9/11 anniversary, where were you when it happened and was it a conspiracy?

con1421

I was 12 at the time and about 2 weeks into first year in Secondary School. The usual Tuesday it was. My mother picked me up from school at about 3. I jumped in the car and she told me that a plane had hit a tower. At the time it didn't really register. I thought that she meant a tower at the airport. So we went to the nearest shopping centre and I remember listening to a live report in the book shop and they were interviewing people and it all seemed chaotic.

So we went home and before I even had the chance to get changed I was dragged into the sitting room by my brother who was sitting with my father and we were all glued to the TV for about 4 hours.my Mother and sister soon followed.We literally didnt move.

I went to the next door neighbor later that day and I remember his mother saying that this wont happen here and not to worry. So I went back in for the 9 O'Clock news and once gain remained in shock for the day.

At 24 I still remember almost every detail about that day

certifiedcrepe

I was a little 6 year old. I remember being in the living room with my parents and I saw it, they said something about Saddam Hussein, who I thought was that guy from the Dennis The Menace movies.
My cousin who was studying there was supposed to be on that flight but had to cancel it until the next day, not completely sure why.

ardle1

I was in Town with Jim, not name dropping or anything,but if you really want to know, Well yes I was with Jim CoRRR ok, anyway we where discussing the Roswell incident, you know the one where the USA claimed it was a high altitude weather balloon that they recovered, anyway meself and Jim where trying to figure out where they actually have the Space Craft stored,obviously because we'd like to go and see it,,, anyway as I remember on the day in question 9-11 now that you mention it, on TV I do remember seeing this guy in the distance, now am not saying anything,am just saying.....

MadsL

http://i.imgur.com/sA6OriM.png

--Kaiser--

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Does an office fire melting steel for the first time in history sound more plausible to you? Melting steel causing the collapse, yet the building still managed to fall at free fall speed? How does that work exactly?

Office fire? Did you call the resulting inferno of a plane full of fuel hitting a building an office fire? The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed either, you can clearly see bits of steel and rubble falling faster than the buildings in videos and photos. The stupidity of your post actually makes my head hurt

Vomit

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Office fire? Did you call the resulting inferno of a plane full of fuel hitting a building an office fire? The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed either, you can clearly see bits of steel and rubble falling faster than the buildings in videos and photos. The stupidity of your post actually makes my head hurt

WTC 7 definitely fell at freefall for most of its collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

Vomit

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Office fire? Did you call the resulting inferno of a plane full of fuel hitting a building an office fire? The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed either, you can clearly see bits of steel and rubble falling faster than the buildings in videos and photos. The stupidity of your post actually makes my head hurt

Most of the fuel burned on impact. Didn't you see the fireball? Quote from firefighter on the day, "Two isolated pockets of fire - should be able to knock it down with two lines"

infinite jester

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i was on the sick from work and watching the 2nd plane hit over an afternoon coffee and a smoke.


... and building 7 just fell over too?

Really? Really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

i'll not make any scientific claims but thats not how i expect fire damaged buildings to fall. and all 3 falling into what was basically their own footprint? coincidences happen all the time but i cant swallow that in this instance.

These were buildings that were either struck by airplanes or by the debris of a collapsing skyscraper, and had massive uncontrolled fires rage for hours without any attempt to fight them.

None of these buildings fell into anything approaching their own footprint.

The collapse of the twin towers did the following damage

Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[69] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged.

The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later.[70][71] The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.[70]
The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex was later condemned as uninhabitable because of toxic conditions inside the office tower, and was deconstructed.[72][73] The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway was condemned due to extensive damage in the attacks, and is being rebuilt.[74] Other neighboring buildings including 90 West Street and the Verizon Building suffered major damage but have been restored.[75] World Financial Center buildings, One Liberty Plaza, the Millenium Hilton, and 90 Church Street had moderate damage and have since been restored.[76] Communications equipment on top of the North Tower was also destroyed, but media stations were quickly able to reroute signals and resume broadcasts

While WTC 7



Collapse clearly did not fall into it's own footprint as you can see the pile has spread covering the entirety of barclay street ( which is not a small side street)

Seachmall

Not sure where I was when it happened. When I first heard about I was in a car to Shannon Airport listening to it on the radio but I can't remember whether I was in school that morning when it actually happened or if I was heading to the Airport when it happened.

