Where were you on September 11th 2001 when you heard the news?

C-Ro wrote:

Mr disco 99 wrote:

C-Ro wrote: In New York. I didn't hear the news I heard the crash.

I win the shared tragedy game!!!!!!!!

Congratulations.

Did you lose anything other than your internet connection? I'm sure it was scary actually being there and all, but it doesn't make you special. We were all shocked/afraid/angry that day and we're all still here.

I grew up in New York and feel lucky to have been several hundred miles away.

Yeah.. right... It doesn't make me special at all... In fact, I'm fucking saying the opposite.

but I don't see why people have to sit here and go through and try and place themselves at a point and time where they weren't. It's like all that "I am a Londoner" shit with regards to the 07/07/05. It's not strength and shared fucking tragedy. It's fucking "oh let's see how I can forge a connection when there's none there"

For example, this woman with whom I used to be friendly (until she said this--and it showed me what a smacked ass she was), was telling me about her experience on 09/11/01, saying how in Ottawa, they really felt the pain "that new yorkers were going through" because they were "one hour from the new york border"

That's fucking bullshit.

As for what I lost... I lost family the same as a fuck load of people from this area... does *THAT* make me win this fucking useless game now?

C-Ro, I understand you pain to some extent, as I run into people all the time that have asinine questions about me being in Iraq....like: "did you see anyone die?"; or "I saw on the news..." or "did you kill anyone?"...

At first I was really pissed off at these people....but overtime I realized that they really don't know what to say or ask. They really care, and really are concerned, and feel that they need to say something. It's like if your best friend's mother died...what do you say to her to make her feel that you care and are concerned...words can't explain, and yet you know you aren't feeling the same as she is about it (no matter how close you are to her mother).

I think this is what the "where were you" is all about...it gives people connection so that they can care, show that they care, and not forget...it would be much worse for people to ignore 9/11 anniversaries, wouldn't it?

JHC

Taking blood out of a patient...

It was appauling and inexcusable, but was I the only person not surprised that 9/11 happened?

Weirdly, I wrote a book about people getting angry and radicalised about the state of the world, with an ending that included a 9/11 event, a couple of years earlier.

Craig W wrote: but was I the only person not surprised that 9/11 happened?

No.

Craig W wrote: Taking blood out of a patient...

It was appauling and inexcusable, but was I the only person not surprised that 9/11 happened?

Weirdly, I wrote a book about people getting angry and radicalised about the state of the world, with an ending that included a 9/11 event, a couple of years earlier.

If you have ever read "Rendevous with Rama" Clarke, on the first page, cites that just after 9am on Sept 11 was the time when the greatest cataclysm ever to befall the Human race occurred. ( A whopping meteorite as it happens, thumping Italy and fucking the planet up a treat).

Mr disco 99 wrote:

C-Ro wrote:

For example, this woman with whom I used to be friendly (until she said this--and it showed me what a smacked ass she was), was telling me about her experience on 09/11/01, saying how in Ottawa, they really felt the pain "that new yorkers were going through" because they were "one hour from the new york border"

That's fucking bullshit.

I agree totally.

You're right. I totally missed your point.

It's ok..it was easy to miss. I was pissy, because I really do feel strongly about this shit, and that lead to me being even less coherent than usual.

i didn't even have internet connection back than.

They SAY they will not show the plane hitting the Pentagon from any of the dozens of colour FMV cameras coerving that face of the building beacause it would distress the relatives.

So the relatives of those on the two planes which struck the WTC are just a bunch of cunts and deserve to be distressed?

I smell something, something masculine, something bovine, something brown,

AgentWood wrote:

C-Ro wrote:

Also what was horrible was seeing all those damn missing posters all over the city afterwards.

in the life magazine 2001 yearly review, if you open the front page my friend stacey's missing poster is right in the middle of the inner cover. to make it worse, it was put up by her best friend, abi, whose father had been on united flight 11, the first plane to hit. i suppose she was putting up two posters that day. when i first saw it i wasn't expecting it at all, and needless to say i was a little verklempt. of all the thousands of missing posters, they had to choose hers.

