posted
I stumbled across this site today. I am sure it has probably been posted at one time. It is footage from all the major news channels on September 11. I really underestimated how deeply I would be affected by watching that news coverage again. The comments at the bottom contain some language, but most isn't visible unless you scroll down.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an odd feeling watching the news coverage again. I'm reminded of how I felt on 9/11. It's actually hard to describe. I wasn't actively "scared" in the normal sense of the term but in many ways it is still appropriate. I would say I felt a sense of foreboding but that doesn't nearly capture the full picture. Anyways, thanks for the link.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still have the newspaper I bought that day. I was driving down the street with my mom and there was a guy on the corner selling a special edition of the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. It was crazy, I'd never seen anyone do that before.
Still, I doubt I'll click on that link. The memories I have are vivid enough.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrapped mine from the first few days in a plastic bag and put them in my cedar chest. :/ I wish I had thrown in the next Newsweek or Time, too. I don't need to look at them again yet, but in 50 years or so I might want to.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I know what you're talking about, Threads. I was never scared for my own safety, or that of my friends and family. It was more like a slowly building sense of immensity.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was scared for one of my sisters who works with the Navy, but she's only rarely at the Pentagon. I see the rebuilt wall when I go to Arlington cemetery. I remember the initial estimates of 50,000+ dead.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found that surprisingly effecting. Not moving in an emotional way, but like revisiting a rather unpleasant memory.
I imagine we all have our own personal rememberance, but to see the footage again - unshrouded by the mists of memory - was startling.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
About 6:30 into this video is when the BBC reports that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually happened. That was surprisingly easy to find... (The conversation about that continues around 13:30 and at 13:55 you can see the WTC7 building behind the correspondent's head as they talk about how they hope nobody was in the building when it collapsed. They lose the feed several minutes before it actually collapses. By the time he mentions it again (36:30 into the video) It has already collapsed, but they don't show the video until about 2:50 into the next video (an then about 10:45 in they start talking about the secondary explosions in tower 2). Creepy stuff.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, let's not start with the conspiracy ghost stories.
Next we're going to be hearing about how the first person on the phone with NBC who said it was a prop plane, and we should totally trust that account just as much as the all the footage and physical evidence available to anyone who is interested in researching the case. Oh and hundreds of government employees were involved in a giant conspiracy to do something fiendishly elaborate for no discernible benefit. I'm all ears.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I know I won't. I don't need any help not sleeping, or remembering how I felt that day.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Still, I doubt I'll click on that link. The memories I have are vivid enough.
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still have the newspaper I bought that day.
As do I. I don't often get it out, though.
Many people are unwilling to deal with 9/11 even now.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Please, let's not start with the conspiracy ghost stories.
Next we're going to be hearing about how the first person on the phone with NBC who said it was a prop plane, and we should totally trust that account just as much as the all the footage and physical evidence available to anyone who is interested in researching the case. Oh and hundreds of government employees were involved in a giant conspiracy to do something fiendishly elaborate for no discernible benefit. I'm all ears.
And this may be the worst post I've ever seen. What I posted was no "conspiracy ghost story", you must slip a long way down the slope to get to that.. I don't think the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes early proves anything, it's just a part of the history of that day. It's a fact. A number of things could have caused it. This has nothing to do with assertions that it was a prop plane or the claims that it was a missile, not a plane that hit the Pentagon, etc...There is a lot of chaff that has little to do with the facts of what actually occurred that day.
What is a "conspiracy ghost story" is that 19 guys in a cave could get NORAD to stand down, somehow anticipating that a war game simulating hijacked aircraft including false radar blips injected on air traffic controllers' screens would be in progress that morning. In the aftermath, Mohammed Atta's passport was found a couple blocks from the site... That's the conspiracy theory, and the government won't even swear to it.
Now instead of dealing with conspiracy stories, if you are ever actually going to be a man and face the reality of what happened on 9/11, you have to look at the facts, not the conspiracy stories. Most people will be unwilling to do this.
That day three steel frame buildings fell down due to fire. It was the first and last day that a steel-frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
This thread will likely fall down the page immediately after this post, because I don't think anybody is going to want to deal with it now that I've made such crazy statements in it.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: What is a "conspiracy ghost story" is that 19 guys in a cave could get NORAD to stand down, somehow anticipating that a war game simulating hijacked aircraft including false radar blips injected on air traffic controllers' screens would be in progress that morning.
The war game simulation hadn't started when NORAD was notified of the hijackings and wasn't scheduled to start until an hour afterwards. By the time NORAD was notified they did not have enough time to intercept the planes before they hit the tower. They needed at least 10 minutes to get there and only had 9 minutes maximum (assuming the jets took off the instant they received notification which is obviously not possible short of). Considering that the hijackers turned the transponders off and air traffic control was unable to provide a pinpoint location of the aircraft, there was no chance of intercepting the planes. Numerous other suspected hijackings and conflicting stories made it nearly impossible to locate the other hijacked aircraft. Here's a detailed story on the NORAD response complete with recordings from the command center.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: That day three steel frame buildings fell down due to fire. It was the first and last day that a steel-frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
... a fire caused by a jet carrying a lot of fuel crashing into the buildings at high speed. The steel was likely weakened by both the impact and the heat of the fire afterwards.
