Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#71

Post by kube-system »

spiderice wrote: post #50
TacticalCoder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some 3 letters agency (FBI?) immediately raided all the nearby places that could have had cams and seized everything. I'm pretty sure that it's documented: IIRC footage from a petrol station nearby was confiscated. I was there (at the time, in front of my TV I mean) and I clearly remember the first witnesses being interviewed by reporters: as soon as a witness would say something not fitting the official narrative, i…

It’s interesting to me that even 20 years later, any comments that don’t fit the official narrative still get downvoted on HN (and the rest of the internet). There was such a giant push after it happened to not question the official narrative, and that still remains embedded in everyone’s heads. I wonder how long that will last.

They’re red herrings which have been discussed ad nauseam. 9/11 is the most analyzed event in modern history; we know what happened.

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#72

Post by vitaflo »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #41
ethbr0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who watched the second plane hit live on CNN, it was... hard. People who weren't alive or were otherwise busy that morning don't remember the uncertainty after the first plane. Everyone thought it was an accident. No one could conceive it was a deliberate strike. Everyone knew terrorists hijacked airplanes to fly to third world countries, not to commit suicide into buildings. That cognitive dissonance all…

Exactly! I remember getting dressed for work while listening to MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) about an airplane hitting the WTC and I figured it was just a small Cessna 172 or something so I turned on my TV just in time to see the second impact live. Watching it happen live with the immediate knowledge that it was obviously a deliberate act was, like you said, a huge amount to process all at once. I actually think tha…

I had my clock radio set to MPR as well and woke up to them talking about the first plane. Usually the news every morning didn’t register but that day it did.

I turned on the TV to see what was going on, which I usually don’t do. After a couple minutes of “oh my that’s a tragic accident” the second plane hit an I immediately knew it was no accident.

I worked downtown Mpls at the time and no way I was going to work that day. Thankfully my boss told everyone to stay home.

Seeing all of it live is a memory burned into my brain the same as watching the Challenger blow up live in middle school.

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#73

Post by etherael »

barneygale wrote: post #46
pinephoneguy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

If the CIA/FBI wanted to make people think a plane had hit the pentagon, why wouldn't they just use a plane? This conspiracy theory is one of the dumbest.

Gov confiscated all footage of incident is not the same thing as because incident nature was x and they were conducting a coverup.

(I have no idea if the footage was confiscated from all people, only that the footage from certain fixed nearby locations was confiscated, and have never seen any proof this was done because it was a coverup attempt.)

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#75

Post by nmilo »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #74

The "(2001)" makes it seem like this is a link to a video titled "Newly published 9/11 footage" that was posted in 2001. Maybe "Newly published 2001/09/11 footage" would be a better title?

Agreed, the (2001) is almost a little ridiculous---we all know 9/11 happened in 2001, and the year in the title is supposed to refer to publication date.

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#76

Post by boomboomsubban »

vlunkr wrote: post #44
SllX wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this. I was a child in Elementary school at the time and had just woken up and walked into the living room with the television on after the first plane attack. The reporter (forgot the network, I’d seen the same footage repeatedly all day that day and never wanted to look again) was still talking about the possibility of it being an accident right up until the second plane attacked. Even in my eyes at the ti…

My only connection to the word "terrorist" until that day was from a James Bond game (I was also young). Its hard to believe now, but the idea of a deliberate attack on civilians was really not on most people's radar at all. I think that's why most people's reaction to the second plane was pure bewilderment. It wouldn't be like that now.

>Its hard to believe now, but the idea of a deliberate attack on civilians was really not on most people's radar at all.

Though people were far less concerned about it than now, it's not fair to say it wasn't on their radar at all. The WTC had already been attacked once, and Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City Bombing only a few months before 9/11.

Even on the day, in that twenty minute window between crashes the general narrative was it might be an attack, just no reason to think it is yet.

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#78

Post by avalys »

spiderice wrote: post #50
TacticalCoder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some 3 letters agency (FBI?) immediately raided all the nearby places that could have had cams and seized everything. I'm pretty sure that it's documented: IIRC footage from a petrol station nearby was confiscated. I was there (at the time, in front of my TV I mean) and I clearly remember the first witnesses being interviewed by reporters: as soon as a witness would say something not fitting the official narrative, i…

It’s interesting to me that even 20 years later, any comments that don’t fit the official narrative still get downvoted on HN (and the rest of the internet). There was such a giant push after it happened to not question the official narrative, and that still remains embedded in everyone’s heads. I wonder how long that will last.

I think these comments get downvoted for the same reason that comments that "don't fit the official narrative" about the moon landings would get downvoted.

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#79

Post by GnarfGnarf »

ectopod wrote: post #38
GnarfGnarf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could simply have been a hoax, to attract attention. (Having the video, I mean, not the attack).

What's the hoax? OP has seen the video.

The video may be fake. Jeremijenko, the "artist", withholds it to avoid detailed examination.

Re: Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

#80

Post by pmoriarty »

spiderice wrote: post #50
TacticalCoder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some 3 letters agency (FBI?) immediately raided all the nearby places that could have had cams and seized everything. I'm pretty sure that it's documented: IIRC footage from a petrol station nearby was confiscated. I was there (at the time, in front of my TV I mean) and I clearly remember the first witnesses being interviewed by reporters: as soon as a witness would say something not fitting the official narrative, i…

It’s interesting to me that even 20 years later, any comments that don’t fit the official narrative still get downvoted on HN (and the rest of the internet). There was such a giant push after it happened to not question the official narrative, and that still remains embedded in everyone’s heads. I wonder how long that will last.

"It’s interesting to me that even 20 years later, any comments that don’t fit the official narrative still get downvoted on HN"

It's more of a case of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There are plenty of places on the internet where wild claims without a shred of evidence are tolerated and even encouraged. HN is not one of those.

Post reply on HN