God that's awful :(

Did the magazine donate all proceeds from that edition to charity? If not, they, like Michael Moore (and indeed the makers, sponsors and purchasers of advertising slots suring this weekend's apparent documentary) are guilty of profiting from terrorist actions.

I was SO shocked that day that the USAF were not airborne. ANd far more shocked when I found out they WERE, but that for some reason on THAT day, standard hi-jack intercept procedure was denied to them. The FAA like the CAA in the UK prohibits supersonic flight over any person, building or vehlicle....which broadly translates as "over land", HOWEVER, during an intercept the regulations are suspended and the aircraft are free to navigate at +mach1, this occured in several dozen cases in the years prior to 11/09/01 and yet on THAT day the interceptors were told to remain subsonic.....the upshot....the first fighter arriving 20 mins after the 2nd plane instead of 10 mins before the first.

Doctor? wrote: Did the magazine donate all proceeds from that edition to charity? If not, they, like Michael Moore (and indeed the makers, sponsors and purchasers of advertising slots suring this weekend's apparent documentary) are guilty of profiting from terrorist actions.

I was SO shocked that day that the USAF were not airborne. ANd far more shocked when I found out they WERE, but that for some reason on THAT day, standard hi-jack intercept procedure was denied to them. The FAA like the CAA in the UK prohibits supersonic flight over any person, building or vehlicle....which broadly translates as "over land", HOWEVER, during an intercept the regulations are suspended and the aircraft are free to navigate at +mach1, this occured in several dozen cases in the years prior to 11/09/01 and yet on THAT day the interceptors were told to remain subsonic.....the upshot....the first fighter arriving 20 mins after the 2nd plane instead of 10 mins before the first.

I'm surprised that it's taken until Page 5 of this thread for the stupid conspiracy mumblings to surface.

GlasVegas wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Did the magazine donate all proceeds from that edition to charity? If not, they, like Michael Moore (and indeed the makers, sponsors and purchasers of advertising slots suring this weekend's apparent documentary) are guilty of profiting from terrorist actions.

I was SO shocked that day that the USAF were not airborne. ANd far more shocked when I found out they WERE, but that for some reason on THAT day, standard hi-jack intercept procedure was denied to them. The FAA like the CAA in the UK prohibits supersonic flight over any person, building or vehlicle....which broadly translates as "over land", HOWEVER, during an intercept the regulations are suspended and the aircraft are free to navigate at +mach1, this occured in several dozen cases in the years prior to 11/09/01 and yet on THAT day the interceptors were told to remain subsonic.....the upshot....the first fighter arriving 20 mins after the 2nd plane instead of 10 mins before the first.

I'm surprised that it's taken until Page 5 of this thread for the stupid conspiracy mumblings to surface.

Indeed :)

my friend stacey, who was my pair in our boat on our high school crew team, used to write me psych notes and put them in my mailbox to get me hyped for our races. stacey died in tower one (she worked for marsh & mclennan) and i hope to god she was directly in the path of the plane and it killed her instantly so she didn't have to suffer, go through two hours of terror or, god forbid, jump.

in 2002 i was going through some of my high school things in storage and i came across a psych note stacey had written to me. i don't know why i kept that particular piece of paper. perhaps because i loved rowing so much, who knows. anyway, whenever i feel down i take out the note and read it. it always makes me smile and reminds me of the good times we had. it seems like just yesterday.

GlasVegas wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Did the magazine donate all proceeds from that edition to charity? If not, they, like Michael Moore (and indeed the makers, sponsors and purchasers of advertising slots suring this weekend's apparent documentary) are guilty of profiting from terrorist actions.

