Al Qaeda's Selection of Targets

[gumboot]

Just wanted some help,

I am after specific information from Al Qaeda regarding the fundamental intentions of the 9/11 attacks and in particular the reason for selecting each individual target.

I know what the answer to both of these is, of course, however I'm wondering if there's any interrogation transcript, video or similar in with members of Al Qaeda explain it in their own words.

It is Dr Griffin's claim that Al Qaeda's aim in attacking the Pentagon was to cause as much damage as possible, and to kill senior military commanders. Putting aside the problem with Dr Griffin asserting the aims of an attack that he doesn't even believe occurred, the best way to undercut his argument is with the words of Al Qaeda themselves.

The 9/11 Commission Report only brushes over the actual selection process, and although it identifies Osama Bin Laden as the one that wanted the Pentagon to be hit, it does not go into any more detail than that.

While we're at it, do any military folks know of any publicly available source that identifies the location of key offices inside the Pentagon?

-Gumboot

 

[Reheat]

Gumboot, check PM's.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't have a source off hand, but it won't be hard to find. But basically it was Osma and Atta that picked out the targets. They wanted one to represent the symbol of wealth and chose the WTC. They wanted one that represented a symbol of military might (Pentagon) and one that represented the legislation that helped to support Israel (Capitol building). Osama had also wanted to keep the White House on the list as well as it is a political symbol.

I believe Osama originally wanted the attacks much earlier in mid 2000 because he was angry about Sharon visiting a holy site, but the hijackers hadn't started their training yet.

 

[Dog Town]

I don't have a source off hand, but it won't be hard to find. But basically it was Osma and Atta that picked out the targets. They wanted one to represent the symbol of wealth and chose the WTC. They wanted one that represented a symbol of military might (Pentagon) and one that represented the legislation that helped to support Israel (Capitol building). Osama had also wanted to keep the White House on the list as well as it is a political symbol.

I believe Osama originally wanted the attacks much earlier in mid 2000 because he was angry about Sharon visiting a holy site, but the hijackers hadn't started their training yet.

*cough * KSM...!

 

[Reheat]

I think one of their early selections was a Nuke Power Plant, but that was eliminated because they felt the Power Plants would be too well defended and too hardened to be worthwhile. I can't find a specific reference at this time, but I believe that came from KSM. Here are some other good discussions on the subject.....

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/newjournal/articles/stungis.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224099/

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/fal07/larribau.html

 

[chillzero]

I think it was Crazy Chainsaw who made an observation a while back about what the targets had in common. That being the fact that they are huge and relatively easily seen from the air. It makes sense to me that this would be a major factor, and they may not have necessarily considered the extent of loss of life involved at each site.

It also makes me wonder what other targets they might have picked. If I wanted to attack a major symbol of the USA, it would probably be the Statue of Liberty. We read so much about how immigrants saw it on first arriving, and the huge meaning it holds for many in the USA. It may be that it was too difficult a target to attack in the manner chosen - I don't know.

However, the WTC would have been very close behind it on this list - with the Pentagon and the White House. I don't understand why anyone would question the targetting of these places.

Regardless of whether they were military centres or not, and how many or who might be killed there, they seem to me to be obvious targets - simply because there can't be many people in the entire world who have not heard of them. You make a bigger impact by striking at the things people hold familiar. Decades from now people will still talk about how the New York skyline has been altered - one of the most publicised skylines I know of. There was no danger that anyone being told of the attacks that day would say "Oh? Where's that?".

 

[timhau]

It also makes me wonder what other targets they might have picked. If I wanted to attack a major symbol of the USA, it would probably be the Statue of Liberty. We read so much about how immigrants saw it on first arriving, and the huge meaning it holds for many in the USA. It may be that it was too difficult a target to attack in the manner chosen - I don't know.

However, the WTC would have been very close behind it on this list - with the Pentagon and the White House. I don't understand why anyone would question the targetting of these places.

Were the WTC towers and Pentagon really that close to the top of the list, if you'd want to make hits on targets that had high symbolic value for Americans? What about the Capitol? Or the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings? If you destroyed those two, we'd likely never get anything comparable back -- they're big and beautiful, and while I never got to see the WTC towers from up close, I assume they were impressive mainly because of the humongous size.

 

[chillzero]

Were the WTC towers and Pentagon really that close to the top of the list, if you'd want to make hits on targets that had high symbolic value for Americans? What about the Capitol? Or the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings? If you destroyed those two, we'd likely never get anything comparable back -- they're big and beautiful, and while I never got to see the WTC towers from up close, I assume they were impressive mainly because of the humongous size.

I am not american, and am admittedly quite ignorant of much about the USA.