How can you claim that it will never happen again?
Keep in mind that the primary alternate theory (demolition) is highly improbable. Both of the towers were more than three times taller than any other building that has ever been demolished. The time periods that supposedly existed for loading up the towers with explosives were inadequate and it's hard to believe that it would go unnoticed. Furthermore, the general concept of blowing up the towers is relatively silly. A lot can go wrong in a demolition and the consequences for the masterminds behind the supposed demolition would be extreme should it have failed.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: This thread will likely fall down the page immediately after this post, because I don't think anybody is going to want to deal with it now that I've made such crazy statements in it.
You're such a rebel Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Also the first and last day a WTC building was ever hit by a large passenger plane full of jet fuel. It's kind of an untestable scenario.
But no, I don't know how to be a man and face the facts.
I'm sorry I accused you of that. I was just annoyed that you associated what I said with some of the most untenable theories floating around.
I don't have a particular theory about what did happen that day. I don't believe the US government actively initiated the attacks. I just believe that there should be another investigation because the Commission's report was directed to only focus on "intelligence failures" beforehand, was plagued by lies and obstructions, etc... The current state of the knowledge about what happened that day is too weak to develop solid theory. I don't have much time to spend on the Web the next couple weeks, so I doubt I will be able to spend much time on this, even if anybody wanted to talk about it right now, but I'll make a few quick comments:
quote:... a fire caused by a jet carrying a lot of fuel crashing into the buildings at high speed. The steel was likely weakened by both the impact and the heat of the fire afterwards.
How can you claim that it will never happen again?
I didn't say anything about the future, just that it hasn't happened before or since. A similar building (in Spain I think?) burned for a week. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, suffered minor fires...I don't think the official story on the collapse of the buildings has been investigated thoroughly enough to be uncontested (and many do contest), including Dr. Stephen Jones who has done a some work analyzing some of the steel from the wreckage. He claims to have found convincing evidence of "thermate" cutter charges. I don't think it has been investigated enough to prove or discount a theory that "the steel was likely weakened by both the impact and the heat of the fire afterwards", but many people claim jet fuel just doesn't burn hot enough (to the tune of 500 degrees short) and burned itself out pretty quickly anyway (between the initial fires and when the buildings collapsed, people could be seen at the windows of burned-out floors, which doesn't seem to be consistent with super-heated jet-fuel-assisted fires raging..). (Here's a recently issued statement by Dr. Stephen Jones and several others on points of agreement with the NIST report on the collapses-PDF Format, make sure to read this one.)
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The war game simulation hadn't started when NORAD was notified of the hijackings and wasn't scheduled to start until an hour afterwards. By the time NORAD was notified they did not have enough time to intercept the planes before they hit the tower. They needed at least 10 minutes to get there and only had 9 minutes maximum (assuming the jets took off the instant they received notification which is obviously not possible short of). Considering that the hijackers turned the transponders off and air traffic control was unable to provide a pinpoint location of the aircraft, there was no chance of intercepting the planes. Numerous other suspected hijackings and conflicting stories made it nearly impossible to locate the other hijacked aircraft. Here's a detailed story on the NORAD response complete with recordings from the command center.
There were multiple exercises at multiple levels, etc. The fact that they were confused repeatedly about whether hijacked planes were "real or exercise" is the problem.
quote:from the Vanity Fair article: For the neads crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once.
This is the problem I was trying to point out--NORAD was unable to act, partly because they thought there might be many more hijacked planes than their were. Why did they think this?
This page cites the vanity Fair article, among others, claiming that there were war games going on all week (reports vary saying 9/11 was the second-fourth day of exercises: see 6:30 am note).. There was a lot of confusion, and this allowed the inability to intercept them. The ongoing war games may have had something to do with
A side note: read Steve Alten's book, the Shell Game. It's an exciting novel, and there's so many documented (endnoted) facts interspersed. Another essential read.
quote:Keep in mind that the primary alternate theory (demolition) is highly improbable. Both of the towers were more than three times taller than any other building that has ever been demolished. The time periods that supposedly existed for loading up the towers with explosives were inadequate and it's hard to believe that it would go unnoticed. Furthermore, the general concept of blowing up the towers is relatively silly. A lot can go wrong in a demolition and the consequences for the masterminds behind the supposed demolition would be extreme should it have failed.
I have no way to speculate on this..It does seem incredibly improbable...but so does the "official story". How long is the timeframe you're talking about anyway?
quote:You're such a rebel
I'm not trying to be anything. I think most people on this forum are not going to post in this thread. I don't have any money on this prediction, just an observation.
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Many people are unwilling to deal with 9/11 even now.
That's not even close to what they said, nor is it implied.
I don't think most people even want to consider the possibilities raised by those doubting the official story of 9/11. I don't think most people even want to think about the terrorist attacks. That's all I meant by that.
