Do you think you could have handled watching the towers come down on 9/11? (I am still scarred)

Comments

• wow...were you working in the city when it happened?

  • Report
  

  by Psycho the kid on March 9th, 2007

• Not then, but I was there.

  • Report
  

  by Fun on March 16th, 2007

• did u see the planes as well?

  • Report
  

  by kuyakev on March 24th, 2007

• It was so fast, the first plane I did not see. I am still not sure if I saw the second one, everyone was just screaming and staring.

  • Report
  

  by Fun on March 24th, 2007

• Ouch. I saw it on TV that morning, but I don't know how I would deal with actually being there.

  • Report
  

  by FreeRadical Jetpacking for Nelson on May 18th, 2007

• Post Traumatic Stress. See a therapist. seriously.
  
  I watched it on TV and online from office... unbelievable. I had many friends who were there. We have an office in NY as well. It was a day I'll never forget.

  • Report
  

  by Jeffers on May 18th, 2007

• Yeah Gods, Fun in the Gutter.
  
  I would probably be in therapy.
  
  Thank the Gods you are alive. I hope you did not lose any friends or loved ones.

  • Report
  

  by Arisztid on May 26th, 2007

• I'm okay now, better than before. I did not lose anyone very close, but my father did. =(

  • Report
  

  by Fun on May 27th, 2007

• I'm very sorry for you and your father and all who lost someone that day Fun.
  I saw it on TV as it was happening, just a fluke I happened to be home and had TV on. TV does dispel belief a bit but I for one will never forget it, there is a permanent hole in my soul from the tragedy...

  • Report
  

  by Capt. Jack Sparrow GALCIY on February 19th, 2008

Comments

• Me too. I did not see the first plane hit, but rather right afterwards, but I was watching it live as the second plane hit.
  
  I remember thinking that I was dreaming.

  • Report
  

  by Arisztid on May 26th, 2007

Comments

• I can't tell you how sorry I am to hear that! God bless you for wanting to help. I still get teary just thinking about it and couldn't go past the site until just recently. I'm a New Yorker. Luckily, I was in Toronto when it happened, but I'll never forget the sight of that skyline when I came over the GW. I was hoping it was all just a bad dream, but it continues to be a living nightmare! Thanks for sharing something so painful.

  • Report
  

  by gtravels loves her life penguin on March 16th, 2007

• After all these years, it's still not easy; Just writing this, my heart was palpitating and boy did I cry! .... but I am one of the lucky ones :') - my husband came home that night.

  • Report
  

  by Chattie on March 16th, 2007

• Thank God. I was crying a little too. Still hard to believe that there is such evil in the world!

  • Report
  

  by gtravels loves her life penguin on March 16th, 2007

• My Gods, Chattie.
  Just the fact that you volunteered for that duty is, frankly, incredible. I would have as well and, like you, I would have half prayed that I was not called.
  I am very happy that your husband made it home. I did not lose any relatives or friends in this but I think of those that did. I knew someone who was working in the Pentagon that day... that is as close as I came to knowing any who died that day. He was not harmed, by the way.
  RIP to all who died in that tragedy.

  • Report
  

  by Arisztid on May 26th, 2007

• God bless you, and all that has suffered losses in this tragedy.

  • Report
  

  by Ruby21103 on August 24th, 2007

Comments

• Me too.

  • Report
  

  by Arisztid on May 26th, 2007

Comments

• No I saw it, smelt it, tasted it.

  • Report
  

  by Fun on March 9th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• I would not have hidden my eyes either.
  If I could not help, I would have watched.
  I have an odd belief: I believe that I should bear witness. I believe that by bearing witness rather than hiding my eyes I give honor to the dead.

  • Report
  

  by Arisztid on May 26th, 2007

• thats a good thought .(I can see why you feel that way, like seeing the hell they went through to apreciate it )

  • Report
  

  by Norman_Outside the lines on July 31st, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• *offers up a quick prayer to the Gods of my Ancestors for your niece*

  • Report
  

  by Arisztid on May 26th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I almost was. I was in too much shock.

  • Report
  

  by Fun on March 30th, 2007

• It was very scary. I made the last train out of there.

  • Report
  

  by Fun on March 30th, 2007

Comments

• It is sad isn't it? Almost pathetic...

  • Report
  

  by Fun on March 23rd, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• well...we're all certainly glad for you buddy!
  so you live in iraq or afghanistan and also have facts to back up that "1/2 killed by american forces" bit? and do tell~what about this question is hypocritical.....simple question of "do you..." sounds like you're the one that's a bit hypoctritical to me...or is that egocentric?????

  • Report
  

  by abby has super sneaky ninja skilz on February 9th, 2008

• Haven't you heard of the ORB Survey, or the Lancet Study?

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 9th, 2008

• Both have been questioned due to the statistical model used and thus should have an asterisk placed by their estimates. Of course, since those two give the highest numbers that make us look the worst, you were destined to choose those.
  And since when is ~31% more than half? Last I knew, that was less than one-third.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on February 9th, 2008

• Who have they been questioned by, exactly?
  They were the model used to determine the casualty numbers in other wars, what makes this war different?