And no, it wasn't a conspiracy. Anyone who thinks it is probably isn't qualified to have an opinion worth listening to on the matter.

Wacker The Attacker

Some of the conspiracies are not entirely unreasonble.

--Kaiser--

Vomit wrote: »

Most of the fuel burned on impact. Didn't you see the fireball? Quote from firefighter on the day, "Two isolated pockets of fire - should be able to knock it down with two lines"

Did you read the NIST report? You know, the one that took 3 years and 16 million dollars to produce? Or are you basing all your opinions on spurious nonsense created by basement-dwelling conspiracy theorists with severe paranoid delusions? (A purely rhetorical question, you understand)

Vomit

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Did you read the NIST report? You know, the one that took 3 years and 16 million dollars to produce? Or are you basing all your opinions on spurious nonsense created by basement-dwelling conspiracy theorists with severe paranoid delusions? (A purely rhetorical question, you understand)

You need to work on your rhetoric.

Elmer Blooker

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Am I missing something ?, burning steel and concrete ?????.

Yes, the planes had bin laden with aviation fuel for the long journey from the east to the west coast - the heat was intense.
Me, I heard it on Liveline, at first it looked like an accident until the second one hit.

Dave!

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, the planes had bin laden with aviation fuel for the long journey from the east to the west coast - the heat was intense.
Me, I heard it on Liveline, at first it looked like an accident until the second one hit.

Not sure if intentional...

Kudos if so !

Wibbs

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Did you read the NIST report? You know, the one that took 3 years and 16 million dollars to produce? Or are you basing all your opinions on spurious nonsense created by basement-dwelling conspiracy theorists with severe paranoid delusions? (A purely rhetorical question, you understand)

I'll admit I was a bit dubious about some aspects of the day. The buildings failing so quickly, especially WTC 7 I thought a bit odd. This was increased for me in 05/04(can't recall) when I watched the Windsor tower in Madrid burn for a solid day yet remain standing.

HOWEVER, the more I read on the designs of the buildings the more obvious it was that no conspiracy was required to have the New York buildings collapse the way they did and as fast as they did. Reading on the Madrid building was what actually clinched it for me. Why? It was built far more solidly than the New York buildings. It had a core of solid reinforced concrete and that resists fire like a boss. The real clincher was that buildings steel structure around the concrete core. It failed in a matter of hours because of the heat. If the whole building had been steel it would have folded like a cheap suit in about the same time frame as the 9/11 buildings.

As for the other aspects of the conspiracy? The false flag stuff, the odd movements of money and people in the days leading up to it? They might have more legs alright, particularly the money moving on the sniff of a possible attack. I don't believe the false flag stuff. Why? Well subsequent history has shown us the US government is remarkably crap at covering such things up for very long. WMD anyone? Look at the complete hames they're making of the current Syrian gas issue. Indeed I suspect some people in US intelligence are secretly pleased about the idea it was planned as opposed to the massive cockup in intelligence, security and response it actually was.

kfallon

Was just coming into work when it happened (I worked US Hours at the time). I remember my boss saying, "Have you heard the news?" It was Liverpool's first game ever in the Champions League that night and my first instinct was, "Oh no, Michael Owen has broken his leg!" and then he said, "A plane has crashed into the World Trade Centre". My first instinct was that is was a very small aircraft, some guy up flying around the skyline but when I saw it on TV in our office kitchen I couldn't believe it. Not long after the second plane hit.

The clients we worked for worked in the area around the WTC so there was frantic calls from them saying they were evacuating. I think we all stayed in work til about 6 or 7pm not knowing if we were supposed to do anything workwise but all the time glued to the TV watching the horror unfold. I remember some of us headed for a pint and we sat in the pub watching the updates on Sky News. Nobody could believe it. The sight of people throwing themselves to their death was heartbreaking. Vey surreal time in work for the few days after it.

As for a conspiracy, no way was it. For it to be a conspiracy that big, a lot of Americans would have to keep their mouth shut and there's no way in the world that is possible, they can't keep quiet for 5 minutes!

--Kaiser--

kfallon wrote: »

As for a conspiracy, no way was it. For it to be a conspiracy that big, a lot of Americans would have to keep their mouth shut and there's no way in the world that is possible, they can't keep quiet for 5 minutes!

