September 11, 2001: What we saw : Respectful Insolence

Who (or what) is Orac?

Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)

Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.

Search

Non-Orac Insolence

Medicine

Science

Skepticism and critical thinking

Combatting Holocaust denial

Blog carnivals

Science and Surgery

« The precarious position of physician-scientists in academic medicine today | Main | I'm away from regular blogging for a couple of weeks, and what do I find? »

September 11, 2001: What we saw

Category: History
Posted on: September 11, 2007 2:01 PM, by Orac

This video was shot by Bob and Bri, who in 2001 lived in a high rise a mere 500 yards from the North Tower. There is nothing to add, at least not by me. It is difficult to watch.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

Sorry, Orac, can't watch it. Maybe in a few more years.

Posted by: Dawn | September 11, 2007 5:47 PM

I thought the hardest part would be waiting for the second plane to hit, knowing that it was coming. It wasn't. When the first tower fell, and the woman holding the camera started to cry, I started to cry, too. The disbelief, followed by the crushing realization that the tower was *really* gone--it all came rushing back.

Posted by: Mrs. Coulter | September 11, 2007 7:51 PM

It still stirs up the same emotions, all these years later. And as I was watching, feeling my heart start to race and my stomach tighten in fear, I realized I was feeling a different kind of anger this time. I wanted to tie the moron who made the video with a stack of plastic in-boxes to a chair and make him watch this over and over. Heck, get a whole convention of 9/11 denialists and set them up like Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork Orange and show them this, maybe all the videos and photos taken by eyewitnesses. I wanted to scream at this country, which allows Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson to say that going after Bin Laden would be a waste of time and money, and lets Bush tell us that Bin Laden is "of no consequence", with hardly any mention outside the blogosphere, much less the universal condemnation such statements deserve. Usually, time heals wounds. We might never completely recover, but we can live with the scars. Revisiting the attack, though, is a reminder that there are too many people who've used it for their own purposes, twisting it, framing it, profiting from it, a reminder that this wound hasn't been treated so that it can heal. Being reminded that something that has been so trivialized by self-absorbed people was actually an event of such magnitude opens everything up again, and it's bleeding just like new.

Posted by: Alison | September 11, 2007 11:50 PM

Oh... God... I remember that day. I heard it on the radio in the morning, and thought it was just a drama. Then I got to college and learned it was real...

I've never actually seen any video footage somehow. Horrifying.

Posted by: Adam Cuerden | September 12, 2007 4:42 AM

That was not easy to watch but thank you for sharing it.

Posted by: notmercury | September 12, 2007 10:00 AM

There's a great deal to add, Orac.

It was my hope in the aftermath that the US government would make policy changes after this horrible day, changes that would make it citizens safer. Instead, six years later, the US is at greater risk than ever before.

What Bin Laden wanted from that day was for the US to go charging into Afghanistan where he would be able to fight a war of attrition against the US that would go on for untold years, just as he did against the Soviets. He didn't count on the size and determination of the coalition forces. Al Qaeda was all but defeated in Afghanistan in short order.

But instead of completing that mission, the US government willfully invaded Iraq, where a combination of Al Qaeda, Baathists, various militias, and warring religious factions have all involved the US in a war of attrition that will go on for untold years.

The single thing that would most help the US today would be to eliminate the country's dependence on foreign oil. The importance and gravity of all the issues related to 9/11 and the occupation of Iraq would be greatly diminished if this happened.

Consider the messy web of interrelationships: Iran/Iraq. Iraq/Israel. US/Israel. Israel/Palestine/Iraq. US/Israel/Palestine. Iraq/Petro-Euro. US/Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia/Islamic extremism. All of this is directly or peripherally related to mid-east oil.

Eliminate the need for oil, and you eliminate a great deal of the east-west tension.

This is what I had hoped would be the lesson of 9/11.

Posted by: Jim Royal | September 12, 2007 1:07 PM

FAKE! Deserves no comment.

Posted by: eric swan | September 12, 2007 9:49 PM

eric swann writes:
FAKE! Deserves no comment.

Idiot.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 13, 2007 10:50 AM

"The documentarian in me needs to record this" and the documentarian in me needs to witness it. Thank you, Orac, Bob, and Bri.

Jim Royal - well said!

Posted by: Kristine | September 13, 2007 5:54 PM

Thanks, Kristine.

The one thing that puzzles and troubles me the most is the reaction of people to a video such as the one above... Six years on, and people still cannot watch a video of this tragedy. Everyone is still caught up in that moment, with emotions fully engaged. There's no perspective. In all this time, there's been little or no public discussion of the chain of events that led to it, nor about what the non-military reaction to it should be.

Posted by: Jim Royal | September 13, 2007 9:36 PM

Totally learned alot from this video. Instead of wiring buildings for demolitions, just ram planes into them and they'll disspear straight down in 15 seconds, even though theyre built like battleships. NOt only that a third building will collpase, building 7 w/o a plane even hitting it.

