4 ms·

> Someone is going to get nuked. Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage. This website is quite interesting with footage from major tv netwo

> Someone is going to get nuked. Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage. This website is quite interesting with footage from major tv networks on the day: https://911realtime.org/ https://911realtime.org/

sylens 4y ago
That real-time site is an incredible thing to look at. Brings back a lot of memories of the confusion and uncertainty of that day.
- Grimburger 4y ago
  It's a great site. Even down to the design and historical after-the-fact notes in the timeline.
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
- jjulius 4y ago
- shlant 4y ago
  that's a very specific thing to declare missing. Is there a reason you seem to be looking for that specifically?
  - jasonvorhe 4y ago
    Because Salomon Brothers/Building 7 is the first and only steel building to completely collapse due to some uncontrolled fires and because the BBC reported about its collapse before it even happened because it's clearly visible behind her while she reports about it: https://youtu.be/TONMGGiKI7s https://youtu.be/TONMGGiKI7s
    - aliqot 4y ago
      I remember that being reported on while the video was still seen standing in the live feed playing behind the reporter, and thought it was so curious because it hadn't, and then it falling. I also recall there being a third or fourth plane that was diverted by a terrorist and perhaps two more crashes. At the time, on the live newscast, there was another plane headed toward the pentagon and one more headed somewhere else. One crashed in a field, one crashed into the pentagon and left a small hole in the wall. There are so many details from the news broadcasts that day that don't line up and don't get spoken about. Partly the reason why there are so many theories out there about what happened that day is the amount of conjecture in the reporting never got rehashed, there was never an examination after the fact of who said what and why it was or was not the case.
    - colmmacc 4y ago
      There was almost three and a half hours between the first signs (2PM) of collapse and the final total collapse (5:20PM). It began with bulges and inward collapse on upper floors and then the fire service evacuating and abandoning the building in anticipation of structural failure. It's easy to understand news services listening in to the radio traffic in the heat of the moment misunderstanding.
    - CommieBobDole 4y ago
      I've always wondered what people think that this is supposed to mean - are they suggesting that there was a conspiracy to demolish WTC7 for whatever reason, and the BBC was somehow brought into the conspiracy for some inexplicable reason and were supposed to announce that it had collapsed at some planned time for some inexplicable reason and they either got the time wrong or the collapse was delayed and they reported it anyway for some inexplicable reason even though it was visibly still there? As opposed to the much more likely scenario wherein it was a chaotic situation, and the firefighters had decided to stop fighting the fire in WTC7 because they thought it was going to collapse, and either somebody had misheard over a scanner or the anchor misunderstood what they were being told and said the wrong thing? Because if so, that sounds like a failure of critical thinking, not evidence of a conspiracy. And that's my problem with nearly all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff - most of it is things where you say, "hmm, that seems a little strange" and then it falls apart completely when you really look into and/or think about it. Like, if you say to me, "The CIA was behind 9/11, they posed as a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization and found some guys who wanted to attack the WTC and bankrolled them and helped them plan and gave them advice on exploiting known problems with US security, and did some stuff to make sure that any investigation would be diverted, and they were successful and flew planes into buildings which burned for hours and then collapsed, killing thousands of people and justifying foreign wars", that's plausible. Could have happened. The CIA has probably done more evil things. Burden of proof is on you, of course, but it could be a thing. But no, it's always "the towers were brought down by explosives", or "the planes were really missiles", or "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" or "the planes were flown by remote control and all the supposed passengers were just crisis actors" or, "they let random idiot x into the conspiracy for no discernible reason and he spilled the beans" or any one of a hundred improbable, unsupported-by-the-available-facts failures of critical thinking. I mean, I understand the tendency of the human mind, when faced with a chaotic situation with an unsatisfying outcome, to latch onto little odd things about the official explanation and expand them into a whole tale that wraps up the whole thing neatly, but man, this is just exhausting
nordsieck 4y ago
> Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage. Are you including the ensuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Even then, I think you're seriously underestimating the number of casualties a relatively low yield nuke (in the context of modern strategic weapons) would produce if it hit a city like New York.
- Grimburger 4y ago
  Yes that was the implication. Depends who you ask and talking about it at the time was full of controversy, but I have seen half a million excess deaths in the end for Iraq and maybe half that for Afghanistan?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ouid 4y ago
    I think you mightbe underestimating either the population density of a major city or the kill everything radius of a thermonuclear weapon.
    - solveit 4y ago
      And the aftermath of a nuclear war. If they're going to count the people who died after the war proper, they should count them in both scenarios.
  - macksd 4y ago
    Would a nuke not have also led to wars like that?
macksd 4y ago
How do you figure that? Are you comparing long-term effects and military fall-out from 9/11 but only the immediate death toll of a nuke?

sylens 4y ago

That real-time site is an incredible thing to look at. Brings back a lot of memories of the confusion and uncertainty of that day.

