Newly published 9/11 footage [video]

Fascinating are the words of netizens of the time in guestbooks, forums, and homepages of sites large and small that have been immortalized in the Internet Archive [a].

The Internet Archive also has an extensive collection of televised news footage from ‑‑09‑11 and the following weeks; I'm often reminded by its prominent placement in the 'Video' section of their navbar. Ironically, both their original 9/11 web collection (assembled by the Library of Congress shortly after the event) and the related Pew reports on internet use following 9/11 are lost to time; remnants can only be found in the Wayback Machine [0]. For whatever reason, it was replaced with one apparently curated by the September 11 Museum around 2008 [1].

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20011014012316/http://september1...

[1] https://www.archive-it.org/collections/1029

[a] an aside: I find the archived sites of schools (of all kinds) from the time particularly captivating. Perhaps the abridgement of time enhances their liminal nature. Or maybe it's the feeling of sincerity in guestbook messages and the personal homepages of students and staff.

I can only speak for myself and extrapolate to others, but I think people really hate the conspiracy crap that emerges. There are enough conspiracy people that it falls into the "this is why we can't have nice things" camp. As someone who rejoices in truth, I can relate to this a lot.

However I really hope people move toward skepticism (even of the official narratives) because I fear the effects of censorship more than I do the disinformation. Conspiracy crap has been around a long time and most of those people were considered crackpots, but since the major ramp up in effort that started about 6 years ago, the conspiracy stuff has exploded and is absolutely everywhere now. I think it's because the censorship (in some cases for clearly political reasons) actually makes the conspiracy theories seem more credible, because if they were wrong why would anybody waste effort trying to fight it? (I'm not arguing that's solid reasoning, only that it seems a reasonable argument to most people). Once you can't trust that most people operate in good faith, you have to question everybody's motives with extreme skepticism. Combine that with human nature to look for patterns/explanations in everything and you get a mess.

Structural engineers please explain how can a tall concrete building collapse when hit in the middle?

Been in a coma for two decades?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-structural-e...

> The four sides of each building formed a tube with window slots This tube was designed to carry the weight of the building and its contents directly downward to the foundations. The walls acted as vertical beams, wide and tall as the buildings, that bent to the side to absorb wind loads.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wor...

> Prior to the construction of the Twin Towers, skyscrapers were designed to support themselves through large internal columns spaced about 30 feet (9 meters) apart, which interrupted the flow of interior space. For this project however, the engineers came up with a different solution -- the exterior walls themselves would support the bulk of the structure, and they would get a boost from one single column of beams in the center.

Make a big hole in the primary support structure and things go badly.

(And before parroting the "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" thing as a follow-up, watch this excellent and short video from a blacksmith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA)

[dead]