Demolition companies need to learn this new techinique, instead of remotley detonating every other floor just ram a plane in a building and youll get 3 for the price of 2, theyll all dissapear staright down at near freefall speeds.

Love the empty ditch in shankesville too, 99% of the plane dissapears bc it was a high speed crash according to popular mechanics, but the terrorists passport survives, and his bandana!

see loose change, most watch movie ever on the internet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Posted by: cooler | September 16, 2007 4:56 PM

"Totally learned alot from this video. Instead of wiring buildings for demolitions, just ram planes into them and they'll disspear straight down in 15 seconds, even though theyre built like battleships."

Since you seem to fancy yourself competent to speak on matters of structural engineering, would you mind elaborating on how, exactly, the WTC buildings were "built like battleships" and why those structural details are relevant?

Or are you just like the rest of the troofer brigade, and content to concoct assertions in the hopes that, eventually, something will stick?

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 16, 2007 6:09 PM

Harvard engineering professor FRank Demartini and wtc construction manager said bc of the 47 core columns and the intense steel grid surronding the building it could withstand multiple jet impacts.

JOhn Skilling the lead engineer said the building would still be standing with a jet impact.

Hyman brown civil enginner wtc designer said it was overdesigned to withstand almost anything, a plane a 100 year storm, bombs, jets

no steel framed building (thats been finished being constructed) has every totally collapsed due to damage/fires.

The film 9/11 mysteries explains this all well,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536

Posted by: cooler | September 16, 2007 8:51 PM

Oh, great. Just what this blog doesn't need: More 9/11 Troofer idiocy.

You realize, of course, that I have about as little tolerance for 9/11 Truthers these days as I do for HIV/AIDS denialists, creationists, and antivaccinationists.

As for the "overengineering issue," the towers did survive jet impacts as engineered. Unfortunately, it was the fires that weakened the superstructure and resulted in their collapse.

Posted by: Orac | September 16, 2007 9:13 PM

NO actually the lead engineer of the towers JOhn Skillling said it could take the subsequent fire of jet fuel amd the structure would still be there, and a plane wouldnt bring it down.

Frank demartini died in the towers, he died because he stayed in the building, assuming it wouldnt collapse helping others escape (he said a few years before it could withstand multiple impacts, hes a harvard professor you dont think when he said it could survive several jet impacts he ignored the subsequent jet fuel fires?

How do you think Dr. demartini thought the planes would reach the buildings, with high grade Crisco oil?

Posted by: cooler | September 16, 2007 9:51 PM

oh by the way over a 150 architects from the bay area have come out to say the buildings were imploded, I guess theyre all kool aid drinkers too.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Posted by: cooler | September 16, 2007 10:05 PM

If that was his belief, then he was tragically mistaken in his judgment, as the events of 9/11 showed. However, I tend to doubt that DeMartini's statements actually support the crackpot ideas of 9/11 truthers. In any case, it's despicable of 9/11 truthers to cite a man who can't respond to their characterization and of to parrot 9/11 Truther lies in this thread, meant to be a memorial of what happened six years ago. In doing so, you defame the memory of the dead, including heroes like DeMaritini

Finally, just because DeMartini was a Harvard professor doesn't mean he had to have been correct in his assessment. (Did he actually do a detailed engineering study to see if the towers could survive an impact? If so, where is that study?) Nor is his being wrong about the ability of the towers to withstand a jet impact and a fire evidence that the planes didn't bring the towers down by themselves.

Posted by: Orac | September 16, 2007 10:08 PM

"Did he actually do a detailed engineering study to see if the towers could survive an impact? If so, where is that study?"

And not just any impact. The towers were probably intended to sustain the impact of an aircraft at approach speed, not an aircraft traveling at almost Mach I and intended specifically to be used as a missile.

And re: 9/11 Mysteries, it's another crap conspiracy video rehashing the same troofer bullcrap over again. A thorough rebuttal to all it's nonsense (including an annotated and corrected version of the video) can be found here.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 16, 2007 10:22 PM

And for cooler, I will reiterate a challenge to conspiracy theorists that they conspicuously always seem to avoid:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

(Hint: The Windsor Torre in Madrid doesn't count, it's core was steel reinforced concrete, and the steel aspects of the structure did not survive the inferno.)

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 16, 2007 10:44 PM

Infact about half of the family members think it was an inside job according to Bill Doyle, the leader of one of the largest groups representing family members.

If you see the film Press for Truth youll see this, how disgusted the family members are with the 9/11 commission.

Dont you find it strange that cheney tried so hard to block the investigation?, and that this administration has totally forgotten about Osama, if he truly was responsible I think Bush would not have totally ignored him for the past 6 years.

Find it strange they couldnt find the black boxes at ground zero, but luckily they found a terrorists passport, thank god they also found another terrorists passport in the empty ditch in shankseville to, too bad 99% of the plane dissapeared.

