One of the depressing facts of modern journalism is that few reporters do more than follow the story developed by others with no independent inquiry. Bush’s story of foiling an attack on the “Liberty” Tower in LA (633 W. Fifth St., now the US Bank Tower and formerly the Library Tower because it’s across the street from the LA Central Library).
For those unfamiliar with the topography of downtown Los Angeles, the US Bank Tower sits at the southern foot of Bunker Hill, which rises about 50 feet above 5th St. In a circumference of 6 blocks or so, there are at least a dozen buildings of 40 stories or more on all sides of the tower. True, the building itself is taller than the surrounding buildings, but often only by 10 stories or so. There is no “unprotected” side as there was in the World Trade Center. Hitting the building where it could really do some damage would be a challenge for an experienced fighter pilot, let alone for a minimally-trained crew on a suicide mission with a big plane.
This is not to say that signficant damage of a plane hitting downtown Los Angeles is impossible, but the impracticality of the plan should give us some insight into the amateurish nature of the alleged conspirators.
Or into the nature of a lying Bush Adminstration makin’ shit up again.
I can think of a dozen more effective attacks on the LA infrastructure that would wreak far more damage than trying to fly an airplane into a tallish building surrounded by many buildings which are equally as tall. This should have been discussed at least by LA-based journalists instead of being accepted at face value as another World Trade Center attack. Of course, that also diminishes the nature of the threat that such conspiracies pose–as though any hijacker is ever going to be able to take over a domestic US plane without being torn to shreds by the passengers, even if some of them get killed.
Obvious and effective attacks on LA would include blowing up the aqueduct that supplies LA with most of its water or demolishing the 4-level freeway interchange in downtown LA , something that would create gridlock for months. These are not my ideas, they’ve been discussed by many elsewhere and unquestionably would be in the contingency plans for the city and county.
Oh, “about that L.A. terror plot…”
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a top member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she has no information to support White House claims that its secret wiretapping helped thwart a 2002 Los Angeles terrorist attack.
I agree with Joe. It seems that LAX is the preferred target of discerning criminal whackos. Every few years there’s news of attacks at the international terminal, and in 1999 (under the Clinton Administation), the FBI foiled a major terrorist plot whose object was LAX.
I, too, have heard people discussing relatively easy ways to bring Los Angeles to its knees, by hitting it where it’s weakest. These include cutting off the water supply (blow up the aqueduct, poison the water with drugs, toxic chemicals, radioactivity); destroying the transportation infrastructure (detonate bombs in the self-storage facilities that are conveniently located under all the major freeways); take advantage of our lack of healthcare (import a few rats infected with deadly antibiotic-resistant bubonic plague, as have been found in the last decade in Asia).
Who is the terrorist? In this case, the one who threatens us with terror.
Terror has always been a weapon of the state. To allow it maximum freedom to excert maximum power the state always finds the enemy without and the enemmy within. these two ploys always seem to rally the patriots round the flag to the detriment of our individual freedoms.