I was SO shocked that day that the USAF were not airborne. ANd far more shocked when I found out they WERE, but that for some reason on THAT day, standard hi-jack intercept procedure was denied to them. The FAA like the CAA in the UK prohibits supersonic flight over any person, building or vehlicle....which broadly translates as "over land", HOWEVER, during an intercept the regulations are suspended and the aircraft are free to navigate at +mach1, this occured in several dozen cases in the years prior to 11/09/01 and yet on THAT day the interceptors were told to remain subsonic.....the upshot....the first fighter arriving 20 mins after the 2nd plane instead of 10 mins before the first.

I'm surprised that it's taken until Page 5 of this thread for the stupid conspiracy mumblings to surface.

It's not a conspiracy mumbling, it's a simple question, I have no answer for it. It just seems that the people on the WTC aircraft have more important families or something.

If I was a conspiracy freak I would offer up some daft real reason like martians or something. This is the problem, there are so many muppets out there talking so much shite about this whole thing that any question asked, no matter how legitimate is ignored and labelled as paranoid spoutings.

Can YOU tell me why the planes were not alloed to go mach+?

Doctor? wrote:

Can YOU tell me why the planes were not alloed to go mach+?

because nobody (including the government) had any clue what was going on and were sitting there with their mouths open and their brains turned off?

AgentWood wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Can YOU tell me why the planes were not alloed to go mach+?

because nobody (including the government) had any clue what was going on and were sitting there with their mouths open and their brains turned off?

That's certainly the most likely reason, after all we should never attribute to malice, that which is more easily explained by stupidity. The ODD bit is that on countless previous occassions, when nothing real was happening, interceptors chased down aircraft that were off-track at supersonic speed...I cannot remember the numbers, but I THINK it was around 28 times in the 5 years preceeding 11/09/01.

I would like to clarify my position on conspiracies....90% of what has been said (like for instance the entire WTC being wired for demolition without anyone noticing 100's of miles of det cord), is abject crap. But given Rumsfeld's statement that morning ("let's use this to clean it all up, related or not"), doesn't lead me to believe it was in the Bush administrations interests to make all that much effort to prevent this.

One interesting thing that DOES pique my paranoia gland is all the talk of cellphone calls. Surely Cellphones cause aircraft to lose control and crash, or are the airlines just telling you to turn them off for fun? Also, if it IS possible to call the ground perfectly from any height....why are so many airlines making a HUGE deal of their onboard cell ( a technology rolled out only in the last 2 years)? And one final point on the calls....I have NEVER called my mum and said "hi mum, this is Steve CAMPBELL". Then again, yanks are weirdos.

Doctor? wrote: One interesting thing that DOES pique my paranoia gland is all the talk of cellphone calls. Surely Cellphones cause aircraft to lose control and crash, or are the airlines just telling you to turn them off for fun? Also, if it IS possible to call the ground perfectly from any height....why are so many airlines making a HUGE deal of their onboard cell ( a technology rolled out only in the last 2 years)? And one final point on the calls....I have NEVER called my mum and said "hi mum, this is Steve CAMPBELL". Then again, yanks are weirdos.

Cellphones don't work from typical cruising altitude for pressurized jet transports (30-40,000 feet). I know because I accidentally realized mine was still turned on once and saw it had no signal over a pretty densely populated area. My plane didn't crash, of course, but I went ahead and turned it off anyway.

And yes, they emit radiation that could cause slight interference with navigation instruments. I imagine it's probably on the level of causing noticeable interference if every seat on the plane has a passenger with one turned on... nothing severe.

According to data released about the flight, when the hijackers took control of the plane they changed course and descended to a low altitude right away, perhaps to make themselves harder to track and shoot down, or perhaps so they could navigate visually. I'm guessing they were low enough to enable passengers' cellphones to be in range of radio towers on the ground.

Certainly a possibility, but then don't airliners handle like a canal boat at low alt?

It's just ODD is all. Especially someone giving their full name to their mum.

