I can only really think of three 9/11esque targets in California -

1. Golden Gate Bridge
2. US Bank Tower (tallest building in LA, the one blown up in Independence Day)
3. Transamerica Pyramid (the pointy one in SanFran)

The thing is that they were both important symbolically and practically.

Outside of DC/NYC - Willis (Sears) Tower, Gateway Arch, Renaissance Center (GM's headquarters), Seattle's Space Needle

In NYC/DC - Brooklyn Bridge (ala The Boys), Chrysler, Empire State, State of Liberty, Capitol/WH (I forget which was actually a target), Washington Monument

Does anyone disagree with these options? I ruled out dams/nuclear plants cause those can indeed shrug off plane crashes (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8116136404949691010#).

Again, I don't mean these to be offensive. I just have a TL idea and an Alt9/11 that also happened in California would work well in it.

[The Vulture]

On a related note, what if someone hijacked a large freighter and rammed it into a bridge at full speed? Would it be likely to collapse the bridge?

[Whanztastic]

On a related note, what if someone hijacked a large freighter and rammed it into a bridge at full speed? Would it be likely to collapse the bridge?

Yeah my main thought was the Golden Gate Bridge and I was curious what a plane impact would do to it. I mean those towers must be solid. The cables themselves are nearly a meter wide of galvanized steel. Those don't snap.

[Lemon flavoured]

On a related note, what if someone hijacked a large freighter and rammed it into a bridge at full speed? Would it be likely to collapse the bridge?

It would depend a lot on the bridge and the freighter in question.

As for alternate 9/11 targets, the Space Needle in Seattle was the one that I immediately thought of. Maybe one of the famous Vegas casinos?

[Yelnoc]

There were rumors in Santa Barbara county that the terrorists were planning to steal crop planes from the San Ynez valley and use them to spray gas over Santa Barbara. Thank God they turned out to be nothing but rumors, but their's another possibility for your alt-9/11 timeline.

[Andras]

I'm not trying to be morbid or anything but I was thinking about 9/11 if it was not focused on the east coast but rather targeted several targets in several cities. And so I started thinking about the west coast instead. But not too many things stick out in my mind.

I can only really think of three 9/11esque targets in California -

1. Golden Gate Bridge
2. US Bank Tower (tallest building in LA, the one blown up in Independence Day)
3. Transamerica Pyramid (the pointy one in SanFran)

The thing is that they were both important symbolically and practically.

Outside of DC/NYC - Willis (Sears) Tower, Gateway Arch, Renaissance Center (GM's headquarters), Seattle's Space Needle

In NYC/DC - Brooklyn Bridge (ala The Boys), Chrysler, Empire State, State of Liberty, Capitol/WH (I forget which was actually a target), Washington Monument

Does anyone disagree with these options? I ruled out dams/nuclear plants cause those can indeed shrug off plane crashes (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8116136404949691010#).

Again, I don't mean these to be offensive. I just have a TL idea and an Alt9/11 that also happened in California would work well in it.

How many stadiums do you have? They're pretty full on Sunday's in the fall.

[Whanztastic]

There were rumors in Santa Barbara county that the terrorists were planning to steal crop planes from the San Ynez valley and use them to spray gas over Santa Barbara. Thank God they turned out to be nothing but rumors, but their's another possibility for your alt-9/11 timeline.

Poison Gas would be a lil too hard to come by IMO.

How many stadiums do you have? They're pretty full on Sunday's in the fall. That is a real good point. But then the attack would have to revolve the schedules of sports teams.

[Mappa Mundorum]

The Bay Bridge is more important practically than the Golden Gate, although clearly less symbolic. (If this is done by an AQ-like group, hitting both may be on the table, or even adding in the Dunbarton and Richmond-San Rafael bridges as well for total paralysis...)

Disneyland (and, moving to Florida, Disneyworld) are also potential targets. Also, hitting the site of a major awards show in progress (Emmies or Oscars) would be psychologically huge.

[Lemon flavoured]

Why Disneyland and Disneyworld slipped my mind I'll never know.

[Hörnla]

First of all, I am really not sure if nuclear power plants can "shrug off" such an attack. I just read today coincidentially that the German regulations, for example, might become stricter to ensure the survival of a hit of a medium-sized jet such as an Airbus A320. Now there are bigger ones available, still. And I am not 100% sure if US plants are safter by that magnitude.

----

Now I try to categorize here:

1. targets which I imagine to be too easy to miss to risk them as a target:

Gateway Arch, Space Needle, White House, Washington Monument

I wouldn't want all these 70 virgins to laugh about me because I was a few metres too far to the left or right. Though, the White House has so much symbolic value, that it might still make the list.

