9/11

nicedryturf

I was hanging out at home on my family farm, having failed college repeats. The cows were milked late that evening.

seachto7

Was working in a factory, and was stuck undeground cleaning conveyor belts most of the day, and when I got out at the end of the day, a lad pulled up in a van and happened to tell us that planes had flown into the trade center. I thought it was a joke and was waiting for the punchline.

Stone Temple Pilots had released an album that day which I had picked up, and listened to it, but can't really listen to it much, because every time I do, I just remember the rolling news footage over and over.

But who remembers where they were when so many more atrocities have happened since? I remember the faked photos of WMDs.

It was pre social media, but the power of the internet was on the rise around this time too I recall.

When the Iraq war "started", I had a tshirt with "George Bush and sons. Family Butchers". An English woman working in a cafe in Clontarf gave out to me for wearing it.

nigel_wilson

Deleted User wrote: »

It would have been incredibly interesting if Reddit, as it is now, was around at the time of the September 11th attacks. The likes of the live threads, the likelihood of people being in the Twin Towers being Reddit users, and the up-to-the second updates these generate, would have made for such a fascinating (and impossibly morbid) view.

I read something similar on what if these social media sites existed during 9/11 and someone said still that Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook would crash a few moments after like the phone system did that day due to too many requests.

nicedryturf

nigel_wilson wrote: »

I read something similar on what if these social media sites existed during 9/11 and someone said still that Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook would crash a few moments after like the phone system did that day due to too many requests.

Its VERY weird to look back at some of the boards threads from that day:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=273544
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=273581

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

Has that ever happened? Where soldiers get involved in a war that started before they were born.

Define "war".

The Hundred Years War? The Napoleonic War?

Heck, even the operations in Northern Ireland. Operation Banner, the British Army's operations in Northern Ireland is officially listed 1969-2007. I'm sure the PIRA have their own concept of if it was a war as well.

branie2

I imagine that Gerry Ryan, God be good to him, had a lot to say about the tragedy.

OneOfThem Stumbled

I was in school that day.

There are some silver linings looking back at the event. Thank God that it hadn't happened 20 minutes later, and that the terrorists didn't think (or weren't able to) target lower down on the towers. These stopped the casualties being 20-40 thousand people. Seriously. Also we should be thankful that United 93 was taken down by the passengers, because if the plane had hit the White House (which I think would have happened), or had been shot down by fighter jets it would have been psychologically pretty bad.

I don't have anything against people questing the official version of events, we should all do so. However 9/11 conspiracy theorists just indulge in insanity (those planes were mirages I tells ya).

dresden8

The CIA was definitely involved in 9/11.

Terrible day in 1973 it was.

Thousands arrested, tortured, killed.

Igotadose

Lived in NJ. Was up that a.m. to go to the local PO to pick up some packages. The wife-to-be was on her way the next day to EWR from SoCal to move in.

Got to the PO and the clerks were crying (it was about 10a.m.) They had the TV on, I hadn't had it on that do nor the radio. I simply turned and left and went home to watch. Called the wife around 10:30 to tell her to put on the TV. Where I lived in NJ had a small park with an outcropping with a view of downtown Manhattan. Walked down there around 11 to watch the towers burn, along with a bunch of other people.

I knew people on the flights, my brother had his office next to the towers though that day, he was out of the office. Took awhile to get through to him. One good friend worked there and had been there for the 1993 attack as well, he got out.

About a month later we went into NYC. I can still remember the smell.

Sam Kade

somefeen wrote: »

I find the slightest twitch of the controls thing a bit hard to believe since most airliners have a system which makes control inputs smaller or harder as airspeed increases.
The yoke action that might result in a 20 degree deflection of control surfaces on the ground might only cause a 5 degree defection at speed.

I'm not an expert by any means so the above numbers are only an example but you get what I mean.

So you believe that you know better than airline pilots?

Senna

I was 22 and had drove the sister to Belfast to do some shopping. I was in a shop when the local 1pm news came on, at the end they said "news just in, a light aircraft has crashed into the empire state building", I remember thinking and laughing to myself 'jesus how stupid was that pilot to hit one of the biggest buildings in NY'
I had arranged to meet the sister at 2pm (?), we both knew nothing of the attacks and happened to go into a clothes shop that had massive tv screens on, everyone was standing watching the screens, I think both buildings had fallen at that stage and it was just a static shot of the smoking remains. No one said anything but watching 30 seconds of sky news was enough to know what had happened. I turned to the sister and said let's just get home now.

Omackeral

Igotadose wrote: »

Where I lived in NJ had a small park with an outcropping with a view of downtown Manhattan. Walked down there around 11 to watch the towers burn, along with a bunch of other people.

This paragraph reminded me of this photo.

Sam Kade

Omackeral wrote: »

This paragraph reminded me of this photo.

