Reply #63: Just read it.

[Peak_Oil]

I think it's got some good logic behind it, and very little compassion for the janitors who were working on 93rd floor of WTC1 who were burned to death with 1000 degree jet fuel. There were totally innocent people there. There were secretaries working for Cantor Fitzgerald who greeted the father of somebody I knew when I was working this horrible boilerroom job in an office building elsewhere in the US. This guy I knew, he had connections that could get him a much better job. His dad hooked him up with a job doing something for the bond desk at CF. He had been a yacht broker where I live for a while until he got that job. Nice job, good benefits, way better than the bullshit we were dealing with at this horrible boilerroom telemarketing job.

Good luck, dude! Hope it works out for you!

As it happens, he and his dad died together that day. They were burned to death with jet fuel. Every once in a blue moon I wonder if he jumped instead of burning to death. It's not very often, maybe once or twice a year. I bet his mom thinks about that every five minutes, and will do so for the rest of her life.

If you're trying to tell me that he was working in a LEGITIMATE military target that could be expected to be hit by military force, then you are full of the shittiest shit there ever was. And if you believe that you're RIGHT in saying that this guy died because of ANYTHING, then there's other words for that. We all collectively share the blame for being 5% of the world population and consuming 25% or more of the Earth's resources. But to say that he in particular is guilty of something or could have reasonably expected to be attacked in a military manner because of the job he had as an assistant bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald in a big office building is just finger-pointing.

The key to this whole thing is the word legitimate. I believe that this attack was not on a legitimate military target, and thus is a horrible tragedy performed by depraved evil opponents of civilization itself. By legitimizing the attack on this civilian office building, I think you're trying to turn my friend into a casualty of war.

We clashed last night on a fairly theoretical point, but I take this issue very personally.

In my opinion, if you say that this attack was performed on a LEGITIMATE military target, you have supported terrorist attacks on civilian office buildings. If you say that this attack was performed on a target that was not a LEGITIMATE military target, then this was a national tragedy that should be mourned.

I understand that WTC1 and WTC2 were selected for these attacks (by somebody). I understand that military forces were (probably)used to perform these attacks. As a totally separate issue, these forces chose targets for their attacks.

The Pentagon was a legitimate military target.

By extreme contrast, the civilian office buildings WTC1 and WTC2 are not legitimate military targets. Have I made my position crystal clear?

That said, please answer this question.

Were the 9-11-01 attacks on the WTC buildings 1 and 2 performed on LEGITIMATE military targets?

Please answer Yes or No.