2. targets which I regards as too little of a symbolic value for such an attack (unless there are dozens of planes to be hijacked)

Gateway Arch and Space Needle again. Renaissance Center. Now, this is hindisight, but we know now that there is no point in hitting GM. Eco-terrorists might do that, though. :p Transamerica Tower. To me, it is most well-known for being allegedly earthquake-proof. Now crashing a plane into it doesn't prove much to me (besides, what if it's triangular structure actually makes it safer?).

3. targets where you probably don't kill "many" people. Now I know that is cynical. But this might be part of their priority sorting.

Gateway Arch doesn't appear to beat any commercial skyscraper. Wikipedia states that a anti-nuclear-arms protester took the Washington Monument hostage in the 1980's, trapping 8 (eight) tourists!
Chrysler Building...why take 2nd best with the ESB just a few blocks away? Same would count for the Brooklyn Bridge. NYC simply sports superior targets.

4. that leaves

Golden Gate Bridge, US Bank Tower, Willis (Sears) Tower, Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty (it might fall into other categories, but the symbolic value as the embodiment of the USA is overwhelming), Capitol

Still quite a list. I would like to add a few ideas:

- if you don't have Muslim, but fundamentalist Christian terrorists they might target the city of sin - Las Vegas. Maybe the Stratosphere tower, or an attack on Fremont Street
- to be really gross: Disneyworld or Disneyland; not the castle directly, but how about one of the attractions with long lines, or worst scenario I can think of in this context, the "phantasmic" amphitheatre during the show
- Superbowl
- Springfield. Or any other completely ordinary American town somewhere. It's not as if it could only happen to the people in the big cities.

[mowque]

Mt. Rushmore

[Whanztastic]

Yeah when you think of the OTL 9/11 targets, they were both extremely symbolic and practical. The Statue of Liberty would've been a good one, but it wouldn't have doe much economic/personal damage. Same with the Gateway Arch or Space Needle. Ditto for Disneyland.

[Atomo]

Poison Gas would be a lil too hard to come by IMO.

You wouldn't need poison gas to send out from a crop duster. What about agricultural chemicals at much higher concentrations? No, people wouldn't die, but it would cause skin irritation, maybe blindness... in short, it would create fear.
There is a reason they wear gloves, goggles and smocks when filling those planes.

[Whanztastic]

Sears Tower would be an interesting target especially since it was the Largest Building in the World and about 15,000 people worked at the Sears Tower and thousands of Tourists also visit

I'm fairly confident that the Sears/Willis Tower wouldn't collapse in the same fashion as the WTC, given the difference in structural designs.

IDK if the Willis floorplan is similar to the WTC (the internal structural tubes which were clipped) but the Willis is built with 9 different tubes, meaning that if the tallest two start to fall, there are the 7 around it still.

Anyone who knows more than me, feel free to correct.

I am still curious what a plane impact would do to the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm guessing if it hit one of the towers, not a lot. If it hit the bridge itself though?

We need bored engineers to answer our questions.

EDIT: Huh, the Willis Tower tubes are much smaller (about 75 ft each to the total width of the WTC towers' 250 ft), so that'd put 'em at risk.

[NothingNow]

On a related note, what if someone hijacked a large freighter and rammed it into a bridge at full speed? Would it be likely to collapse the bridge?

It happened accidentally on the Sunshine Skyway back in 1980, when MV Summit Venture nailed one of the supports in a storm. the Accident killed Thirty Five people.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/.a/6a00d83451b05569e20134807b38bd970c-450wi

[The Vulture]

It happened accidentally on the Sunshine Skyway back in 1980, when MV Summit Venture nailed one of the supports in a storm. the Accident killed Thirty Five people.


Damn. I hate to contemplate what might become of, say, a fully loaded tanker or cruise ship ramming the Brooklyn Bridge or something at rush hour.

[NothingNow]

Damn. I hate to contemplate what might become of, say, a fully loaded tanker or cruise ship ramming the Brooklyn Bridge or something at rush hour.

A New Texas City perhaps?

[DD951]

----

Now I try to categorize here:

1. targets which I imagine to be too easy to miss to risk them as a target:

Gateway Arch, Space Needle, White House, Washington Monument

I wouldn't want all these 70 virgins to laugh about me because I was a few metres too far to the left or right. Though, the White House has so much symbolic value, that it might still make the list.

2. targets which I regards as too little of a symbolic value for such an attack (unless there are dozens of planes to be hijacked)

Gateway Arch and Space Needle again. Renaissance Center. Now, this is hindisight, but we know now that there is no point in hitting GM. Eco-terrorists might do that, though. :p Transamerica Tower. To me, it is most well-known for being allegedly earthquake-proof. Now crashing a plane into it doesn't prove much to me (besides, what if it's triangular structure actually makes it safer?)