BTW, anyone else think that one in Pennsylvania was shot down? I rather suspect it was, and cannot fault the air force for doing it if it was. I believe one of the calls made from that plane contains a loud bang followed by a roar of air.....although I am not at ALL sure of the accuracy of my source on that.

Doctor? wrote: Certainly a possibility, but then don't airliners handle like a canal boat at low alt?

It's just ODD is all. Especially someone giving their full name to their mum.

BTW, anyone else think that one in Pennsylvania was shot down? I rather suspect it was, and cannot fault the air force for doing it if it was. I believe one of the calls made from that plane contains a loud bang followed by a roar of air.....although I am not at ALL sure of the accuracy of my source on that.

Airliners handle equally lousy at just about any altitude.

It makes sense to me that they'd go low if they only knew the very basics of flight control and either weren't skilled enough or didn't want to use navaids like GPS or radio. At that altitude pretty much all you'd see out the very horizontal perspective of a 757 cockpit window is haze, and you'd have to get much lower and probably reduce speed to be able to navigate by visual landmarks.

What's your source on the cellphone transcripts? That sounds either bizarre or made up to me.

The last cell call was a husband to the wife and ended with "Let's Roll", soon after the plane crashed. Though no one is for certian what happened, that is where the idea that the plane went down in a struggle between passengers and terrorists.

On your answer on the Mach 1or above question and why planes weren't there, I think is based on a major misconception of people. Here's a quote from Popular Mechanics article:

"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."

Hopefully this helps out a bit

Mr disco 99 wrote:

What's your source on the cellphone transcripts? That sounds either bizarre or made up to me.

Dunno, i think it came from the institute for co-operative research, but I cannot remember how they had flagged it (the colour code the more bizarre conspiracy nutter stuff)

I think you are probably right that they'd have descended and flown VFR, at least when approaching the target.

EdelBrock wrote: The last cell call was a husband to the wife and ended with "Let's Roll", soon after the plane crashed. Though no one is for certian what happened, that is where the idea that the plane went down in a struggle between passengers and terrorists.

On your answer on the Mach 1or above question and why planes weren't there, I think is based on a major misconception of people. Here's a quote from Popular Mechanics article:

"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."

Hopefully this helps out a bit

See, that is totally contrary to what I have previously read on the subject, but again, sources are everything. I am inclined to go with what you are saying.

One REALLY scary thing about the attacks is that they demonstrated that all the USA's air defence RaDAR looks outwards, and that for tracking the planes, they were mostly using civilian ATC RaDAR. Yipes, so back in the day, those Bears and Badgers coming over the pole were home free once they got through the border and over the US.

There were, (unreliable) reports of a single engined aircraft being seen in the vicinity of the downed plane, and other witnesses reported seeing it appear below the cloud deck, nose up and on full power....certainly consistent with damage, but also consistent with a nobhead at the controls.

I guess I'm going to be the "google" guy tonight but here's another addition in that same article:

"There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly."

If you are interested, it's link is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Perhaps more frightening is the most popular link on the Popular Mechanics website just below the 9/11 articles:

"Build a Colonial-Style Storage SHED"

EdelBrock wrote: I guess I'm going to be the "google" guy tonight but here's another addition in that same article:

"There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly."

If you are interested, it's link is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

To be perfectly honest I was always dubious about this aircraft being military, because not ONE witness mentioned the most obvious thing about military aircraft......the NOISE!! An F16 is not a quiet plane ;)

PS....on pop mechanics site.....they say that the tonfoil hatters reckon that pic (clearly of a civilian aircraft...military tankers having odd bumps and bulges) smehow prove it was the military. WTF? Besides if it had been the USAF, they'd have missed.

Hmmm. Surely on a thread where people have raised the issue of respect for the victims relatives it seems a wee bit tasteless to then fumble about aimlessly in speculative conspiracy land. Everything you or I know about 9/11 is mediated, whether its from the TV, the 9/11 commission, the internet or Fox fucking Mulder. All the 'facts' that get cited are pretty much entirely relative. All this 9/11 factoid point scoring is just waffle....

