Structural Damage to the Financial District

An anonymous submitter sent in a couple of links to damage reports on the World Trade Center complex - a nifty 3D map of the center and surrounding areas showing which buildings have been damaged or destroyed, and a discussion of how exactly they're going to excavate the below-ground area of the complex considering that it is below sea level.

Comments

"Nifty"???

[tswinzig]

Yeah, that map showing the destruction of one of America's greatest symbols sure is "nifty"!

Re:"Nifty"???

[MarkusQ]

Shit like this happens daily in some countries, huge losses of innocent civilian lives. I find the fact that you are so disgusted about this, and not about that horribly disturbing. You aren't mourning the dead at all, (unless maybe you somehow knew some people affected by it), you're mourning the loss of our feeling of invulnerability.

Very well put. No one here seemed to care much about the 20000 people burried under rubble in India back in January (just to pick one example). To me, the disconnect is far more disturbing than the actual deaths; I would hope that a country with as much weapontry as we have could aford a bit more perspective.

-- MarkusQ

How much risk would be 'too much'?

[Midnight Ryder]

There's a problem with your idea that they should have taken "more risk" in finding people. To start off with, as horible it is to say this, most of the people in the main buildings were instant pancakes - they had a 5,000 ton building fall on them. Most of the rescue workers seem to know this, based on reports (but that doesn't mean they give up looking.) There's very little hope of having found survivors - even finding an intact body is rather difficult most of the time (again, basing this on stuff comming out of there that I've read.) But, it's something they are risking thier lives to do - it's bad enough that some rescuers took to doing things like writing thier name and SSN# on thier arms, in case they do get killed. If they take any more risks, the loss of life gets even higher for the rescuers. There have already been a couple of incidents (firemen falling down into a deep pit is a good example - luckly, none were injured to badly.) There's just too little hope of survivors. As for citequing thier methods - well, when you go down there and start picking up concrete and steel looking for survivors, I'll be more impressed with your expertise.

The underground areas are already being worked on. There's also been some reports from that area that I've read - yes, they are trying the underground areas already, and have been since the first day. Fucking gruesom. The stench alone would be enough to make most people incapable of working in there.

Lighten up

[MarkusQ]

Yeah, that map showing the destruction of one of America's greatest symbols sure is "nifty"!

Get some perspective please. Ten thousand Americans die every day. I lot of them are killed by automobiles, but I can still say "that's a nifty car"; more of them are killed by diet related problems, but I can still say that I know a place that serves nifty deserts.

Sorrow is one thing; the sappy, uber-solemn milking of "our national grief" that the media is pumping out to manipulate us into going out and killing a bunch more people is quite another; and I, for one, want no part of it.

-- MarkusQ

Absent logic.

[MarkusQ]

Your response illustrates perfectly the sort of "emotional reasoning" to which I am objecting. For example:

Um, there's a difference between 6,000 people dying in accidents and 6,000 people being intentionally murdered (not to mention the economic cost).

I would argue that there is little or no difference to the people who die. I for one, do not expect to have fundamentally different feelings about my death based on whether if it is brought about by a drunk driver or a terrorist. In fact, I expect to be dead.

To the living (or perhaps in this context it would be better to say "To the yet to die") there is, I would agree, a great deal of difference. I am for example, far, far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist (assuming of course that a smoker doesn't get me with second hand smoke first). Furthermore, there are many more steps I can take to protect myself from these more likely threats, and almost none of them involve letting the media work my up to a blood lust so that I sanction more senseless killing. But I doubt that was your point.

Just out of curiosity, how many have to die for you to think it's important? Another 10 jumbo jets? We know the terrorists are actively trying to get nuclear weapons. It should be pretty clear that they don't care how much damage they do or how many people they kill. How many need to die? Would a nuke killing 5 million people be enough for you?

This seems to me utter blather. I object to using the deaths of some innocents to justify killing more innocents; you "rebut" by asking how many more people I want to die, as if I were the one screaming for blood. In case you still don't get it:

I don't think killing innocent people is a good idea.

I have no objection to apprehending the culprits, including their support staff, charging them with murder and, if they are convicted, imprisoning or executing them to prevent further atrocities. This is a far cry from declaring "war on Afganastan" or "nuking 5 million people."

Guess what -- sometimes there are more important things in life than how soon you get your shiny new video game.

I have no idea where this came from. In point of fact, I have never owned a video game, shiny or dull, new or used. And even if I had, I expect that I would still object to being badgered into attacking a nation of several million poor people on the basis of the alleged actions of one wealthy nut case and his misguided followers.

-- MarkusQ