I think a nuclear power plant would have done more dammage.
2006-08-11 18:07:02 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
no, it probably would not have done as much damage. Hitting a nuclear power plant wouldn't have set off a nuclear explosion. They are geared so it is pretty much impossible for them to explode, like a coal-burning power plant. It would shake the energy grid, but there would be no nuclear explosion. The WTC had more people in them, too.
2006-08-11 18:13:21 · answer #1 · answered by n/a 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to the 9/11 Commission, Atta originally wanted to hit a nuclear power plant. He thought they were guarded by missiles so he choose the WTC. But the was no air defense at any nuclear plant then and there still isn't any now. As for it causing damage, if you hit and and take out the power grid and the backup generators you would create a meltdown.
2006-08-12 01:57:39 · answer #2 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After 9/11 the US did some research to see what would happen if someone crashed a plane into a nuclear power plant. At Idaho National Lab they constructed an experiment where they flew a jet plane into a slab of concrete as thick as a typical reactor containment dome. The result was impressive. The fuselage crumpled like a pop can. There was little damage to concrete.
Here is the best video of it I could find:http://www.askmen.com/video/2005_sep/sep07_phantom_jet.html
I have seen better.
2006-08-12 21:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by sparrowhawk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many Jewish people live by nuclear power plants. Believe one major reason this target was chosen was because of the the amount of Jewish people that live and work in that area. This may have been a bonus to motivate one group of special forces.
2006-08-12 01:28:54 · answer #4 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The terrorists were looking to "cripple" the country. They hit the Pentagon (our nation's defense), and they saw WTC as our financial epicenter. But they didn't realize that so much is on computers, and that a lot of WTC was leased by businesses not really having anything to do with financial matters. They were just symbols, and they wanted to shatter our spirit. They failed miserably. . .
2006-08-12 01:30:18 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the WTC is the business(money) central of the United States
2006-08-12 02:06:53 · answer #6 · answered by david h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not as easy to target a plant, you have to turn the coolant off somehow to damage the nuclear core. You can't just fly it into the stack and expect nuclear meltdown. A tower is easier.
2006-08-12 01:09:13 · answer #7 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there are plenty of targets. this happened to be a 'fund raiser' more than anything else, and the wtc was a public thing with enough people in it to get the paranioa going. the 'terrorists' wanted us afraid, and they wanted us to have a lot of money generating sympathy for the airlines, the wtc, the cia, the retiring democrate majority leader and president (tom daschell & slick willie clinton) who planned it..
2006-08-12 01:35:02 · answer #8 · answered by mr.phattphatt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Physically yes, but the psychological and emotional damage caused by destroying one of the most representative icons of power and freedom is by far much worst than 10 nuclear explotions.
2006-08-12 01:11:23 · answer #9 · answered by Lil' Gay Monster 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The World trade centre was just as it's name implyed a symbol of trade around the World. It's destruction or at least an attack on it represented outrage at World business practises and the United States in particular.
2006-08-12 02:06:29 · answer #10 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