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Hmmm. Surely on a thread where people have raised the issue of respect for the victims relatives it seems a wee bit tasteless to then fumble about aimlessly in speculative conspiracy land. Everything you or I know about 9/11 is mediated, whether its from the TV, the 9/11 commission, the internet or Fox fucking Mulder. All the 'facts' that get cited are pretty much entirely relative. All this 9/11 factoid point scoring is just waffle....

I thought we were being rather civilised really?

You're right though, everything is filtered.

What amuses the balls off me is the proper tinfoil hatters who dismiss the "official" line for tiny inconsistencies, then accept all manner of balls (the demonlition thing for instance) on purest fairy faith.

Mr disco 99 wrote: At that altitude pretty much all you'd see out the very horizontal perspective of a 757 cockpit window is haze, and you'd have to get much lower and probably reduce speed to be able to navigate by visual landmarks.

You have to use flaps to see what is in front of you. At a low speed, the nose is going higher as the tail is going down. As you have flaps down, you need more power but you won't get too much speed as the flaps lower the course of the plane.

This message is no part of a conspiracy theory about 9/11, it is just basics of flight.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Hmmm. Surely on a thread where people have raised the issue of respect for the victims relatives it seems a wee bit tasteless to then fumble about aimlessly in speculative conspiracy land. Everything you or I know about 9/11 is mediated, whether its from the TV, the 9/11 commission, the internet or Fox fucking Mulder. All the 'facts' that get cited are pretty much entirely relative. All this 9/11 factoid point scoring is just waffle....

I think it's a lot more approriate to talk about the political causes, implications, and effects--no matter how whacked out they are, than to try and forge a personal connection to something about which you know nothing and couldn't begin to empathize.

C-Ro wrote:

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Hmmm. Surely on a thread where people have raised the issue of respect for the victims relatives it seems a wee bit tasteless to then fumble about aimlessly in speculative conspiracy land. Everything you or I know about 9/11 is mediated, whether its from the TV, the 9/11 commission, the internet or Fox fucking Mulder. All the 'facts' that get cited are pretty much entirely relative. All this 9/11 factoid point scoring is just waffle....

I think it's a lot more approriate to talk about the political causes, implications, and effects--no matter how whacked out they are, than to try and forge a personal connection to something about which you know nothing and couldn't begin to empathize.

...which of course isn't remotely pompous......and you contradict yourself (again).....and so we begin again......yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.............

How photographic this one day was..

Was sitting in my dorm room freshman year after my 8-8:50 algebra & trig class, attemping to do my homework, technically easy, but I of course have difficulty with math. No TV and I'm being a good boy and staying off the web. Phone call, roommate's father, asking if he was there. Told him he went to class at 9 (was between 9-9:15), and he told me to turn on the TV, that a plane had hit the WTC and to have Mike (roomie) give him a call when he got in asap. Hung up, shruged, and turned on CNN. Gutted. I had the mental image of a hayseed Cessna (sp) pilot who knew fuck-all about navigation.

Saw the second plane hit, then ran to another kids room, where about half a dozen others were watching in shock. When the first tower fell, I remember laughing in horror and shock, hardly believing what I was seeing was a real event. Still remember the CNN newscaster as it fell "My god...there are no words.."

That was the only time in my life that I felt personally and globally threatened, that it really was "The End of the World, as we know it". That the Lower 48 of the US were under attack and Rochester, NY could be next for something equivalent or worse to what was happening in DC or NYC.

Footnote, remember talking to my on-again, off-again long distance g/f in Michigan, who had just woken up (this around 10 or 11), and she had the same disbelief reaction I did, the news not sinking in until she turned on her TV.

Horrific day in general. My school, of course, cancelled nothing. I had to go to my 4-6 writing & lit class where the prof was acting a cunt and tried to teach the class like nothing happened.