I have heard of Capitol Hill. I don't know if there is a building there, or what it looks like. I could have included the Empire State Building in my list, but I know nothing about the Chrysler building (I have heard of it, but that's all).

As a self-confessed US-ignoramus, however, I know exactly what the WTC, Pentagon, White House, Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building look like. I know where they are. I know how important they are. They are each symbolic of things about America. True, there probably are other targets just as relevant, however, for me at least, these are the best known buildings. The New York skyline is an image that was much photographed, sold on posters, T-shirts, and used in films. I couldn't tell you much about the skyline of any other city.

I still find that there are films which were released prior to the event, that will impact me by remembering the change. The 1970's version of King Kong used the towers instead of the original Empire State Building, for example. Every time I see the skyline, old and new, it makes me pause for a moment and remember. I don't like the fact that the terrorists succeeded in making this extent of an impact, but I remember it constantly nonetheless.

ETA: I see your point about being symbolic to Americans. I was speaking about a more global impact. I couldn't answer as to what would be most symbolic or important to Americans, though I can't imagine the targets were far down that list either.

 

[SDC]

Were the WTC towers and Pentagon really that close to the top of the list, if you'd want to make hits on targets that had high symbolic value for Americans? What about the Capitol? Or the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings? If you destroyed those two, we'd likely never get anything comparable back -- they're big and beautiful, and while I never got to see the WTC towers from up close, I assume they were impressive mainly because of the humongous size.

A couple of New Yorker comments.

Chrysler building is indeed beautiful, but it actually isn't so well known nor regarded as an important landmark. (It's the topic of a good joke in "The Producers," though.)

WTC was in the historic Wall Street area, where, as is well known, all financial plans are made. Anyhow, it was a blow at an obvious symbol of "Wall Street" in the figurative sense.

Statue of Liberty, true... Maybe it was passed over because it's somewhat isolated (on another island in the harbor), there probably wouldn't be high casualties, and no significant "operations" of the American empire (finance, war, politics) would suffer.

Would it be wrong, classless, and tasteless for me to wish they had hit Yankee Stadium?

Just my guesses.

 

[Cuddles]

Statue of Liberty, true... Maybe it was passed over because it's somewhat isolated (on another island in the harbor), there probably wouldn't be high casualties, and no significant "operations" of the American empire (finance, war, politics) would suffer.

And when it comes down to it, it's French.

 

[Max Photon]

US Military Deception (MILDEC) used CARVER Target Analysis to select the WTC towers

Just wanted some help,

I am after specific information from Al Qaeda regarding the fundamental intentions of the 9/11 attacks and in particular the reason for selecting each individual target.

I know what the answer to both of these is, of course, however I'm wondering if there's any interrogation transcript, video or similar in with members of Al Qaeda explain it in their own words.

It is Dr Griffin's claim that Al Qaeda's aim in attacking the Pentagon was to cause as much damage as possible, and to kill senior military commanders. Putting aside the problem with Dr Griffin asserting the aims of an attack that he doesn't even believe occurred, the best way to undercut his argument is with the words of Al Qaeda themselves.

The 9/11 Commission Report only brushes over the actual selection process, and although it identifies Osama Bin Laden as the one that wanted the Pentagon to be hit, it does not go into any more detail than that.

While we're at it, do any military folks know of any publicly available source that identifies the location of key offices inside the Pentagon?

-Gumboot

U.S. Military Deception Planners (MILDEC) used long-established target selection methods.

CARVER Target Analysis was used.

CARVER ranks possible targets by target value.

Targets with the highest target value (target value is everything) were selected.

The World Trade Center towers had the highest target value.

The towers provided the maximum and longest-sustained psychological damage of all possible targets.

Simply put, the collapse of such (seemingly) solid structures created a mind-magnitude 9.0 in Terra-Firma land.


YOU are the ultimate target.


It is clear - reading your posts, and the posts of Pomeroo, Mikillini, and all the usual suspects - that MILDEC has scored direct hits.

And the damage is a 10 on the CARVER scale - irreparable.


Nice shootin' MILDEC!


Max


P.S. Gumboot, you also might like to know that Al-Qaeda is a pseudo-gang, effortlessly induced by control engineers.

Control engineers induce pseudo-gangs in many domains, and put them to work. (Bond speculators are a perfect example.)


Al-Qaeda is a synthetic gang.

Al-Qaeda is an illusion.


This really is Counter-Insurgency 101.


Wake up.

* * *

 

[Sabrina]

You know... I could go into just how many wrong things there are with Max's statement there.... but I think I'd rather sit back and marvel at the sheer lunacy.

 

[twinstead]

You know... I could go into just how many wrong things there are with Max's statement there.... but I think I'd rather sit back and marvel at the sheer lunacy.