AQ actually did target the Space Needle- an operative by the name of Achmed Ressam, IIRC, was caught at a US-Canadian border crossing with a trunk full of bombmaking components late in 1999, and he was apparently intending to carry out a bomb attack on the 2000 New Year's celebration there. Ressam made a deal with the DOJ to cooperate with US national security authorities in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence, but the thing came apart a couple years ago in a dispute over how cooperative he had been, and he was sentenced to some 25-30 years in Supermax, IIRC.

[Orville_third]

Nuclear power plants in the USA have been designed to withstand an aircraft impact for a long time. (Even Three Mile island was...) However, if you target a research reactor or a spent fuel pool at one of the power plants, it might be a lot easier to spread radiation.
Two more nuclear targets I'd pick. Paducah, Kentucky and Metropolis, Illinois are both home to uranium enrichment plants. Both plants are located very near the Ohio river...and not far from the Mississippi. Paducah is a small, but well-known city. Metropolis isn't- unless you're a Superman fan. Both are located along major transportation routes.
Aren't you glad we're not terrorists?

[Yelnoc]

You could always try biological weapons. Anthrax comes to mind.

[Uxi]

Damn. I hate to contemplate what might become of, say, a fully loaded tanker or cruise ship ramming the Brooklyn Bridge or something at rush hour.

Couple hundred casualties at most. Needs to be something like a stadium, etc with at least a few thousand people to have close to the same effect.

Imagine that... plane into a stadium at a sporting event, maybe? A little too 'Debt of Honor' maybe...

[KyleB]

What if they hijacked an oil tanker and crashed into a dock at Long Beach and set off all the oil? Could that possibly shut down all Long Beach-based shipping?

[CaliBoy1990]

Military-
1. Strategic Air Command{Omaha, NE}-One of the most important components of the U.S. air defense network, IIRC.
2. Camp Pendleton{Oceanside, CA}-A very important Marine base.
3. Edwards AFB{Somewhere in MD}- Should the President ever have to leave D.C., this is where he would go.
4. The other Edwards AFB{near Palmdale, CA}-Another important army base.
5. Norfolk, VA{Home of the U.S. Navy}
6. Langley, VA{Was home to the CIA.........not sure anymore, though}
7. Minot, ND{IIRC, this town in the HQ for U.S. missile forces}

Commercial-
1. Dallas/Ft. Worth Int'l{Irving, TX}-The 4th busiest airport in the U.S. won't be immune from attack..............maybe not even a nuclear one. :eek: :(
2. LAX{Los Angeles, CA}-LAX isn't safe, either.
3. JFK Int'l Airport-Perhaps an attractive target for extreme right domestic Christian Identity or Aryan Nations terrorists?
4. Sky Harbor Int'l{Phoenix, AZ}-Maybe an opportunistic psycho takes advantage of the growing immigration crisis and detonates a bomb of some sort there?
5. Hartsfield Int'l{Atlanta, GA}-Guess what's the busiest airport in the U.S.? D/FW? LAX? Kennedy? No, it's Hartsfield, in the Atlanta area.........not only is it the busiest in the U.S., it's even the busiest in the world........believe it or not.

Industrial: Pittsburgh, PA-Even though it's lost almost 2/3rds of its whole population since 1950, it's still somewhat important, mainly because of all the steel mills and such.

Other-
1. Chicago, IL
2, Miami, FL
3. Washington, D.C.
4. New York

And finally................

5. Hollywood, CA.

[Ordinary joe]

I wonder if you could smash Hoover Dam with a plane crash?

[Philadelphus]

Military-
1. Strategic Air Command{Omaha, NE}-One of the most important components of the U.S. air defense network, IIRC.
2. Camp Pendleton{Oceanside, CA}-A very important Marine base.
3. Edwards AFB{Somewhere in MD}- Should the President ever have to leave D.C., this is where he would go.
4. The other Edwards AFB{near Palmdale, CA}-Another important army base.
5. Norfolk, VA{Home of the U.S. Navy}
6. Langley, VA{Was home to the CIA.........not sure anymore, though}
7. Minot, ND{IIRC, this town in the HQ for U.S. missile forces}

Commercial-
1. Dallas/Ft. Worth Int'l{Irving, TX}-The 4th busiest airport in the U.S. won't be immune from attack..............maybe not even a nuclear one. :eek: :(
2. LAX{Los Angeles, CA}-LAX isn't safe, either.
3. JFK Int'l Airport-Perhaps an attractive target for extreme right domestic Christian Identity or Aryan Nations terrorists?
4. Sky Harbor Int'l{Phoenix, AZ}-Maybe an opportunistic psycho takes advantage of the growing immigration crisis and detonates a bomb of some sort there?
5. Hartsfield Int'l{Atlanta, GA}-Guess what's the busiest airport in the U.S.? D/FW? LAX? Kennedy? No, it's Hartsfield, in the Atlanta area.........not only is it the busiest in the U.S., it's even the busiest in the world........believe it or not.

