No, the WTC wasn't "bombed" in the sense that a purpose-built bomb wasn't used in each of the buildings. But the distinction is fine, and if you take the act separately from the, um, collateral damage caused - the destruction of the aeroplane and the deaths of the passengers in each case - it was indeed a bombing. What were those planes if they weren't improvised cruise missiles?

And the argument used to support the use of "ground zero" in Faldage's link - that it is concise and that everyone knows exactly what is being talked about - holds good for me. The photo that Helen posted shows that the site of the WTC does look exactly as if a small nuke had been detonated. Although the term will lose its power over time, at the moment it also emphasises that the unthinkable has happened there. That struck me quite forceably when I first heard the term used in relation to the WTC outrage.


The idiot also known as Capfka ...