Live data from Hacker News

September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

911realtime.org

251–260 of 523 posts

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could have done regime change in Saudi Arabia and still had petrodollars Sometimes its useful to think inside the box But yeah current Saudi Arabia is a good deal for the US, hard to get others so heavily intertwined financially. Might as well not touch it.

I don’t really understand what US/allies get from maintaining a theocracy in SA, chevron and british petroleum predate the modern kingdom, right? why is it good business sense to let the royal family siphon cash like there’s no tomorrow? seems to me a political explanation is more likely, probably related to the holy war with Iran. In that case I never really understood why we took an anti-theocratic stance there.

My relatively uneducated impression: it seems like the current leaders of Saudi Arabia are the most liberal (in the classical sense) option. Other candidates for leadership are even more hardline religious conservatives (and when people think of the 9/11 hijackers coming from SA, it's from these groups). Pushing against the current leadership is unlikely to result in an overall improvement in the situation.

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#252

Unpopular question, how did a plane and jet fuel burn down a steel reinforced building? I believe in the entire history of buildings built as the world trade centers were, the only ones ever that burned down and collapse are these. The only way as civil engineers have explained it to me, that the buildings structural qualities could have been compromised, are with additional heat sources besides a jet and jet fuel. I…

> I believe in the entire history of buildings built as the world trade centers were, the only ones ever that burned down and collapse are these. How many of the other buildings were struck head-on by fully loaded 767s traveling at 400+ mph? Is there any real-world example to compare?

WTC Building 7 was _not_ hit by a plane, yet it somehow spontaneously collapsed in a very curious way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0

EDIT: Of course, merely stating a plain objective fact, that doesn't challenge any narratives or make any controversial claims whatsoever, with a link to an AP archive video, will be downvoted negative within minutes. You are not allowed to even look at WTC7 collapsing. Don't even think about looking at it!

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heart disease and cancer kill many more: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm... Beware the myopia that sensationalist news coverage tends to encourage. Never forget all the lives lost. Not just the 3000+ we lost on that horrible day (RIP), but the millions more around the world lost in the wake of the actions we chose, as a nation, to take in the "war on terror".

Heart disease and cancer aren't contagious, so your actions on that front will only improve your own life, while being a bit more careful with covid will potentially prevent sickness in a lot of people.

Obesity is socially contagious, and causes higher rates of heart disease and cancer.

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unpopular question, how did a plane and jet fuel burn down a steel reinforced building? That's the germ of a bunch of 20 year old paranoid conspiracy theories, basically the 2001 version of COVID denialism. If you're asking a genuine question, there are decades-old engineering analyses and all kind of layman's translations of them that explain it. I'm sure they can be easily Googled.

None of them ELI5, as I’ve originally asked. I’d love an ELI5 perspective. Thank you.

ELI5: While jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel you don't need to melt it to weaken it.

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#255
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also after he publicly confessed, not to mention his previous crimes. Their refusal had nothing to do with 'evidence'. " Source? Bin Laden initially declined responsibility, saying his hosts the taliban, would not allow such a operation. (surely not out of being nice, but because of wanting to keep the power) And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them any…

>And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them anymore. I'm referring to that, not to his preinasvion evasion. The Taliban didn't even cut relations with him or his associates after he confessed, and they were not without influence in AfPak. Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right?…

"Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right? "

I am pretty sure, they were upset and maybe there were actual heads rolling behind the scenes. But on the outside, they had the US as common enemy. An enemy that hit them both as hard as he could, without making any difference.

So of course at that time, talking about extradiction was over.

But the Taliban while at power did made the civic offer to extradict Bin Laden, if presented with evidence.

So of course, it is not sure, if they actually would have done it. Maybe they would have ended in a civic war by themself over it.

But we never knew, because the US choose to go the brutal way. No evidence. No extradiction. Just war.

Now 20 years later with the Taliban back in power and stronger than ever, I can just say, awesome outcome with this approach.

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe in the entire history of buildings built as the world trade centers were, the only ones ever that burned down and collapse are these. How many of the other buildings were struck head-on by fully loaded 767s traveling at 400+ mph? Is there any real-world example to compare?

WTC Building 7 was _not_ hit by a plane, yet it somehow spontaneously collapsed in a very curious way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0 EDIT: Of course, merely stating a plain objective fact, that doesn't challenge any narratives or make any controversial claims whatsoever, with a link to an AP archive video, will be downvoted negative within minutes. You are not allowed to even look at WTC7 collapsing. Don…

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/427...

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTC Building 7 was _not_ hit by a plane, yet it somehow spontaneously collapsed in a very curious way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0 EDIT: Of course, merely stating a plain objective fact, that doesn't challenge any narratives or make any controversial claims whatsoever, with a link to an AP archive video, will be downvoted negative within minutes. You are not allowed to even look at WTC7 collapsing. Don…

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/427...