Industrial: Pittsburgh, PA-Even though it's lost almost 2/3rds of its whole population since 1950, it's still somewhat important, mainly because of all the steel mills and such.

Other-
1. Chicago, IL
2, Miami, FL
3. Washington, D.C.
4. New York

And finally................

5. Hollywood, CA.

A few remarks -

Edwards AFB in Maryland: you mean Andrews?
And talking of things in Maryland, there's Camp David.

The CIA is still at Langley, Va.

Nothing against Pittsburgh, but is it that much of an industrial center any more? Are they making steel at all there today? If I were singling out one target for the category "industrial," I don't think Pittsburgh would be it. (I'm not sure it would have been the top industrial target in this country even in its prime. I believe I've seen that in, say, an 1870-to-1950 time frame Philadelphia was the biggest manufacturing center in the world....)

I think your list is a starting point, rather than comprehensive. There are lots of air-force bases, and lots of big cities, and I don't know that you've necessarily chosen the most important of either.

[Cook]

Disneyland (and, moving to Florida, Disneyworld) are also potential targets...

A fatwa on Mickey Mouse?
:p

[phoenix7846]

Hmmm, interesting. No one's come up with many targets in Texas. Someone mentioned industrial, and doesn't Houston still have a decent amount of industry in it, not to mention all the oil works?

My case, if I were personally expanding the targets outside of NY/DC, definitely have to hit a small town (again, the whole spread fear to the countryside too). Maybe a megachurch as well to actually get the whole holy war/new crusades idea some impetus?

[Apollo 20]

One thing to consider in all this is the ease with which an aircraft could be flown into the target by a pilot with limited experience. One thing that makes anything in DC fairly easy is the height limit on buildings in the district, which prevents there from being many obstructions. Surrounding terrain, such as that around the Golden Gate Bridge, limits the possible approaches one could conceivably take. The one problem with incorporating California into 9/11 is that with the more or less concurrent attack scheme that was used, everything in California would be empty because of the three-hour time difference.

If the goal was high casualties and a huge horror factor, try packed college football stadiums on a Saturday afternoon. Michigan Stadium seats 109,000 people, all densely packed into a small space in a game that's likely to be on TV. If AQ really wanted to rack up the body count, they would have planned an attack on a Saturday when some of the larger CFB stadiums had games around the same time. The Tennessee, Ohio State and Michigan stadiums together hold almost 300,000 people. Another advantage of a Saturday attack is that you catch everyone off guard due to the weekend, and you almost certainly would have a large live TV audience for at least some of the attacks.

[PrairieVoice]

Mt. Rushmore

That is what I was thinking. It wouldnt kill anyone, nor cause any economic damage but would be nearly impossible to repair and the terrorists could "see" what they did for decades.

[PrairieVoice]

How about taking out a cities main sewage treatment plant?

[Lemon flavoured]

I wonder if you could smash Hoover Dam with a plane crash?

I think it's unlikely. Dams are some of the strongest structures on Earth.

[Cash]

Sports stadiums -- Wasn't there a book and movie, Day of the Jackal, that had that as a plot? IIRC the book used the Goodyear blimp loaded with explosives and steel darts.

Really, in the search for both symbolic and high-death-toll targets, A-Q chose well with the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House (assuming that was the fourth target). If they had delayed the attack by even 30 minutes, the WTC death toll would have been double or triple the real-world count.

A-Q wanted to strike at the political-military-commercial partnership that it saw as exploiting and dishonoring Islam (a brief explanation for an overwhelmingly complex reasoning process), and they did it in a very focused way. That rules out targets like the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore and the Golden Gate Bridge IMO. Stadiums, too, since at the time A-Q was declaring its target was the U.S. government, military, and commercial worlds, not the common people. The WTC/Pentagon casualties could be seen as soldiers of an enemy. The crowd at a Packers game, not so much.

A digression -- that IMO is the lie that has been foisted upon the American people about this whole affair by our nation's leaders. 9/11 wasn't an attack on us, it was an attack on them. We're just the ones who got stuck fighting the war.

The one possibility that comes to mind as an alternative target would be Las Vegas, since it personifies a lifestyle and belief system antithetical to A-Q's version of Islam.

