IP: Thoughts on this morning's events -- from someone who passed through the WTC 45 minutes

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap () eros-os org>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Thoughts on this morning's events
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:07:24 -0400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
>
> Dave:
>
> I hope and trust that all of those concerned for their loved ones will find
> them healthy and whole. If you are stuck at work, consider waiting a few
> hours to go home. Right now the roads are far more risk than staying put.
>
> As someone who passed through the WTC 45 minutes before the bomb went off
> years ago, and watched live as the second WTC tower was penetrated at 9:03,
> I wanted to inject some analysis into the current situation.
>
> This act goes well beyond terrorism as we have previously understood it.
> It's been repeatedly demonstrated to us that a single plane can be hijacked
> by a small, well-prepared group backed up by the right logistics support.
> Hijacking *five* planes, on a tight timetable, from multiple locations, to
> hit multiple targets within 90 minutes of each other is simply a completely
> different scale of organization. This act required logistic support and
> coordination involving hundreds of people, with major-league funding.
>
> Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly, and
> it's unlikely that a commercial pilot could be persuaded to fly into a
> building -- even at gunpoint. This means that the perpetrators needed to
> find five adequate pilots, which in turn means that they needed to know *in
> advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the
> pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know
> what to train for.
>
> Further, this is a very difficult attack to defend against. Suppose you
> *did* have a SAM (surface to air missile) handy in New York, and you saw the
> plane coming in time to use it. Do you shoot down a plane over a major
> metropolitan area, or do you let it crash? Which will cause greater
> destruction?  While you figure it out the opportunity passes.
>
> The attackers picked planes that were scheduled for cross-country flights,
> and would therefore be loaded with JP (airplane fuel). JP burns very hot,
> and is relatively easy to set on fire. Because these planes were loaded with
> fuel, they could be relied on to spread the fuel through the buildings on
> impact, maximizing damage and hampering rescue efforts.
>
> The planes were hijacked from major U.S. airports. Security at these
> airports may not be the tightest in the world, but neither is it sloppy. In
> this case, it was systematically beaten in several locations at once. This
> required time, money, thought, and preparation.
>
> What we have here is an attacker who has said not just "I can attack
> anything I want", but "I can attack lots of things, all at once, and not
> only can't you stop me but you can't even detect a very large organization
> that is doing the preparations -- even when we tip you off three weeks in
> advance!"
>
> On the whole, it seems fair to say that this entire action was carefully
> thought out, planned in careful detail, and (at least from the attacker's
> perspective) well executed. It required access to significant information
> resources.
>
> Obviously, the targets were picked for maximum symbolic value, but the
> Pentagon is a military target. That means that this *isn't* an act of
> terrorism; it is an act of war. If  indeed it proves that the attacker was
> bin-Laden, and if Taliban has been harboring him, it would not surprise me
> to see the United States take the view that Taliban has committed an
> undeclared act of war, and react accordingly.
>
> Finally, an observation on people's reactions. People here at Hopkins showed
> a range of initial reactions from dismay to tears to shock. But this quickly
> changed. The second reaction was universally anger. The sense of things --
> and we are talking here about basically pacifist academics, mind you -- is
> that if we can figure out who launched this thing we should take them out
> decisively, and it's just too damned bad if some country decides to get on
> the wrong side.
>
> If the goal of this attack was fear it has failed. Possibly, it has altered
> the American perception of terrorism in a basic way and convinced us that
> decisive action is the only response to terrorism. This lesson comes at too
> high a cost, and with personal tragic impact on too many people, and at a
> price that we should never have been forced to pay, to be sure. Still, if
> this incident teaches America to respond decisively to terrorism then
> perhaps those losses will mean something, and *some* small good may yet be
> recovered from this.
>
> Meanwhile, let us hope that the death toll is smaller than all our fears,
> and do what we can to help the victims and their loved ones come to terms as
> they can.
>
>
> Jonathan S. Shapiro



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/