It's quite boringly predictable that someone would immediately link to a conspiracy debunking article. I have not mentioned anything whatsoever about a conspiracy theory. I merely stated that it is "curious", which it very much objectively is, no matter what else you choose to believe about the event.

Also interesting is that if you actually read the official report that your link references, it does not provide a detailed explanation of how the WTC7 building actually collapsed. The event remains extremely curious 20 years later.

Edit: In response to the reply below:

Yes they basically say "it collapsed because the fire was hot and caused a critical column to collapse". It's a childish level of explanation, not rigorous and scientific. It says nothing about how such a thing could occur. I've studied mathematics, physics, engineering at university up to Bachelors level and to me this is a very amateurish childish level of analysis. The report is fluffed up with many pages of serious important looking official boilerplate, surrounding this one paragraph that basically says nothing. It's a tautology. No rigorous analysis in this report. That in itself is extremely curious to me.

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#259
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them anymore. I'm referring to that, not to his preinasvion evasion. The Taliban didn't even cut relations with him or his associates after he confessed, and they were not without influence in AfPak. Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right?…

"Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right? " I am pretty sure, they were upset and maybe there were actual heads rolling behind the scenes. But on the outside, they had the US as common enemy. An enemy that hit them both as hard as he could, without making any difference. So of course at that time, talking about extradiction was over. But th…

>I am pretty sure, they were upset and maybe there were actual heads rolling behind the scenes.

No evidence of it, and I find this entire debate odd.

Again, the Taliban hosted a terrorist group which had publicly declared war against America, and launched known attacks - all this well known before 9-11. What did anyone expect this public antagonist group to do? Play volleyball?

If someone hosted a group called "Death to X" and the group predictably attacked X, that someone shouldn't get to claim innocence. Especially not after the nth attack!

>Now 20 years later with the Taliban back in power and stronger than ever

A completely predictable result of the ideological way the retreat was done.

Re: September 11, 2001 media synced in real-time

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure at all the pandemic is going to be more significant historically. The 9/11 attacks did what Al-Qaeda intended them to - got the USA mired in an expensive, unwinnable war, which ultimately broke the US will to fight and seems to have resulted in a major reconfiguration of US foreign policy.

This. Al qaeda won. They destroyed the way of American life before 9-11. We are a different country now. So much government control over the last 20 years because of the 9-11 like TSA, Patriot act, massive government surveillance all in the name of “Homeland Security”. Anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers exist precisely because of 9-11. The distrust from all of the secret government acts is only part of the equation. The t…

Your first paragraph laments the expansion of government control and surveillance triggered by 9/11 (which I agree with), but in your next, you use pejoratives to identify people who choose not to get a vaccine or engage in hygiene theater. How would you classify the bully tactics being used by the current administration to coerce citizens into getting a vaccine? This is yet another example of government control and overreach. In this case, gov't is violating personal health (rather than privacy), and the justification is "public health" instead of "homeland security".

> Anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers exist precisely because of 9-11.

This statement is non-sense. I'm old enough to remember 9/11. I lived closed enough to watch the smoke rising from the towers. I assure you, my choice to not get the C19 vaccine (and refusal to wear a mask) have nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

The term "anti-vaxxer" is derogatory, and is being used as a demeaning caricature. I don't fit your stereotype. I am not getting the C19 vaccine. That does not mean I am against all vaccinations. A person can believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, and decide against getting THIS vaccine (imagine that). Terms like "anti-vaxxer" are used to demonize those (such as myself) who have decided not to get the C19 vaccine. I guess classifying people as "anti-vaxxer" helps people like you justify calling them "literally stupid."

> We have literally produced idiots across the US because of a horrible educational system. They can’t think critically because they don’t have to. So 20 years of this, and you have a large percentage of the population that are literally stupid and can’t think critically.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The irony is that, based on your comments, you'd consider me "literally stupid", and I would say your critical thinking are severely lacking.

> They would rather die than take a vaccine or wear a mask.

I can assure you that if contracting COVID-19 meant certain death, the government would not have to spend millions on propaganda to convince people to get the C19 vaccine. Contracting C19 does not imply certain death: I know this first-hand, anecdotally, and it is backed by statistics published by the CDC (for whatever those are worth these days). In other words, for the overwhelming majority of the population C19 is no worse than the flu. For those with pre-existing health conditions, the risks are greater and the vaccine is a godsend. I won't address the mask fallacy. If you want to wear a mask, by all means. I am not one to pull a binky out of a child's mouth -- whatever it takes to get people to get out and live their lives.

The fact that you jump to the conclusion that "everyone who does not get vaccinated or wear a mask is stupid" does not reflect well on your critical thinking skills. As I've explained above, there are legitimate reasons for not getting the vaccine. Maybe a better approach is to give others the benefit of the doubt, and attempt to engage in meaningful conversation? We likely won't agree on everything, but maybe I'd convince you that people who decide against the C19 are not all "literally stupid".

Post reply on HN