[Gridley]

A digression -- that IMO is the lie that has been foisted upon the American people about this whole affair by our nation's leaders. 9/11 wasn't an attack on us, it was an attack on them. We're just the ones who got stuck fighting the war.

I don't recall seeing a lot of CEO's, US Senators, etc. jumping from the Twin Towers as they burned.

I do recall a lot of dead firemen.

[Cash]

I don't recall seeing a lot of CEO's, US Senators, etc. jumping from the Twin Towers as they burned.

I do recall a lot of dead firemen.

... who died defending a symbol of the power structure A-Q was attacking. As I said, we're just the ones who got stuck fighting the war.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not defending A-Q. I'm also not defending the people who I hold responsible for putting us in their sights in the first place.

[Andras]

Sports stadiums -- Wasn't there a book and movie, Day of the Jackal, that had that as a plot? IIRC the book used the Goodyear blimp loaded with explosives and steel darts.


I believe that would be the novel and film Black Sunday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sunday

[Gridley]

... who died defending a symbol of the power structure A-Q was attacking. As I said, we're just the ones who got stuck fighting the war.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not defending A-Q. I'm also not defending the people who I hold responsible for putting us in their sights in the first place.

So A-Q's attack was a complete failure then? 'Cause they killed a lot of ordinary people, but very, very few of the folks in charge.

As for the 'people putting us in their sights'... who would that be? I'm curious how you're going to make this our fault, since until 9/11 the only even semi-legitimate beef A-Q could have had with us was our support of Israel.

[MikeTurcotte]

... who died defending a symbol of the power structure A-Q was attacking. As I said, we're just the ones who got stuck fighting the war.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not defending A-Q. I'm also not defending the people who I hold responsible for putting us in their sights in the first place.

You mean like feminists? Or perhaps just people opposed to female circumcision? Because they put us in A-Q's sights as surely as any CEO did.

How about the ACLU? Or anyone opposed to Sharia law? They're just as bad. Maybe atheists too.

Please. A-Q hates anything modern, secular, and equitable. Whatever the sins of a capitalist society - and they are many - nothing justified 9/11. A-Q is a bunch of medieval thugs - in action, mind set, and action.

And now, I see, they have their own 'useful idiot'.

Mike Turcotte

[Trotsky]

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon (as well as the White House and the Capitol -- both the possible targets of the downed Flight 93) are centers of American global power, in two of the biggest brand name cities in the world.

The Brooklyn Bridge, while a historical symbol and also in NYC, isn't going to be worthwhile as a target of an organization with limited funds to spend on such an operation. If a New York bridge is going to get targeted, it will either be the George Washington Bridge or the Tappan Zee -- both major national transportation and economic routes. Imagine the traffic on either I-287 or the Cross-Bronx if their opposite numbers were collapsed.

The Gateway Arch is worthless as a target. Ditto for the Space Needle.

Really, the only worthwhile high profile target outside of the East Coast I can think of ATM is the Sears Tower. Maybe Disneyworld(land) but that would be a lower priority.

[Cash]

You mean like feminists? Or perhaps just people opposed to female circumcision? Because they put us in A-Q's sights as surely as any CEO did.

How about the ACLU? Or anyone opposed to Sharia law? They're just as bad. Maybe atheists too.

Please. A-Q hates anything modern, secular, and equitable. Whatever the sins of a capitalist society - and they are many - nothing justified 9/11. A-Q is a bunch of medieval thugs - in action, mind set, and action.

And now, I see, they have their own 'useful idiot'.

Mike Turcotte

Wow. Guess I hit some nerves here of people who have a severe lack of reading comprehension and historical knowledge. Are you saying that A-Q attacked us because we're "modern, secular, and equitable"? What a naive assertion. If that's the case, why didn't they attack France or Germany or Argentina or New Zealand? They attacked US not because "we love freedom" but because in their own twisted little minds they saw us as defiling the seats of their religion -- Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. American soldiers were and are stationed in Saudi Arabia, an act that to A-Q represents the worst affront to Islam and their personal pride possible, since it implies that they must rely on "Crusader" troops to defend their holiest sites -- or occupy them, as the case may be. And of course Jerusalem because of our support for Israel.

Don't forget that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Also don't forget that 9/11 wasn't Islam's first attack on the WTC. The first time, they tried to use a truck bomb in the underground parking garage.

Please, read some history before knee-jerking an answer to a statement you apparently don't understand. And re-read my earlier posts. I am not trying to defend A-Q. What they did went beyond horrific. I'm only trying to understand why they did it. It was not an act of random violence. They were carefully chosen, highly symbolic targets aimed at a very specific power structure.

[Cash]

So A-Q's attack was a complete failure then? 'Cause they killed a lot of ordinary people, but very, very few of the folks in charge.