The US couldn't even cover up a blow job!

rockbeast

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll admit I was a bit dubious about some aspects of the day. The buildings failing so quickly, especially WTC 7 I thought a bit odd. This was increased for me in 05/04(can't recall) when I watched the Windsor tower in Madrid burn for a solid day yet remain standing.

HOWEVER, the more I read on the designs of the buildings the more obvious it was that no conspiracy was required to have the New York buildings collapse the way they did and as fast as they did. Reading on the Madrid building was what actually clinched it for me. Why? It was built far more solidly than the New York buildings. It had a core of solid reinforced concrete and that resists fire like a boss. The real clincher was that buildings steel structure around the concrete core. It failed in a matter of hours because of the heat. If the whole building had been steel it would have folded like a cheap suit in about the same time frame as the 9/11 buildings.

As for the other aspects of the conspiracy? The false flag stuff, the odd movements of money and people in the days leading up to it? They might have more legs alright, particularly the money moving on the sniff of a possible attack. I don't believe the false flag stuff. Why? Well subsequent history has shown us the US government is remarkably crap at covering such things up for very long. WMD anyone? Look at the complete hames they're making of the current Syrian gas issue. Indeed I suspect some people in US intelligence are secretly pleased about the idea it was planned as opposed to the massive cockup in intelligence, security and response it actually was.

Things that make you go...Hmmmm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

:eek:

Sunglasses Ron

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Some of the conspiracies are not entirely unreasonble.

They certainly are not compared to the conspiracy industry that has taken off post 9/11. For example the theories that the most recent US gun massacres are a faked plot to seize guns from law obiding citizens.

However the 9/11 theories just do not make enough sense:

Afghanistan has some, but not enough, minerals to justify a smash and grab invasion. Has the US economy greatly benefited from 9/11, the Iraq war and the Afghan war? Has it ****. The financial nerve centre of the world was knocked out for months and the two wars have been hemorrhaging money during the worst financial crisis in 80 years.

Are the various American defense company chiefs and government figures, men who are already multi multi millionaires, truly evil enough to plot to allow an attack that would merely turn them from very rich to filthy rich? Did every CIA and defense operative involved send a message to each and every member of their family to ensure they wouldn't be in New York on the day?

The country is notorious for repelling foreign invaders. The US never wanted to go there. They waited over a month after asking the Taliban to turn in and turf out AQ before taking action. Prior to 9/11 the US largely tolerated the Taliban to ensure their co operation in a new gas pipeline they had an interest in.

Any engineer worth his salt has rubbished the controlled demolition claims. Have they all been paid off?

While they spread rumours as to Iraqi involvement, 95% of the US reasoning for the Iraq invasion was WMD, not 9/11.

If the government did want an excuse invade half the Middle East faking a few car bombs in multiple cities would have been more than enough justification to fan public anger to support a war. But 3000 dead, two iconic buildings taken down and some of the best economic and military minds killed in the WTC and Pentagon attacks? Simply too much to justify when faking attcks with a horrible but less economically disastrous nor four figure casualty causing income would have resulted in enough public anger to justify a war.


It was certainly an intelligence breakdown that's for sure but there is simply zero evidence to justify enough advantage for the US to allow the attacks to happen. The planning and allowing of the attack to occur would have involved everyone from the president to some of his cabinet, to CIA and FBI officials from head office all the way to front desk, arms company CEO's, and collaborators all the way down to baggage checkers and airline officials.


The simple fact is, the US knew an attack was coming, and always reckoned on traditional bombs or WMD terror attacks. The thought of crashing planes was too far fetched to highly feature.

rockbeast

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

They certainly are not compared to the conspiracy industry that has taken off post 9/11. For example the theories that the most recent US gun massacres are a faked plot to seize guns from law obiding citizens.

However the 9/11 theories just do not make enough sense:

Afghanistan has some, but not enough, minerals to justify a smash and grab invasion. Has the US economy greatly benefited from 9/11, the Iraq war and the Afghan war? Has it ****. The financial nerve centre of the world was knocked out for months and the two wars have been hemorrhaging money during the worst financial crisis in 80 years.

Are the various American defense company chiefs and government figures, men who are already multi multi millionaires, truly evil enough to plot to allow an attack that would merely turn them from very rich to filthy rich? Did every CIA and defense operative involved send a message to each and every member of their family to ensure they wouldn't be in New York on the day?