Some outrage about that photo on the internet, what were they supposed to be doing running around like headless chickens roaring and screaming the whole time it was burning?

mdennehydub

Still seems unreal. Thoughts are really with all those effected.

SEPT 23 1989

My child was born a few weeks before and I watched it happening with a sense dread at the world I had brought her into

it felt like WW3 had started and anything could now happen

KKkitty

I was living in my homeplace at the time. I watched it with my Mam and younger siblings. Not much was said between us just gasps and tears. I can't imagine what it was like for the people in America that day. What it was like for those with family or friends in those planes or buildings watching the World Trade Center buildings go down not knowing if their loved ones made it.

Richard Hillman

In my last class of the day and teacher said a plane had flew into the Empire state building. Didn't think anything of it until I got home and seen the most shocking news story of my life.

Our Junior Cert results were out the next day, I think Liverpool were playing a champions league game that night and somehow went ahead.

The world changed that day. The great war began. It is amazing how it has been just forgotten by some parts. You'd often see posters on here amazingly criticise the war in Afghanistan.

George W Bush deserves a lot of credit over the response. If he really wanted to press the button and nuke Kandahar in the days following, I don't think there would have been that much opposition

BillyBobBS

Richard Hillman wrote: »

In my last class of the day and teacher said a plane had flew into the Empire state building. Didn't think anything of it until I got home and seen the most shocking news story of my life.

Our Junior Cert results were out the next day, I think Liverpool were playing a champions league game that night and somehow went ahead.

The world changed that day. The great war began. It is amazing how it has been just forgotten by some parts. You'd often see posters on here amazingly criticise the war in Afghanistan.

George W Bush deserves a lot of credit over the response. If he really wanted to press the button and nuke Kandahar in the days following, I don't think there would have been that much opposition

Yes there would have been. Now if he'd nuked that hellhole Saudi then that would have been the right thing to do.

MickDoyle1979

drdeadlift wrote: »

I wont debate it much more,visibility being good or bad wasnt a point i would consider important.Handling-hand flying a 70ton and 180 ton jet at max airspeed at two objects roughtly the the width of a runway and hitting them with zero experience is questionable.Im not a tin foil hat person and im sorry for partially derailling the thread.

But that IS what happened.

Samsgirl

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I was in school that day.

There are some silver linings looking back at the event. Thank God that it hadn't happened 20 minutes later, and that the terrorists didn't think (or weren't able to) target lower down on the towers. These stopped the casualties being 20-40 thousand people. Seriously. Also we should be thankful that United 93 was taken down by the passengers, because if the plane had hit the White House (which I think would have happened), or had been shot down by fighter jets it would have been psychologically pretty bad.

I don't have anything against people questing the official version of events, we should all do so. However 9/11 conspiracy theorists just indulge in insanity (those planes were mirages I tells ya).

United 93 was most likely shot down by fighter jets. Nothing but confetti sized pieces on the ground. Never before has any plane crash looked like so.

antodeco

Travelling around the country and on my way back to the recently moved American Consulate in Dublin (Hume house). I had a large monitor with me and a bag with laptops in it. I had to leave the bag in reception when I arrived as I couldn't carry everything. Cue the security guard nearly assaulting me for leaving a bag with electronics there.

Only found out then, what had happened

somefeen

Sam Kade wrote: »

So you believe that you know better than airline pilots?

Plenty of airline pilots will tell you that it wouldn't have been difficult and that what I said about the controls is true.

wakka12

I was onnly 6 at the time. Found it very strange seeing an endless loop on the news of a big new york skyscraper on fire all day long and my parents talking non stop about it

Academic

I was in a faculty meeting. My university department has a lecture hall with a huge overhead screen and they tuned it to the news.

I remember being particularly concerned as I have a number of friends in NYC, one in Greenwich Village just north of the WTC. It turned out he was fine, although he was not immediately allowed back into his apartment. In the days that followed he had a few rather gruesome conversations with some first-responders whom he met in the neighborhood.

AllGunsBlazing

Samsgirl wrote: »

United 93 was most likely shot down by fighter jets. Nothing but confetti sized pieces on the ground. Never before has any plane crash looked like so.

Have to admit that was my first assumption at the time as well. I figured they did what they had to do but felt that telling the truth was probably more than an already traumatised American public could handle. A really fvcked up day. I think a lot of the more hare brained conspiracy theories mushroomed from that incident.

knucklehead6

Samsgirl wrote: »

United 93 was most likely shot down by fighter jets. Nothing but confetti sized pieces on the ground. Never before has any plane crash looked like so.

Wrong.

MH-17 was shot down. And look at the pictures, the size of the wreckage. An aircraft getting shot down will likely breakup at altitude.

Now look at the images from Pacific Southwest 1771. Powered nose dive into the ground. THAT gives confetti sized wreckage.