As for the 'people putting us in their sights'... who would that be? I'm curious how you're going to make this our fault, since until 9/11 the only even semi-legitimate beef A-Q could have had with us was our support of Israel.

You really need to re-read my post. Also, read my answer to your compatriot. Then do some second- and third-level thinking on the subject, instead of reacting emotionally.

I really do understand where you and your friend are coming from. 9/11 raises strong emotions, but don't let them interfere with understanding what actually happened there and why, especially why.

[Cash]

BTW, this discussion has gone far, far afield from the OP. If either Gridley or MT want to continue, please contact me offline.

[Gridley]

Cash, what exactly are you trying to say? Do you think A-Q regretted that they killed innocent Americans who were pawns of some Illuminati-esque ruling elite of the US?

Or do you regret that in targeting those Illuminati who you think run our country A-Q killed a bunch of ordinary people as collateral damage?

Who's YOUR enemy Cash? Because from your posts you come across as approving of A-Q's target, if not their means. THAT's what I object to, not trying to understand what you rightly note as their 'twisted minds.'

[Gridley]

BTW, this discussion has gone far, far afield from the OP. If either Gridley or MT want to continue, please contact me offline.

It was your comment that took us 'far, far afield'.

How are the motivations of the attackers not relevant in the selection of additional targets?

If, as you say, A-Q was after shadow governments and symbols, additional targets would be quite different than if, as I contend, they were simply going for maximum shock value and the more people they killed, the better.

[f1b0nacc1]

If we assume that AQ is launching attacks IN CONJUNCTION with existing targets (i.e. the Twin Towers, etc.) then the target list is extremely constrained.

The attacks had to be carefully coordinated, as the longer the gap between strikes, the greater the chance that the infidels (i.e. us) would catch on and take defensive measures. The wisdom of this was demonstrated by what happend with Flight 93, where the passengers realized what was happening and took steps to prevent it. If the gap was still larger, then it would be likely that planes would be grounded, shot down, etc.

Since the attacks were predicated upon the fact that the planes used would have nearly full fuel takes (remember it was the fire, not the impact, that brought the towers down), we are limited to targets fairly near (i.e. within 200 miles or so) major airports. This in and of itself isn't a big limitation, but it does mean that Mt Rushmore (a very creative suggestion!) and its ilk are out of the question. Next, in order to maximize the amount of fuel available, we can leave out airports other than the coasts (they have the longest routes, and thus the most fuel). Since the idea was to get flights with as few people on board as possible (to give the highjackers the best odds of subduing the passengers and crew), we are looking at early morning flights. This in turn rules out the West Coast, since there are no long range flights scheduled in the 4-6 AM range, and the East Coast flights would have to leave at 6-8 AM to be largely empty. So we are pretty much limited to flights leaving from the Northeast corridor early in the morning within about 200 miles of their targets.

If we are willing to forgo the Towers, the Pentagon, or the Capitol (which was the target of Flight 93), we have more options, but still we are limited. We still are likely to want largely empty flights, and the targets have to be hit within a fairly short time frame. Early morning is still best (fewer people on duty in monitoring/defense establishments, most of them not yet up to speed), and we want targets that are easy enough for poorly trained pilots to hit. Granted this last concern isn't a big one, but the bigger the target, the better. The suggestion of football stadiums is an excellent one (lots of casualties there, particularly if fuel-heavy aircraft do the dirty work, but getting largely empty flights is hard since football games occur in the afternoon. Bridges aren't going to have the same frisson of terror, but a few well-chosen strikes could paralyze transportation for quite some time. Airports are too large to destroy, and though easily disrupted, they are also easily bypassed, thus minimizing long-term effects. Large, dense, urban centers are best, since they are always crowded, and thus provide a wealth of targets in a very small area.

This leaves us with compaatively few options for bi-coastal attacks (timing), or widely scattered attacks (logistics), and given the distances to airports that launch a large number of cross continental flights, we are probably limited to NYC, DC, Boston, Philly, etc. While Boston and Philly are lovely cities (well, Boston is...), NYC provides the most useful target collection, and DC the most symbolically powerful.

Just a few thoughts...

[MikeTurcotte]

Midwestern target are interesting just because that would be almost more shocking than NYC. Who the heck hits Peoria? If they can hit Peoria, they can ANYONE... Issue there is it doesn't play for the home front as well back in the Middle East.

Assume four planes - alternate targets.

Targets: 1. GW Bridge (which would have killed me BTW...I was driving across it when the second plane hit) - seriously dirsupting NYC surface transportation, and potentially blocking the Hudson).
2. GC Station (10,000s of people during Rush hour, trans hub)
3. US Capitol
4. Fort Knox (gold reserve - maybe too hardened?)

