You find the strangest things when you read...

[katster]

Actual anti-WTC ad placed in the New York Times on May 2, 1968. (Warning: could be very highly triggering for several people in regards to similarities to the actual fate of the towers.)

Eerie, isn't it?

I've just finished City in the Sky, which is about the rise and fall of WTC. It's an interesting book.

Comments

[buran.livejournal.com]

Would you have noticed if someone had published an advertisement of a car wreck caused by someone backing out of a driveway without looking first, and then someone crashed the exact same way 30 years later?

I bet not.

But no, just because it's a PLANE CRASH, a big deal is made of it …

[katster.livejournal.com]

Did I do something to offend you?

I'm not entirely sure the comparison is apt. The number of crashes involving automobiles is a few orders of magnitude larger than the crashes involving planes, which might be part of the reason a big deal is made about plane crashes. Also, the impact of a simple traffic accident at slow speeds is relatively minor in comparison to the situation postulated by the ad I posted.

Besides, Wien, the guy who placed the ad, was actually warning of an accidental hit, much like the bomber that hit the Empire State Building, or the Argentinian flight that came within ninety seconds of hitting WTC in the eighties.

I just found the similarity to that day somewhat eerie. That's all. It's simply the 'stopped clock right twice a day' phenomenon, and with hindsight it feels as if Wien was prescient even if he wasn't actually. I merely posted it because I found it interesting.

I was not intending to give offense.

-kat

[buran.livejournal.com]

Oh, no you didn't, I'm sorry it came out that way. Don't worry!

Mostly meant to comment on how the media fixates on things sometimes.

We're still good, I hope.

[katster.livejournal.com]

Ack, I meant to respond to this earlier.

Anyway, yeah, we're still good. :)

-kat