Posted By:
JoannSome comments on the exchange above on the difference between living in NYC and living inland.
Maybe I will be the first and only one to admit this, but as someone living in the Midwest I don't think I have the same fear or appreciation of the threat as those that live in the high-target areas.
And before I get blasted with responses and emails, let me be clear in saying I was horrified that day as was everyone. I don't think anyone doesn't "get it" so to speak - just as, as Jeff said, a resident of NYC could feel for the victims in OKC. So it's not that I am indifferent to it.
But in my everyday life, I honestly don't really fear for my safety because of a terrorist attack. I am not sure that the very visceral sense of constant exposure can resonate with people on the interior the same way it does for those in the more at-risk cities.
I think David ctown is right in that the targets that day were symbolic and not designed necessarily to maximize casualties, and most symbolic targets tend to be on the coasts and/or in big cities.
The WTC was the most prominent symbol of US capitalism and economic advancement. The fact that it was filled with people was probably at least partly a coincidence. They didn't fly into it at 4:00 a.m. because I don't think there are a lot of planes flying anywhere into the area at 4:00 a.m.
They picked the targets, times and flights based on the airline schedules, not the work habits of Manhattanites. They intentionally picked cross-country flights because they would naturally have the most fuel onboard. They didn't take the very first flights out of NY (that would have left more around 5:30 or 6:00 a.m.) because they wanted to go through security at smaller airports and then catch connections out of NYC. So the fact that they hit around 9:00 a.m. was probably more because of logistics, not intent. In fact, I think at the time the commentary was that it was lucky it was before 9:00 and not later in the morning because once the WTC got humming there may be as many as 50,000 people in the towers.
Also, the PA flight was destined for either the White House or Capitol. Both are very much symbols of the US, and definitely not places where maximum number of deaths would be a priority. Same with the Pentagon.
So I think there is a good argument to be made that symbolic targets are important to them - or at least some combination of symbolism, number of people killed, and overall dramatic effect - and that any future incident would be similary targeted.
This thinking would tend to concentrate targets along the coast, and to recognizable structures or places. Just based on that, I don't know if a Midwesterner can really stand in the shoes of a New Yorker in terms of thinking that any hour of any day you could be in danger just by going to work.
Not saying it's right or wrong or good or bad - just that it's probably reality until they hit something like Toledo or Tulsa or Pierre or Muskegon or Little Rock. Now THAT would equally and collectively scare the crap out of all of us b/c it would introduce the factor of randomness of target.
Joann