Mike Turcotte

[f1b0nacc1]

Fort Knox is hardened to withstand a direct hit from a small scale nuke, and it is surrounded by the US Army's Army School (plenty of mobile SAMs) and is in restricted airspace. Yes, a complete surprise might work, but anything less would probably not...

By the way, very creative suggestion! Though I must ask, what would the real impact be? The gold is still there (pace, Goldfinger...grin) and aside from a few dead Feds, all you really have accomplished is to destroy some really ugly architecture....

[Whanztastic]

Grand Central Terminal would be basically impossible to hit with a plane, especially with a poorly trained pilot.

So let us say 5/6 planes - after the Pentagon, the two who hit the WTC and flight 93, what are the top 2 options after that?

I'd say, if they want to spread out a little more - Sears (at the time) Tower and Golden Gate Bridge.

For Chicago you have Old Orchard a busy and confusing airport with plenty of international flights. Also San Fran Int for the GGB.

If not spreading it out, Statue of Liberty seems like such an incredibly symbolic target that if such deadly targets had already been done, then a highly symbolic one would be appropriate.

[CaptainAmerica]

Are you planning on writing a Timeline about this?

I would be intrigued to see W's reaction to more attacks upon US soil because regardless if you liked him or not W did a good job of rallying the nation immediate after 911

[Dan1988]

Hmm, there's not much of value as a target for our would-be alt-9/11 hijackers in RI. There are, however, options in Boston - the John Hancock Tower, the Bunker Hill Monument, the World Trade Center/Seaport Hotel complex in the recently-gentrified Southie neighbourhood (which is extremely difficult to aim for because it's only a couple stories high - ironically, when I heard the World Trade Center was attacked, I instantly thought of the one in Boston first :eek:), South Station, Boston Garden, Fenway Park, the State Street Bank building, the Customs House Tower, and the like - heck, if they wanted too, when it was in operation, the Central Artery (in one of its usual jams, which guaranteed a high death count from the cars stuck on the road) or any of the bridges linking Boston proper with either Charlestown (pre-Zakim Bridge) or the suburbs north of East Boston could've been hit.

BTW - outside of Boston, Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod would probably qualify here.

[Philadelphus]

While Boston and Philly are lovely cities (well, Boston is...)

Sigh......

[Whanztastic]

Are you planning on writing a Timeline about this?

I would be intrigued to see W's reaction to more attacks upon US soil because regardless if you liked him or not W did a good job of rallying the nation immediate after 911

Well I was curious to involve it in a different TL, that's why the OP was California specific.

[theReturner]

I was just wondering, but if an airline plane like the ones used in 9/11 were to hit the Statue of Liberty at full speed, what would be the impact of the statue? What kind of damage would their be? Would the plane actually go through it?

[PrairieVoice]

"we are limited to targets fairly near (i.e. within 200 miles or so) major airports. This in and of itself isn't a big limitation, but it does mean that Mt Rushmore (a very creative suggestion!) and its ilk are out of the question."

Small point: Mt. Rushmore is only about 150 miles from Rapid City South Dakota which has a major airport. Personally though one big problem is finding the target and being able to make an approach/attack run at it. Remember they only get one chance and no way to circle back and try again. Mt. Rushmore would be hard to spot from the air and then line up for a perfect shot since you would only be able to hit it from one direction.

The Twin Towers or the Pentagon though, they would be easy to see and could be hit from all sides.

[f1b0nacc1]

Sigh......

My wife is from Philly...and in truth, it is a very nice city...

Hey, I live in KC...so who am I to poke fun?

[f1b0nacc1]

"we are limited to targets fairly near (i.e. within 200 miles or so) major airports. This in and of itself isn't a big limitation, but it does mean that Mt Rushmore (a very creative suggestion!) and its ilk are out of the question."

Small point: Mt. Rushmore is only about 150 miles from Rapid City South Dakota which has a major airport. Personally though one big problem is finding the target and being able to make an approach/attack run at it. Remember they only get one chance and no way to circle back and try again. Mt. Rushmore would be hard to spot from the air and then line up for a perfect shot since you would only be able to hit it from one direction.

The Twin Towers or the Pentagon though, they would be easy to see and could be hit from all sides.

Your point is taken re: Rapid City...my oversight

[DCC]

The Israeli Embassy.

Whatever the largest synagogue in the U.S. is.

[Mappa Mundorum]

I still like the multi-bridge attack on SF, especially if we are talking Al Qaeda, since multiple simultaneous similar targets is their signature move. I'd prioritize them Golden Gate, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge (which I forgot about the first time), Dunbarton, and finally Richmond-San Rafael.


