Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly this. It was a tragic day in America, but our continuing feelings of victimization about that day is rather sad, IMO. It's also a contradictory attitude for us to have, considering our government and citizens belive we are the strongest country in the world, and now have this constant paranoia about terrorism. We cause people of other countries suffering and death and think nothing of it because they are the "enemy". To me people are people, and lives are important, whether they are Americans or not.
EXACTLY THIS!
That was the whole intent of their mission and in that one aspect alone, they succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.
They wanted your reaction to cause discord across the planet and forever cast you in the role of the revenge seeking villain.
Countries who have caused legitimate harm to others have largely escaped your wrath unnoticed while others, who were of no consequence whatsoever in their ability to upset the world's equilibrium, got the full weight and measure of an American response.
Wow. I looked in the History forum and the New York City forum, thinking SURELY there must be a place on City-Data to say:
"I remember that day.
"Let us never forget how many innocent victims were murdered that day. And especially let us remember and salute the first responders who gave their lives trying to save people they didn't know."
It's been 14 years. I didn't know anyone who died in New York or DC or in the field in PA, but I still can't think about this day without overwhelming sadness and horror and anger. And I think about it much more often than just the anniversary.
So what about you? Do you even acknowledge this anniversary any more? Or is it too long ago to matter? If you were under 10 at the time, does 9/11 resonate at all for you?
And please, if I've just missed the right place to reply with a tribute, head me in the right direction.
Personally, I had the TV on watching the ceremony in the background while I was doing other things. As I was a resident of NYC on 9/11/2001 I remember that day clearly and also how it effected the daily life of NYC residents for a long period afterwards. The only son of one of my colleagues at that time was killed at the WTC.
Hmm. Just wanted to address that incorrect statement. My mother started dialysis last week, so I've been hanging around the renal care center at the hospital. The cleaning woman told me that her husband was on dialysis--for 34 years, from the time he was 43 until he died of a heart attack at 77. My mother's brother, who has the same kidney disease as she, was on it for ten years before he died. Other people have been on dialysis for years or decades and survived.
There does not seem to be any evidence whatsoever other than Internet conspiracy site rumors that Osama Bin Laden was ever on dialysis. I have never read a serious article about OBL that actually mentions it. The 1998 Esquire interview with Bin Laden in Afghanistan was pretty comprehensive, but never mentioned kidney disease at all.
Not arguing your point that our government does not always tell us the truth, but blindly swallowing what's on Internet websites put up by God knows who isn't much smarter.
Mainstream media is believable? One network - CNN - is good enough? Lots of foreign reporters and news sources are on the internet, the only alternative to the government's mouthpiece. ABC and NBC are as liberal as can be with CBS not far behind. 60 minutes use to be somewhat credible 40 years ago....it is now a liberal pity party and Scott Pelly is possibly the worst they have on payroll.
I look to many sources. I watch for what "they" don't tell us.
Google 'Bin Laden dialysis' and see what pops up. Sure, the debunkers pop up but Google is a liberal site and those sites take precedence. Follow the others and the rabbit hole deepens. How/why do news agencies of other nations have different versions of what our news agencies[media] present as the only truth? Is our media 100% accurate when reporting their versions of news concerning those nations? Do they twist facts to influence how Americans view those nations? Lots of people learn to mistrust and hate other nations based upon what the media tells us. How many hate Islamo-fascists, camel jockeys and burkas because they saw/heard those in the media speak of such?
Lots of sources will debunk what differs from the conveniently 'official' storyline but when numerous sources comprised of different voices are pointing to the different version of the fact it is worth looking into. Detectives follow up on many sources to find truth. The federal government wants us in the dark so they can pull off their nefarious deeds openly and unquestioned. The media tells their story and we are to swallow it. It's like an illusionist not hiding the illusions while expecting us to ignore what we saw. If the story sounds too good to be true it usually isn't, especially when concerning the federal government.
We had our own Tiananmen Square back in 1970 when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on students protesting the Vietnam war, killing 4 and wounding 9.
Think it can't/won't happen again?
Sorry that is an easily solvable problem. You have areas on the building set up without wires and antennae. How is that for clever? Build them into the fire code. If you have the possibility of people being trapped without being able to go down you at least attempt to leave an escape path.
This is not rocket science. And you could lift off a lesser number on long tethers even if the roof was difficult.
Let me try and explain this to you so you will understand. On the roofs of both buildings, there are thousands of fixed antennas some as high as ten stories.
Fixed antennae. Cannot be moved. Imobile.
There was absolutely no way helicopters could get close to the roofs of those buildings.
Let me try and explain this to you so you will understand. On the roofs of both buildings, there are thousands of fixed antennas some as high as ten stories.
Fixed antennae. Cannot be moved. Imobile.
There was absolutely no way helicopters could get close to the roofs of those buildings.
And let me explain to you. There are innumerable building with helipads on top. If one required the space for one it would be there. Particularly not a problem on cubic buildings. And they need not even support the weight of a big copter, who for this purpose does not even need to land.
The clever engineers simply do not locate antenna where a helicpopter might need to land. Perhaps this will help you understand the concept.
I went by the Pentagon the day after, 9/12. No 757 hit that building. Have you ever seen the size of one of those things?
A longtime friend and former coworker was driving along 395 in Arlington, Virginia on 9/11. He is one of numerous eyewitnesses who saw American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
I was about 7 years old, I'm portuguese (not even american) and still that date is deeply engraved in my heart, in my mind! I have no idea why but I was always kind of "fascinated" with this tragic event.
I remember watching the news in my mom's place in Portugal when it was happening... I sometimes think about it and watch the movies about this day, just because. I think September 11 will always make me feel this strange way that I just can't explain since, as I said, I'm not even american, and I was so young when it happened.
And let me explain to you. There are innumerable building with helipads on top. If one required the space for one it would be there. Particularly not a problem on cubic buildings. And they need not even support the weight of a big copter, who for this purpose does not even need to land.
The clever engineers simply do not locate antenna where a helicpopter might need to land. Perhaps this will help you understand the concept.
First, get a new pic. Met Life bought the building at least 20 years ago.
Second, helocopters haven't landed on that building since 1977, when an accident killed 5 people.
Third, there was no way to land a heli on the towers. For one, the winds are too strong that high up, and the smoke was too much.
First, get a new pic. Met Life bought the building at least 20 years ago.
Second, helocopters haven't landed on that building since 1977, when an accident killed 5 people.
Third, there was no way to land a heli on the towers. For one, the winds are too strong that high up, and the smoke was too much.
The picture is labelled 1963. Did you miss that. Whcih merely shows how to allow a helicopter to land on a building was known a long time ago. If you wished helicopter access you would have no antenna where the helicopter was to land. The smoke showed a relatively gentle breeze and blocked only one side of the building.
They did not equip the building for such an escape and in doing so condemned 100s of people to die. And the argument is that it was very unlikely to ever be necessary, would have cost a lot of money and may have proven unworkable. However with 20/20 hindsight it would have been a nice capability to have.
I don't see new skyscrapers with the capability either though I don't believe any building using the same structural approach will be built.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