Igotadose

Samsgirl wrote: »

United 93 was most likely shot down by fighter jets. Nothing but confetti sized pieces on the ground. Never before has any plane crash looked like so.

Here's one of many sites destroying the bulk of the conspiracy theories spouted by the nutters on this thread: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Let the victims of this rest in peace

Living Off The Splash

We were on a coach tour in Spain in an area surrounded by a 360 degree aspect of olive trees. The tour guide was an American. She announced over the speaker that there was a problem in New York, a plane had crashed in to one of the twin towers. When we got back to the hotel everyone was glued to the TV's.
She knew people in New York but continued doing her job very professionally over the next few days.

Sam Kade

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's one of many sites destroying the bulk of the conspiracy theories spouted by the nutters on this thread: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Let the victims of this rest in peace

Are you also a nutter if you don't believe any of the conspiracy theories but also not believe the official story?

PandaPoo

fmpisces wrote: »

I was at work. I was living in the UK at the time and worked for a railway company in the ticket office in Bishops Stortford.

On another note, years later my youngest was due on 11/9/05, but he arrived a day early.

I was induced on September 11th 2 years ago, but she arrived on the 12th.

When 9/11 happened I was in Florida in a Dennys diner having breakfast. The staff lost their minds completely, it was horrific. We were near the school that Bush was in at the time and they had to go get their kids because they thought they might try hit Bush in the school.

We went to Disneyworld a day or two after and we pretty much had the place to ourselves.

Hulk Hands

Mental how many people still think its two skyscrapers that fell. 7 out of 9 people in our group in the pub on Sunday, most of these well up with current affairs at least.

One of the biggest mysteries of our time definitely. When the official report ruled it as normal office fires and then you see what happened at the Grenfell Tower and thats still standing, a shoddy apartment block as opposed to a 50 story modern skyscraper. I keep thinking the most logical explanation is they needed to bring it down for safety reasons that day and a decision was made to blame fires from the crashes instead and it wasn't possible to go back on that. Makes little sense but nothing about the episode does

lazybones32

Sam Kade wrote: »

Are you also a nutter if you don't believe any of the conspiracy theories but also not believe the official story?

No-one knows what the official story is - they censored an awful lot.

But yes, you are crazy either way.

Sam Kade

lazybones32 wrote: »

No-one knows what the official story is - they censored an awful lot.

But yes, you are crazy either way.

So you don't know the official story but you are crazy if you don't believe it, that doesn't make much sense.

bear1

lazybones32 wrote: »

No-one knows what the official story is - they censored an awful lot.

But yes, you are crazy either way.

So crazy if you believe the official story from the Americans and crazy if you don't believe it.
Not much hope left for us all then is there :rolleyes:

seamus

Sam Kade wrote: »

Are you also a nutter if you don't believe any of the conspiracy theories but also not believe the official story?

Depends on what you mean by "official story"?

If you don't believe that the towers were struck by a plane each and within two hours collapsed due to the fires, then yes you're a nutter or grossly uninformed.

It's understandable that people were disbelieving and skeptical afterwards. But quite a lot of amateur footage was submitted to and held by the US authorities in the wake of it, and when released this footage only served to back up the original timelines rather than raise further questions.

Now, there's a lot of questionable stuff surrounding the events, the attackers that were involved, who funded them, the response of US authorities and agencies, etc etc.

But there's no question about the actual collapse of the towers. There is simply no explanation that makes any sense or is practically possible, except the "official" version.

lazybones32

Sam Kade wrote: »

So you don't know the official story but you are crazy if you don't believe it, that doesn't make much sense.

To accept the redacted version is crazy; to question the official account gets you labelled 'crazy', so yes, either way you are crazy.

Hulk Hands

seamus wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "official story"?

If you don't believe that the towers were struck by a plane each and within two hours collapsed due to the fires, then yes you're a nutter or grossly uninformed.

Are you a nutter if you don't believe the 3rd Skyscraper collapsed because of normal office fires?

seamus

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Are you a nutter if you don't believe the 3rd Skyscraper collapsed because of normal office fires?

If you call a building burning after another building fell on top of it, "normal office fires", then yes, you're a nutter.

pilly

Ah stop with the calling each other nutters ffs.

Hulk Hands

seamus wrote: »

If you call a building burning after another building fell on top of it, "normal office fires", then yes, you're a nutter.

Well the official report into 9/11 said WTC7 fell because of normal office fires. No building fell on top of it. Have you even bothered to research this before calling someone a nutter?

bear1

It was only a matter of time before this thread became a conspiracy theory thread.
There is more to the attacks than meets the eye in my opinion but don't believe at all that the military flew drone aircraft into the buildings.
At the same time I don't believe a plane hit the pentagon.