(And, if they've managed at least the first four of those, then arranging for a massive pile-up or two on Highway 237 [which could very well happen on its own, given the traffic and panic] could make the paralysis even deeper...)

[f1b0nacc1]

I still like the multi-bridge attack on SF, especially if we are talking Al Qaeda, since multiple simultaneous similar targets is their signature move. I'd prioritize them Golden Gate, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge (which I forgot about the first time), Dunbarton, and finally Richmond-San Rafael.


(And, if they've managed at least the first four of those, then arranging for a massive pile-up or two on Highway 237 [which could very well happen on its own, given the traffic and panic] could make the paralysis even deeper...)

A few explosive-laden trucks detonated in key locations strike me as an excellent 'supplement' to this sort of attack. Take out a few key road junctions at the same time bridges are destroyed (and you might not even need planes for that, though they would probably be more 'showy') and you paralyze an urban area for days or more.

Since we are talking about alternate targets, perhaps alternate means of delivery would be worth thinking about as well...

[Gridley]

A few explosive-laden trucks detonated in key locations strike me as an excellent 'supplement' to this sort of attack. Take out a few key road junctions at the same time bridges are destroyed (and you might not even need planes for that, though they would probably be more 'showy') and you paralyze an urban area for days or more.

Since we are talking about alternate targets, perhaps alternate means of delivery would be worth thinking about as well...

Actually, I think using multiple delivery means, while greatly complicating the operation, would also greatly increase its effect.

They use airplanes... we ground all the airplanes.
They use trucks... we can't stop all road traffic. :-(

[f1b0nacc1]

Actually, I think using multiple delivery means, while greatly complicating the operation, would also greatly increase its effect.

They use airplanes... we ground all the airplanes.
They use trucks... we can't stop all road traffic. :-(

Of course you can track what is going into the trucks...fertilizer and diesel...though that becomes problematic after a while. I suspect that one change might be that the US would be a LOT nastier in terms of retaliation against suspected supporters. The Saudis got off very lightly (i.e. no consequences at all), but if you had 2-3 metro areas paralyzed for weeks and 10s of thousands of deaths (a possible outcome), I wonder if this would still have been the case. The problem with terrorism is that past a certain point, it become self-defeating...

[Gridley]

Of course you can track what is going into the trucks...fertilizer and diesel...though that becomes problematic after a while. I suspect that one change might be that the US would be a LOT nastier in terms of retaliation against suspected supporters. Inspecting trucks? Do you have any idea how many there are in the US, and how many normally carry some form of HazMat? When I was a medic we always considered the nightmare scenario a FedEx truck (you never know what's in those things...); you want to search/scan every package?


The Saudis got off very lightly (i.e. no consequences at all),

The Saudis always seem to get off lightly. They didn't get invaded by Iraq, they didn't get invaded by us... when was the last time something bad happened to them, anyway?

[zoomar]

Assuming you want to kill as many Americans as possible, strike at the cultural icons most cherished by Americans, do it at the same time as the NYC and Washington attacks, and if you are limited to the use of hijacked airliners or other "non-WMD" means, choices are actually fairly limited at 9AM Eastern Time on a weekday morning.

Football and baseball stadiums are out because they would be empty. Maybe Walt Disney World in Florida, but theme parks father west would be largely empty. Planes would just bounce off Mt Rushmore. The Space Needle and Gateway Arch are local monuments of larger regional cities, but they are hardly symbolic of the US in general. I tend to think that a more expansive 9/11 attack would best merely aim at other targets in NYC and DC, the centers of US economic and political power. Maybe try to slam an airliner into President Bush's Crawford Ranch, hit the Las Vegas Strip (people are there at all hours - and they are godless sinners), the Sears Tower in Chicago, and something in Hollywood.

[Koenig von Poposia]

I'm not sure what the force would need to be to take down the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State, but if terrorists could accomplish it, can you imagine the mess it would make all the way down the Columbia Gorge? Would it rival the Missoula Floods of the Ice Ages?

[f1b0nacc1]

Inspecting trucks? Do you have any idea how many there are in the US, and how many normally carry some form of HazMat? When I was a medic we always considered the nightmare scenario a FedEx truck (you never know what's in those things...); you want to search/scan every package?



The Saudis always seem to get off lightly. They didn't get invaded by Iraq, they didn't get invaded by us... when was the last time something bad happened to them, anyway?

I wasn't suggesting that the trucks be inspected, but keeping track of the fertilizer (diesel isn't practical) might be an option. Mass buys are already tracked to some extent.

As for the Saudis, they have used their money wisely, and bought politicians of both parties...this is the secret to their 'good luck'...sigh...