Forwarded from: Robert G. Ferrell <rferrellat_private> > The implications of the damage at the WTC are in no way overstated. > All infrastructure is regional. And the main switching station in > NYC was a key facility, the loss of which the US national security > community has never before had to deal with -- this comes directly > from the director of the National Communications System. What I don't get is why, knowing from past events and copious intelligence indications that the WTC was going to be a major target because it symbolizes the American military-industrial complex in the minds of some terrorist groups, so much of the 'regional infrastructure' was located there. Was it arrogance, stupidity, or ignorance? "Because it was convenient" certainly doesn't hold any water, either. I would have thought that after the bombing in 1993 the authorities would have distributed much of the existing WTC communications infrastructure, or at least dramatically increased the redundancy and failover capabilities thereof. At any rate, it should have been fairly obvious that placing mission-critical systems in a declared terrorist target was, to say the least, a Bad Thing. Bomb me once, shame on you. Bomb me twice, shame on me. RGF Robert G. Ferrell rferrellat_private http://rferrell.home.texas.net/rgflit.html - ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org To unsubscribe email majordomoat_private with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 01:48:39 PST