But the events of that day were used to justify starting two wars, and there were a lot of lies (935+) that were said before those wars, especially about Iraq's connections to 9/11 that were fabrications. We have to hold our leaders to a higher standard of proof on everything, or the consequences could be that we end up stuck in a war. This is true for Vietnam, Iraq, and potentially Iran. Given this history, what should be your default position?
[ May 11, 2008, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think most people even want to consider the possibilities raised by those doubting the official story of 9/11.
I think most people find it unlikely that a conspiracy of dozens of people - dozens at a bare minimum, mind you - could keep a secret in the information age. Especially when that secret is the mass murder of thousands of civilians.
But to flip the argument on you, could it just be that you don't want to consider the possibility that sometimes small causes - like 19 men in a cave - can create large and terrifying effects?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nato have you read the popular mechanics article on the 9/11 stuff? Like, the fact that steel doesn't need to melt, it just needs to lose, I forget the percentage, it was at least 50%, of its strength. Which happens well within the heat range of a jet fuel fire.
The article explains it better than I ever could. If you haven't read it, I could probably dig it up for you if you don't want to bother. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think most people even want to consider the possibilities raised by those doubting the official story of 9/11.
I think most people find it unlikely that a conspiracy of dozens of people - dozens at a bare minimum, mind you - could keep a secret in the information age. Especially when that secret is the mass murder of thousands of civilians.
But to flip the argument on you, could it just be that you don't want to consider the possibility that sometimes small causes - like 19 men in a cave - can create large and terrifying effects?
In Steve Alten's book that I mentioned earlier, he mentions an FBI agent (I think named Dave Frasca, who shut down investigations into the hijackers in Minneapolis and one other location... Ooh, found a link. It was also Arizona. The way intelligence is structured in the US is a very hierarchical need-to-know system. I do not believe there was a large conspiracy within the government, and I don't even believe that the government, or elements of the government carried out the attacks. I just think the attacks were mighty suspicious and individuals within the government knew they were coming, doing nothing to stop them and perhaps taking action, as Dave Frasca may have done, to prevent them from being stopped. But then we have claims like the ex-Italian President's, that 9/11 was a joint operation by the CIA and the Mossad, and that the intelligence community knows this... but I again have no way to evaluate what the significance of his statement is or how likely it is to be true.
I would not be unwilling to admit that the story presented in the mainstream media that 19 hijackers managed to pull it off unassisted, but there are a lot of holes in the story, and there's a lot of weird stuff that happened. I'm reserving judgment on any explanation until answers arise. I think many objections to the plausibility of the 19 hijackers story have not been answered, and I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest there may be more to the story.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Nato have you read the popular mechanics article on the 9/11 stuff? Like, the fact that steel doesn't need to melt, it just needs to lose, I forget the percentage, it was at least 50%, of its strength. Which happens well within the heat range of a jet fuel fire.
The article explains it better than I ever could. If you haven't read it, I could probably dig it up for you if you don't want to bother.
The Popular Mechanics article is known as a "hit piece." It focused on 16 claims that Popular Mechanics decided represented the whole of the criticism of the 9/11 story including 4 or 5 theories that are quite wrong. It fails to mention that the community of 9/11 skeptics is not unified and fails to recognize the work 9/11 truth advocates have done already debunking some of the claims that Popular Mechanics says are characteristic of the whole movement. It makes no mention of the war games we discussed earlier and skepticism relating to those creating the confusion that allowed the attacks to proceed. It glosses over the more substantial evidence of demolition "squibs" firing off many floors below the collapsing zone. It treats the "no plane at the pentagon" theory as universally held, which it is not (this theory is subject to much skepticism and dissent, although I think it appeared in one of the more mainstream early 9/11 documentaries... probably Loose Change). You can read more at This link or this point-by-point analysis. Both links contain some reference to the jet fuel/melting steel hypothesis. I'm not a structural engineer, and I have no experience that would allow me to be able to evaluate those claims, but there is significant skepticism that the fire burned as hot as possible or that the steel would have been weakened enough to collapse. I don't know which party is right on these claims, but read both points of view yourself. I think the jury is still out.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:from the Vanity Fair article: For the neads crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once.
This is the problem I was trying to point out--NORAD was unable to act, partly because they thought there might be many more hijacked planes than their were. Why did they think this?
Because air traffic control identified all planes that didn't respond to their inquiries as being potential hijackings.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I understand that, but there are reports like this to consider? Should we discount this altogether?
Edit: http://st911.org/petition/ here's a link to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth petition for information to be released. The main problem speculating about 9/11 is that there is a lot more information that exists than is available to the public. Regardless of what the truth is, much of this information should be available to the public. Does anybody disagree?
Edit to add:
quote:"Not only do we have a right to know, we have a duty to know what our Government is doing in our name. If there's a criticism to be made today, it's that the press isn't doing enough to put the pressure on the government to provide information." Walter Cronkite - 3/28/02, PBS
[ May 14, 2008, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