The country is notorious for repelling foreign invaders. The US never wanted to go there. They waited over a month after asking the Taliban to turn in and turf out AQ before taking action.

Any engineer worth his salt has rubbished the controlled demolition claims. Have they all been paid off?

While they spread rumours as to Iraqi involvement, 95% of the US reasoning for the Iraq invasion was WMD, not 9/11.


It was certainly an intelligence breakdown that's for sure but there is simply zero evidence to justify enough advantage for the US to allow the attacks to happen.

Obviously a paid shill:pac:

granturismo

At work.

No.

Wibbs

rockbeast wrote: »

Things that make you go...Hmmmm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

:eek:

Nope. Not really. There was talk on the ground from the emergency services that the fire in the building was running away from them and was likely to collapse. They pulled all the crews and others back because of this risk long before the BBC report. The Beeb just jumped the gun in reporting it's actual collapse. In rolling news like that these things happen.

rockbeast

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Not really. There was talk on the ground from the emergency services that the fire in the building was running away from them and was likely to collapse. They pulled all the crews and others back because of this risk long before the BBC report. The Beeb just jumped the gun in reporting it's actual collapse. In rolling news like that these things happen.

O.K.

Wibbs

rockbeast wrote: »

O.K.

Well it's either that or believe the BBC were also in on the conspiracy and that way lies crazy town.

Wacker The Attacker

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

They certainly are not compared to the conspiracy industry that has taken off post 9/11. For example the theories that the most recent US gun massacres are a faked plot to seize guns from law obiding citizens.

However the 9/11 theories just do not make enough sense:

Afghanistan has some, but not enough, minerals to justify a smash and grab invasion. Has the US economy greatly benefited from 9/11, the Iraq war and the Afghan war? Has it ****. The financial nerve centre of the world was knocked out for months and the two wars have been hemorrhaging money during the worst financial crisis in 80 years.

Are the various American defense company chiefs and government figures, men who are already multi multi millionaires, truly evil enough to plot to allow an attack that would merely turn them from very rich to filthy rich? Did every CIA and defense operative involved send a message to each and every member of their family to ensure they wouldn't be in New York on the day?

The country is notorious for repelling foreign invaders. The US never wanted to go there. They waited over a month after asking the Taliban to turn in and turf out AQ before taking action.

Any engineer worth his salt has rubbished the controlled demolition claims. Have they all been paid off?

While they spread rumours as to Iraqi involvement, 95% of the US reasoning for the Iraq invasion was WMD, not 9/11.


It was certainly an intelligence breakdown that's for sure but there is simply zero evidence to justify enough advantage for the US to allow the attacks to happen.

Stuff like the guns laws are a separate issue and shoud be treated as such. However, the 911 conspiracy isnt entirely off the wall. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it the 21st century JFK. Whether one agrees with it or not is a different matter but it's certain that a lot of questions remain.

Where there's war there's profit. Not for economies but certainly for individuals and companies

rockbeast

Wibbs wrote: »

Well it's either that or believe the BBC were also in on the conspiracy and that way lies crazy town.

O.K. B.B.C

Wacker The Attacker

I doubt that the whole thing was set up.

However, I believe it's reasonable to assume that a far better job could have been done in preventing it or limiting the effects.

Its verging on negligence in parts.

everlast75

TPD wrote: »

I was in the first week of secondary school in London and had got my first good mark in my journal from computing class, for the epic feat of remembering the top row of alphabetic keys on a keyboard (hint: qwertyuiop). Got home and found out about it, then spent the evening watching the tv. Spent the next day in school talking about ww3.

(Anyone else glance down at their keyboard, or was that just me???)



Anyhoo - I was in work. When we heard about it, we went into the pub next door on the Quays just after the second plane hit.

Conspiracy? Not in the sense of it was planned by anyone other than Bin Laden et al. However, I do believe the US knew something big was going to happen and didn't/couldn't do enough to stop it.

rockbeast

:cool:

Wacker The Attacker

everlast75 wrote: »

(Anyone else glance down at their keyboard, or was that just me???)



Anyhoo - I was in work. When we heard about it, we went into the pub next door on the Quays just after the second plane hit.

Conspiracy? Not in the sense of it was planned by anyone other than Bin Laden et al. However, I do believe the US knew something big was going to happen and didn't/couldn't do enough to stop it.

Why not?