Thank god mohammed atta left a suitcase in his rental car with the names of all the hijackers and a learn how to fly manual, so he could brush up on how to fly on the way to the airport.

Strange how they dont release the 80 cameras at the pentagon dont you think?

Strange how 13 of the 19 hijackers never appear on any airport cams? and the ones that do were random guys that were released 3 years later.

SO lucky that all 81 columns failed at the same time in building 7, thank god the fire weakened them at the same time, bc thats never happened before, fire causeing a symetrical collapse.

"detailed engineering studies" well you would have to conduct live expirements, and theyve been done, buildings have been bombed, hit by planes, been in much hotter larger fires and never collapsed, buildings have had 50% of them blown out by bombs and have not disspeared straight down.

Posted by: cooler | September 16, 2007 10:46 PM

Infact about half of the family members think it was an inside job according to Bill Doyle, the leader of one of the largest groups representing family members.

Even if that were true, it would have absolutely no bearing on whether or not 9/11 was an "inside job." Family members are no more qualified than wingnuts like you to determine whether 9/11 was or was not an "inside job."

Geez, your "arguments" are getting more and more pathetic as the night goes on.

Posted by: Orac | September 16, 2007 11:01 PM

"SO lucky that all 81 columns failed at the same time in building 7, thank god the fire weakened them at the same time, bc thats never happened before, fire causeing a symetrical collapse."

Have a cite for this? WTC7 sustained structural damage from the debris originating from the other collapses, specifically a 20 story gash in it's SW corner. The firefighters themselves knew it was going to collapse.

One should also note that the original WTC7 building was supported by a steel core. Apropos to my other post, they've replaced it with a concrete core in the reconstructed building. Can you guess why?

""detailed engineering studies" well you would have to conduct live expirements, and theyve been done, buildings have been bombed, hit by planes, been in much hotter larger fires and never collapsed, buildings have had 50% of them blown out by bombs and have not disspeared straight down."

And predictably, you completely ignore my above post. Like most troofers, you gloss over structural details and use vague generalities in the place of actual analysis (and furthermore, fail to attach any specific examples to your tripe). Orac is right, you just get more pathetic as the night goes on.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 16, 2007 11:33 PM

When I cite experts like 150 architects, FRank demartini, you make convoluted excuses, when I cite family members you change your tune.

Youre just a bumb thats cant handle the fact that youve never been elected to the national academy of sciences, never ever considered for a nobel prize, just a hack that barely made it through college. Youre a one trick pony, youre whole blog is "crank" "woo" 24/7 because youre such an insipid person you cant come up with anything else besides your patented redundant drivel.

Screw you, call me a wingnut, sorry I have to reply with the truth about your sorry scientific career that no ones heard of. Don't take your insecurities out on others.

Let me guess Orac your next blog post is going to include "woo" and "crank" cant wait to hear that for the millionth time. Good riddance, I'd be happy to debate you anywhere anytime on any issue,but Ive already blown you away here, but you're not worth the time, notice how I tried to be civil but you and your fatty friend started to get personal, fine with me its all good fun to reveal you sanctimonious sorry mindless sycophants that you are.

good riddance, I dont debate with uneducated losers.

Posted by: cooler | September 16, 2007 11:37 PM

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

But for the lurkers and others, here is some info on the organization of "architects and engineers" you cite. Not quite as credible as you would have us believe.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 16, 2007 11:47 PM

Let me guess Orac your next blog post is going to include "woo" and "crank" cant wait to hear that for the millionth time. Good riddance, I'd be happy to debate you anywhere anytime on any issue,but Ive already blown you away here, but you're not worth the time, notice how I tried to be civil but you and your fatty friend started to get personal, fine with me its all good fun to reveal you sanctimonious sorry mindless sycophants that you are.

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

And, yes, 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists like you are wingnuts, cranks, etc. As such, you're of interest only as an example of poor thinking cherry picking of data, and poor logic, all with a heapin' helpin' of conspiracy theory paranoia. As Tyler says, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I also second his recommendation of Screw Loose Change, a great resource for rebutting the lies and misinformation of 9/11 Truthers.

Of course, you'll be back sooner or later. Cranks like you always come back, their leaving in a huff and saying they'll never bother again notwithstanding.

Posted by: Orac | September 17, 2007 5:48 AM

I always find the denialist approach to qualifications fascinating. They typically don't have any themselves, of course, but that never stops them from commenting on matters they clearly don't understand. All the layman has to do to become an instant expert on anything, apparently, is find a talking head with sufficiently good credentials and do the obligatory parrot impression. The existence of large numbers of people with better credentials than said talking head on the other side of the debate is irrelevant, of course.

Posted by: MartinM | September 17, 2007 8:30 AM

Bump, LOL just wondering if any lurkers here were compelled by my arguments..........theyre damn skippy good, or are you guys still drinking the official 9/11 kool aid drinking myth.......................?

Posted by: cooler | September 19, 2007 7:17 PM