Hulk Hands

bear1 wrote: »

It was only a matter of time before this thread became a conspiracy theory thread.
There is more to the attacks than meets the eye in my opinion but don't believe at all that the military flew drone aircraft into the buildings.
At the same time I don't believe a plane hit the pentagon.

Like you're saying, it's possible to not believe the official version of events without thinking the World is controlled by the immuminati lizard people who are all enslaving us. It's very plausible that United 93 was shot down, simply because it would've been irresponsible of the secret services to leave it in the air. Completely believable the original story on WTC7 is false also. You get accused of being a crackpot for even mentioning the 3rd Skyscraper however

seamus

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Well the official report into 9/11 said WTC7 fell because of normal office fires. No building fell on top of it. Have you even bothered to research this before calling someone a nutter?

Have you?

What is a "normal office fire"?

If you mean, "The fire wasn't started by explosives or fuel", then you're correct. It was a "normal" skyscraper fire in so far as there was no accelerant involved.

Of course, using the word "office", you're trying to paint a picture of some guy with a lighter burning a few files in the middle of the floor, rather than entire floors engulfed in flame.

WTC7 was substantially damaged by debris from WTC1 falling onto it, which also ignited the fires in the block.

You're going to tell me now that in the wake of WTC 1 & 2 collapsing, a US government agency put together a crack squad of demolition experts to secretly enter WTC 7 and in just under 7 seven hours (and inside a burning building), rig up explosives and collapse the building in a way that it would be impossible to detect or distinguish from a burning skyscraper.

Omackeral

bear1 wrote: »

It was only a matter of time before this thread became a conspiracy theory thread.
There is more to the attacks than meets the eye in my opinion but don't believe at all that the military flew drone aircraft into the buildings.
At the same time I don't believe a plane hit the pentagon.

What do you think happened to all the people on Flight 77? Were they fake? Are they still alive under secrecy?

pilly

Okay, unfollows thread.

Dohnjoe

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Well the official report into 9/11 said WTC7 fell because of normal office fires. No building fell on top of it. Have you even bothered to research this before calling someone a nutter?

Wouldn't class the fires as normal. They burnt out of control for 7 hours in a damaged building where the sprinkler system malfunctioned. The building itself also had a unique internal 3 strut design which, when weakened, fatally aided the collapse.

Hundreds of investigators/experts with access to virtually all information, witnesses, emergency services, engineering and structual experts, 10's of thousands of documents held a 3 year investigation which concluded the same

All this information is readily available and has been widely scrutinized and accepted by 911 family groups and recognised organisations of architects and engineers (representing hundreds of thousands)

On a side note certain people from the internet will be along shortly who challenge this (more often than not because it doesn't fit their personal view or narrative) They are typically armed with incredulity ("no way that happened"), a lack of substantiated facts and a lack of any plausible alternative theory

Hulk Hands

The last paragraph of your post there Dohn is exactly what the naysayers say about people believing the official version also. You can apply lines like that to any argument.

I'm not getting mad specifics on this, arguments for both sides can be seen at a simple Google search. I choose to believe that the building was taken down, probably on safety grounds, rather than being the first steel structure in history before or since to collapse from uncontrolled fires, as the official report states. At the very least, a new independent report should be commissioned.

A 300k 3 year independent report conducted by an Alaskan University recently concluded that the official version presented by NIST isn't scientifically possible. Note, independent report, with no previous vested interest. This has largely been ignored by mass media. Until a complete independent report is commissioned, questions will remain for a decent portion of people.

bear1

Omackeral wrote: »

What do you think happened to all the people on Flight 77? Were they fake? Are they still alive under secrecy?

No idea, but this surely to God can't be the evidence of a plane hitting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk

you will need to skip the blah blah and go to 0.23.

WTC 7 is an odd one, most certainly. Don't forget the fact that the BBC reported it collapsed minutes before the actual event.

Dohnjoe

Hulk Hands wrote: »

The last paragraph of your post there Dohn is exactly what the naysayers say about people believing the official version also. You can apply lines like that to any argument.

The widely established version of events is overwhelmingly supported by facts, evidence, footage, audio and testimony

There are no substantiated or credible alternative theories

It isn't like there are two separate theories supported by experts, there is no alternative theory

At the very least, a new independent report should be commissioned.

Earlier reports indicated the building fell due to fire. The NIST report was the new exhaustive report. As far as I am aware there are no recognised bodies calling for another report

rather than being the first steel structure in history before or since to collapse from uncontrolled fires

A steel framed building fell due to fire earlier this year in Tehran

A 300k 3 year independent report conducted by an Alaskan University recently concluded that the official version presented by NIST isn't scientifically possible. Note, independent report, with no previous vested interest.

You mean the report supported by the truther group by a professor and two assistants - one that already provided a conclusion as one of it's forewords? I wouldn't hold my breath on that report being anywhere near reliable or objective

By the way, it's the same truther group that concluded the building collapse in Tehran as an "inside job"