Grimburger 4y ago
It's a great site. Even down to the design and historical after-the-fact notes in the timeline.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago
shlant 4y ago
that's a very specific thing to declare missing. Is there a reason you seem to be looking for that specifically?
- jasonvorhe 4y ago
  Because Salomon Brothers/Building 7 is the first and only steel building to completely collapse due to some uncontrolled fires and because the BBC reported about its collapse before it even happened because it's clearly visible behind her while she reports about it: https://youtu.be/TONMGGiKI7s https://youtu.be/TONMGGiKI7s
  - aliqot 4y ago
    I remember that being reported on while the video was still seen standing in the live feed playing behind the reporter, and thought it was so curious because it hadn't, and then it falling. I also recall there being a third or fourth plane that was diverted by a terrorist and perhaps two more crashes. At the time, on the live newscast, there was another plane headed toward the pentagon and one more headed somewhere else. One crashed in a field, one crashed into the pentagon and left a small hole in the wall. There are so many details from the news broadcasts that day that don't line up and don't get spoken about. Partly the reason why there are so many theories out there about what happened that day is the amount of conjecture in the reporting never got rehashed, there was never an examination after the fact of who said what and why it was or was not the case.
  - colmmacc 4y ago
    There was almost three and a half hours between the first signs (2PM) of collapse and the final total collapse (5:20PM). It began with bulges and inward collapse on upper floors and then the fire service evacuating and abandoning the building in anticipation of structural failure. It's easy to understand news services listening in to the radio traffic in the heat of the moment misunderstanding.
  - CommieBobDole 4y ago
    I've always wondered what people think that this is supposed to mean - are they suggesting that there was a conspiracy to demolish WTC7 for whatever reason, and the BBC was somehow brought into the conspiracy for some inexplicable reason and were supposed to announce that it had collapsed at some planned time for some inexplicable reason and they either got the time wrong or the collapse was delayed and they reported it anyway for some inexplicable reason even though it was visibly still there? As opposed to the much more likely scenario wherein it was a chaotic situation, and the firefighters had decided to stop fighting the fire in WTC7 because they thought it was going to collapse, and either somebody had misheard over a scanner or the anchor misunderstood what they were being told and said the wrong thing? Because if so, that sounds like a failure of critical thinking, not evidence of a conspiracy. And that's my problem with nearly all of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff - most of it is things where you say, "hmm, that seems a little strange" and then it falls apart completely when you really look into and/or think about it. Like, if you say to me, "The CIA was behind 9/11, they posed as a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization and found some guys who wanted to attack the WTC and bankrolled them and helped them plan and gave them advice on exploiting known problems with US security, and did some stuff to make sure that any investigation would be diverted, and they were successful and flew planes into buildings which burned for hours and then collapsed, killing thousands of people and justifying foreign wars", that's plausible. Could have happened. The CIA has probably done more evil things. Burden of proof is on you, of course, but it could be a thing. But no, it's always "the towers were brought down by explosives", or "the planes were really missiles", or "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" or "the planes were flown by remote control and all the supposed passengers were just crisis actors" or, "they let random idiot x into the conspiracy for no discernible reason and he spilled the beans" or any one of a hundred improbable, unsupported-by-the-available-facts failures of critical thinking. I mean, I understand the tendency of the human mind, when faced with a chaotic situation with an unsatisfying outcome, to latch onto little odd things about the official explanation and expand them into a whole tale that wraps up the whole thing neatly, but man, this is just exhausting

nordsieck 4y ago

> Quite a few more died in the end than a nuke could manage. Are you including the ensuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Even then, I think you're seriously underestimating the number of casualties a relatively low yield nuke (in the context of modern strategic weapons) would produce if it hit a city like New York.

Grimburger 4y ago
Yes that was the implication. Depends who you ask and talking about it at the time was full of controversy, but I have seen half a million excess deaths in the end for Iraq and maybe half that for Afghanistan?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ouid 4y ago
  I think you mightbe underestimating either the population density of a major city or the kill everything radius of a thermonuclear weapon.
  - solveit 4y ago
    And the aftermath of a nuclear war. If they're going to count the people who died after the war proper, they should count them in both scenarios.
- macksd 4y ago
  Would a nuke not have also led to wars like that?

macksd 4y ago

How do you figure that? Are you comparing long-term effects and military fall-out from 9/11 but only the immediate death toll of a nuke?