Why Didn't Al-Qaeda Target The Statue of Liberty?

ok question here, 9/11 whilist it was the biggest disaster in modern history (excluding both world wars)!!

but picture yourself as a terrorist, if you want to have a massive effect on america you go for the heart.

the statue of liberty represents americas freedom and what it stands for, so why didn't they just go for the gugular and aim for that?

you cannot re-build the statue of liberty but you can re-build and remember the lifes of those lost at ground zero.

so really my question to americans, if on 9/11 a plane went into the statue of liberty would it have more of an effect on you 5 years on (present date) than it still does now?

sorry for bringing this up if its a touchy subject.





[edit on 30-7-2006 by st3ve_o]

Well, here's my personal opinion on why they wouldn't.

The Statue of Liberty represents something "good" about America. "Bring us your huddled masses" and open-arms and goodwill and let's wave a flag because this is a wonderful place. If you target a symbol of something "good" in your enemy, you're just making yourself look real evil.

If you target something that is viewed as "bad" about America, then you're setting yourself up as a hero. So they chose the financial center (of the evil capitalist pigs) and the Pentagon, or war machine (of the evil imperialistic pigs).

See how it works?

While it is true to say if they attacked the statue of liberty it would make a statement against the USA it would not have had the same effect as 9/11 because the loss of life would have been minimal.

The terrorists agenda is to create terror through loss of life so that they can forward their political,religious beliefs,therefore they attacked the twin towers to create loss of life and the Pentagon because of its military significance.

st3ve_o,

I beleive you have raised a fair point. But by destroying the statue of liberty you are destroying only a statue without any financial repercussions. I beleive the US governments staged events on 911 were to also make a financial impact all over the economy instead of just a symbolic one.

I think if they wanted to do it properly, then they would have hit the white house first, but then the people orchestrating the attacks would have been in harms way so it didnt happen.

In regard ti symbolic targets, why not Sears Tower, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or even that place where they keep all that gold bullion (not sure of the name as Im an Aussie), or why not even the UN building in New York?

As a Brit i'm not sure i can answer this one, except with my best guess.

Either one (WTC or Statue of Liberty) would have made a massive impact on the US so i'm not sure whether it really matters which one got hit. That said, maybe there would have been less killed and injured if the statue had been hit?

For the conspiracy minded, what would anyone have gained from hitting the statue? Many gained from the dodgy dealings prior to and after the WTC coming down.

CX.

um mabye becuase its a statue! WTF is a blown up statue gonna do to plps minds?? and wasnt the statue of liberty made by some french guy or something

[edit on 30-7-2006 by mega_deth]

I doubt Al-Qaeda gave a **** about it being a symbol of freedom and liberty. There are probably 2 main reasons:

1. Al-Qaeda wanted to hurt US symbols of power

2. the statue is relatively small, and would have needed a good pilot to hit it

I see you guys are still not femilar with just how these acts became to be:
www.911research.com...

because it was designed and built by the french

well its like that imo...i fthey crashed a plane into ms liberty...all u have is a bunch of airline passengers in the sea...a greater chance of survivors i might add and pieces of metal and paint...boohoo

its like burning the american flag...no big deal...its appaling but...so what...

crash 2 planes into the wtc and u get drama...no disrespect to the fallen heroes of 911...i mean u get people running for their lives down in the street, uve got dead employees...people jumping off the building as a lesser of 2 evils...basically more dead and innocent americans...

catch my drift...peace...

I'm going with moley on this one.

The statue of liberty, while certainly high profile, and certainly big by statue standards, is actually small when compared to the other targets.

The other targets were actual buildings. The WTC towers were over 1,000 feet tall, and quite wide. The Pentagon, while certainly not very tall, is also extraordinarily wide.

The statue of liberty on the other hand, again, big by statue standards, would be EXTREMELY difficult to knock a plane into.

Yes, the statue was a gift from the People of France and designed by Eiffel.

But I don't think that had anything to do with it. If they had attacked the statue, the absolute most people who would die would be a couple of hundred. They killed thousands by attacking the WTC.

well, there 2 Simple answers

1. the same reason alqaeda didnt target the US national monument, because it wouldnt of killed hardly anyone.


2. the same reason alqaeda didnt target the WTC's, or Pentagon. for them to target the statue, they would of had to of been the 'sole' planners and executioners of the sept11 attacks. which i think clearly they were not.

Imho its simply explained with either of the following grouping of 3 words:

"no media coverage" or "no shock value"

If the statue of liberty was attacked, you wouldn't have had camera's and a couple million people directly witnessing the event.

Although I don't believe the attacks were staged, I agree that it was an attack intended to cripple the economy.
The Statue of Liberty being destroyed would motivate many to war, whereas the financial arena being hit tears at the fabric of America. If everyone feels the repurcussions, it can be demoralizing.

The statue is just a symbol, the buildings that were hit had an impact on the country, and those it relates with (allies).