Thanks, Graham, for the link to the page with the image of the poster itself. After reading the news story, I had had in my mind's eye an image of two narrow, cylindrical glasses (not wider at the top than at the bottom) that might have been reminiscent of the WTC towers, with the dragonfly approaching from the side of one of the glasses. I was relieved to see that the actual image, with plastic Starbucks cups and the dragonfly above them (and four butterflies around them), did not bear any reasonable resemblance to photos or video of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

I wasn't sure what the green things in the poster were; I knew they were supposed to represent cut grass but I didn't realize they were Starbucks straws until I read the Urban Legends article. As a graphic designer, I don't think the straws "work" in this image, but they never gave me the impression that they were buildings, since they are at different angles rather than being uniformly vertical.

But even if anyone thought they were buildings, they aren't close to being in proportion with the skyscrapers surrounding the WTC, so again I don't see an intention on the artist's part to connect this image with 9/11. Besides, the sky was cloudless that day, and there are puffy white clouds in the poster image. And I can't imagine what any complainant thinks those butterflies are supposed to represent – the souls of the victims, or what?

In other words, IMO it's just WAYYYY too much of a stretch to try to say Starbucks was being "insensitive" by publishing this ad. Those who make the claim that the company was insensitive should look to their own oversensitivity. What's next, an injunction against the implosion of dangerously dilapidated buildings?