It is breathtaking indeed. Max is just making things up as he goes along.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I think it was Crazy Chainsaw who made an observation a while back about what the targets had in common. That being the fact that they are huge and relatively easily seen from the air. It makes sense to me that this would be a major factor, and they may not have necessarily considered the extent of loss of life involved at each site.

Capitol Hill (which really isn't much of a hill) has this on it:



That might be a bit more recognizable to you. It's basically the American "Parliament".

It also makes me wonder what other targets they might have picked. If I wanted to attack a major symbol of the USA, it would probably be the Statue of Liberty. We read so much about how immigrants saw it on first arriving, and the huge meaning it holds for many in the USA. It may be that it was too difficult a target to attack in the manner chosen - I don't know.

You have to understand that the Statue of Liberty is really a rather minor landmark, in terms of size, in comparison with the other major ones around it. It often seems so monumental in pictures because the camera is positioned right up to it, usually with the Manhattan skyline in the background, but there's nothing in close proximity to give it scale. The statue itself is only about 45 meters high. And though it does have a lot of symbolic meaning for America, I think a lot of people would be scratching their heads if terrorists had crashed a plane into it on 9/11, especially since casualties (not counting the plane's passengers) would likely have been zero.

However, the WTC would have been very close behind it on this list - with the Pentagon and the White House. I don't understand why anyone would question the targetting of these places.

Regardless of whether they were military centres or not, and how many or who might be killed there, they seem to me to be obvious targets - simply because there can't be many people in the entire world who have not heard of them. You make a bigger impact by striking at the things people hold familiar. Decades from now people will still talk about how the New York skyline has been altered - one of the most publicised skylines I know of. There was no danger that anyone being told of the attacks that day would say "Oh? Where's that?".

Indeed. It should also be considered that the Twin Towers had been a target of terrorists for quite some time prior to 9/11.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Hmmm...

It seems the resident crazies are becoming restless, even a bit belligerent.

Well, you know what drives crazies even crazier? Being ignored. So that's what's happening to Max. I invite others to do the same.

 

[Dave Rogers]

U.S. Military Deception Planners (MILDEC) used long-established target selection methods.

CARVER Target Analysis was used.

CARVER ranks possible targets by target value.

Well, that just about wraps it up for the OCT, because everybody knows al-Qaeda understands nothing about target value and just picks its targets by rolling sheep's knuckles.

Stick to phreako-thermitomics, Max, you don't belong this close to reality.

Dave

 

[Hyperviolet]

U.S. Military Deception Planners (MILDEC) used long-established target selection methods.

CARVER Target Analysis was used.

CARVER ranks possible targets by target value.

Targets with the highest target value (target value is everything) were selected.

The World Trade Center towers had the highest target value.

The towers provided the maximum and longest-sustained psychological damage of all possible targets.

Simply put, the collapse of such (seemingly) solid structures created a mind-magnitude 9.0 in Terra-Firma land.


YOU are the ultimate target.


It is clear - reading your posts, and the posts of Pomeroo, Mikillini, and all the usual suspects - that MILDEC has scored direct hits.

And the damage is a 10 on the CARVER scale - irreparable.


Nice shootin' MILDEC!


Max


P.S. Gumboot, you also might like to know that Al-Qaeda is a pseudo-gang, effortlessly induced by control engineers.

Control engineers induce pseudo-gangs in many domains, and put them to work. (Bond speculators are a perfect example.)


Al-Qaeda is a synthetic gang.

Al-Qaeda is an illusion.


This really is Counter-Insurgency 101.


Wake up.

* * *

That's a lovely spiel, Max. Now all you have to do is prove it.

 

[timhau]

A couple of New Yorker comments.

Chrysler building is indeed beautiful, but it actually isn't so well known nor regarded as an important landmark. (It's the topic of a good joke in "The Producers," though.)

OK. I just happen to love the building myself. I've also noticed that even though many people don't know what the Chrysler Building is, when I describe the top they'll always go 'Oh, *that* one.' Anyway, maybe it isn't that big a symbol. Is the ESB?

Statue of Liberty, true... Maybe it was passed over because it's somewhat isolated (on another island in the harbor), there probably wouldn't be high casualties, and no significant "operations" of the American empire (finance, war, politics) would suffer.

It's also probably a pretty tough target to hit.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

It's also probably a pretty tough target to hit.

That could be said about any specific building on the NYC skyline other than the WTC or the Empire State building.

 

[timhau]

That could be said about any specific building on the NYC skyline other than the WTC or the Empire State building.

Yeah, but the Statue of Liberty is pretty small (comparatively speaking) and if you miss it by a little, you hit water. If you try to hit, say, the Woolworth Building, miss by a block and you'll still cause unbelievable havoc.