From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Aug 16 2008 - 08:52:12 EDT
> One of the most interesting things about 9/11 was the ideological "public relations" reference to the "attack on the Twin Towers". But these were the WORLD > TRADE TOWERS. Now why pick the World Trade Towers? Why not the Empire State Building? What was the real significance? To my knowledge, this has > never been discussed. Hi Jurriaan: A minor point first: the expression "Twin Towers" as a popular synonym for the World Trade Center was in common usage long before 9/11 (at least in NYC). The question which you say hasn't been discussed may not have been discussed at length here on OPE-L (I don't recall) but it has certainly been discussed at length elsewhere - from academic journals, to coffee shops, and pubs. The answer to your question, of course, should be clear: the WTC had greater symbolic significance than the Empire State Building. Ironically, it was a *symbol* of the US Empire, especially its financial (and imperialist) side. In terms of actual significance, it had lesser importance - just in NYC - than Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. - though, of course, the WTC was an easier target. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2008 - 00:00:07 EDT