Silverstein is such a scumbag...watching the History channel

un*******believable

what a bunch of lying scumbags,

unreal

you can just look at that little scumbag and tell he's lying,,,,sorry, but the lier's are just so obvious.

> you can just look at that little scumbag and tell he's lying

I have beady little ferret eyes. Must make me guilty of something or other.

where were you on 9/11?

9/11 is a day that was burned into my DNA.

I was taking a class at work in Pro/Engineer Wildfire 2.0. The instructor got a call on his cell phone around 9:10 and informed us that some idiot had flown his small plane into WTC1.

About 2 minutes later my wife called my cell to say the same thing. I thought "WTF, there is not a cloud in the sky today!"

The class got out shortly and the whole company was in the cafeteria glued to the monitors. I could not believe what I was seeing. It was, like many others later said, like a bad science fiction movie. By this time it was obvious that a major terrorist attack was under way.

All I could think over and over again was 'those poor people in that building', who by this time were jumping to their deaths.

I will never ever forget the horrors of that morning. I actually became deeply depressed for months after. I could not even begin to understand how anyone could do such a thing. I had absolutely no explanations to give my 12 year-old son.

I know you ask in jest, but I have to talk about this from time to time to remind myself of the nature of the people who could perpetrate such an act (and no, I do not mean the US government - I mean religious nutcases).

The people who extrapolate from nothing that we did this to ourselves are, well... a disappointment to me.

I wasn't trying to make light of 9/11, I was playing off your response to the previous poster and their claim to be able to easily tell when someone is lying.

Like you, I'll never forget where I was and what I was doing when we were attacked. And, also like you, I just shake my head when I encounter people who claim "9/11 was an inside job". My apologies.

We all have stories. I am just grateful that my brother-in-law wasn't sent to the WTC, until the next day.

my experiences that day, but I just could not bring myself to. Maybe someday.

It takes at least an hour every time. Not only do I have to wade through my own experience of the day, but I think about everything I know about everyone else's experiences, that day and after.

If you'll pardon a personal aside that has nothing to do with 9/11, we moved away from Brooklyn in 2002, "upstate." One day, my wife and girls were selling candy at the mall as a fundraiser, and I got a call from my older daughter on a cell phone. She said, more or less, "There were shots, so I ran out the back door, but I don't know where Mommy and (my sister) are, and I'm so scared." I drove over to the mall just before the authorities locked down the perimeter, and got to reassemble the family. My wife and other daughter had hidden behind a post in a shoe store, and the guy shot out the window. The most seriously injured person was coming to protect the kids.

No morals. Just a story.

reading it, I had chills running up and down my spine and I just can't imagine having to deal with something like that.

When we know what we have to do, we do it. The guy who got badly injured knew he had to help the kids, so he acted on that until he couldn't any more. I knew I had to get to the mall, so I went. My wife knew she had to get our daughter to relative safety, keep her as calm as possible, and hold herself together, so she did. And so on.

After that, our brains spin around constructing the narrative of what happened and what it means. Me, I desperately want to rewrite the part where a man is gravely injured while trying to protect kids including my own kids, whom (in retrospect) the shooter was very unlikely to have hurt. I'd like to have something profound to say about the shooter, or gun control, or something. Not so much. And I wish I could take away what my wife feels when a loud noise startles her.

I would like to think, too, that reflecting on this tiny slice of life helps me to understand all the ways that people (including me) have reacted to the events of 9/11. Maybe sometimes it makes me more patient. Or maybe I'm more aware of trying to be patient.

All the best to you.

Your posts are among the ones I most look forward to reading. You're a voice of logic and reason.

Peace, my friend.

and let me return said compliment. I particularly enjoy your posts, Boloboffin's, OnTheOtherHand's, Greyl's, Sweet Pea's, Laurier's, Lared's, Hack89's and probably several others whose names I can't recall right now.

Hi.

interview or go under oath. I submit NO.

PROOF ENOUGH

right there

no, sorry,,,we have to wait 48 years

is proof positive that it was CD? Certainly some air tight logic there!

so what's your point?

WHAT, exactly?

Since, after all, who said anything about CD?

:shrug:

Your opening post makes little sense.

Who is this "bunch of lying scumbags" that you are referring to?

Sorry but I just couldn't bring myself to watch but about 20 minutes of this bias peice of garbage.

I guess it's running this month and I happened to catch a little bit of it.

It made me a little angry. The lier's being the one's in the documentary backing the 9/11 Official account.

Just my opinion

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=240087

what a bunch of lying scumbags ...best description ever of the tinfoilers.

welcome to my fools, er, I mean my ignore list!

(and in response by the CTers here comes the flood of lies the cters saw on some lame video that have been debunked over and over and over...)

and of course without any substance.

Im curious now, just how did the BBC manage to claim the collpase of WTC-7, a half hour before it really happened?
Was it all those other occassions when steel framed skyscrapers fell at free fall speed into their own footprints because of small sporadic fires and a bit of facade damage?

:popcorn:

Gee, maybe it had something to do with the fact that experts on the scene had known for hours that it was in danger of collapse, and news of that warning had trickled down? Gee, maybe that had something to do with the fact that news cameras were trained on it for hours?

And maybe it had something to do with a reporter, who was obviously unfamiliar with which building was which, misunderstanding what she heard in the midst of a chaotic scenario?

Do you really think that the BBC is anything but embarrassed at having their reporter report that the building has collapsed while it is clearly standing in the background? That just made the reporter look like an idiot and proved that the reporter had no familiarity with the area, and those are not exactly good things in the news reporting business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3B1dRN2xvg

Or not....

in the confusion, every reporter on the scene knew exactly which building was which. For example, prior to all the information/identification of the buildings that day, if I had asked you to point out WTC 7 on 9/10/01 without looking up which building was which, could you? Duh.

In the video footage the BBC is reporting that WTC-7 had collapsed as a fact.

The news anchor states in the clip that the Salomon Brothers building had collapsed.
He doesn’t say it is reported or we are hearing that the building had collapsed. He is saying that the building had collapsed as a cold hard fact.

The anchor and Jane Standley hold an extensive conversation about the Salomon Brothers collapse with no hint of speculation about it. The BBC even provided graphics stating that the 47 story Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Center had collapsed.

It is obvious that nobody at the BBC bothered to fact check the story which wouldn’t have taken much effort. How hard is it to confirm if a building has fallen down?

I do not believe that the BBC tried to check and double check this information. Also no source was provided in the report of the WTC-7 collapse so the BBC stating they always sourced their reports is a lie.

Does the BBC have psychics and fortune tellers who can predict the future? Perhaps that was the source.

In the confusion of 9/11, the BBC could not have simply misidentified a building.