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 9th, 2008

• The UK government for one. The Iraqi government as well, notably the Health Ministry. The list of critics is quite long and includes statisticians, epidemiologists, and other experts.
  .
  It has more to do with the ability to collect accurate data to put into the model than with the model itself. The distribution of population, the non-uniform levels of violence, and the fact that the data-gathering is incomplete and therefore is extrapolated (poorly) all contribute to having just cause to at least question the accuracy.
  There have been other models used as well and ALL of them show lower numbers. Granted, the other numbers are still too large (1 is too many) but... well, I think you get my point.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on February 9th, 2008

• Links?

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 9th, 2008

• I'll hafta get 'em later. is 2AM here and the brain is fading.
  I forgot the IBC and the UNDP. They didn't like them either. Later...

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on February 9th, 2008

• Great, perhaps I should talk to you when you are no longer accosted by your nocturnal tumour.

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 9th, 2008

• i've "heard" a lot of things.......and it appears that you are fueling an arguement that has NOTHING to do with the question which was simply about how people would have felt seeing the devastation; killing is killing~u know and nothing u can say or any studies u provide changes that fact; another point is that there is nothing hypocritical regarding questions about feelings, u have urs and everyone else does too! if the questioner is hypocritical then i dare call u judgemental!!!
  peace out~

  • Report
  

  by abby has super sneaky ninja skilz on February 10th, 2008

• True enough. Sak DID gave his opinion, and whether his numbers are accurate is irrelevant.
  .
  Sak - I think that this particular debate may be better handled elsewhere, like Science --> Mathematics --> Statistics.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on February 10th, 2008

• sak,
  the mere math in the 1 million dead so far has been disproven...just to get that you would have to have over 500 people dying each day in the fighting in iraq......that is easy to see is incorrect.
  .
  secondly, to say that 1/3 of those casualties were caused by troops is bogus.....look at the ratio of people killed in suicide bomings to the number of civilians killed in firefights....the first one kills many times more.....just look at the stats
  .
  there are so many ways to disprove the people that did that survey, i could be here all day, unfortunately i have to go to work...will be back later

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 10th, 2008

• SAK. Glad to see you made it through unscathed. You are right about one thing, you are definitely not American. You just kick back and relax, my friend. Just take it easy, do nothing.. And while your sippin' kool-aid, playin' the tambourine, be sure to thank that awesome military of yours for keeping you ignorant. All, what 500 of em' hurry now after August, they'll ALL be marching back home!! So like I said, kick back, WE GOT IT !!!!!
  Us egocentric old Americans!!!

  • Report
  

  by designer is wearing a ....... on February 12th, 2008

• By the way. 3,000 people aint "HYPE". Man, livin on an island must be nice.

  • Report
  

  by designer is wearing a ....... on February 12th, 2008

• Indeed. 500 a day definitely isn't unfeasible in the present conflict.

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 12th, 2008

• how is it feasable.......there is no way, (with iraqs population and current violence amount) that 500 die per day
  .
  if you could show me some math as to how you get to 500 per day, be my guest

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• the ORB survey and lancet studies are widely considered to be a joke and basically have no validity except on shows with people like Rosie Odonell

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• How is it not feasible? That's what I want you to tell me. And was mentioning Rosie O'Donnell really necessary?

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 13th, 2008

• well, rosie seems to be the only person who takes the survey sriously
  .

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• well, as for not being feasable.
  .
  there are 18 provinces in iraq.........that means approximately 30 people would have to die in each province per day........
  .
  now, given the number of people the average suicide bomber kills, you would have to set off about 4 suicide bombers in each province per day.....that is 72 suicide bombers per day, 2196 suicide bombers per month, and 26, 350 suicide bombers per yead.........the number of attacks (suicide or otherwise) doesn't even come to a tenth of that...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombings_in_Iraq_since_2003

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• No, it wouldn't. You can make averages in chaos, but this is going a little too far. That would be assuming that all of these deaths are the result of suicide bombs, which is just stupid. This is the death toll of the war, not the death toll of suicide bombs. Heaps of people die in crossfires between militia and the Coalition, not to mention stepping on forgotten explosive munitions, etc.

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 13th, 2008

• sak....the number of civilians killed in crossfires vs. the number of people killed by suicide bombers a very small number
  .
  it is approximately 1 civilian dies in crossfires for every 100 that die in suicide bombs.......of course i know that suicide bombers aren't the only source of death, but they are the major source by a long shot
  http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/images/pr13.png
  this shows that the estimated iraqi deaths per month arent even 4% of the required 500 per day to get to 1 million.........i know not all deaths are reported, but there is no way to miss 96 percent of all deaths

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• Yeah, there is. You know how tightly monitored journalism is in Iraq. And you remember Donald Rumsfeld saying 'we don't do death counts'? In fact, looking at that chart, it is extremely feasible that only 30 to 40 percent of casualties are reported. That's pretty common in war. And it would make sense for reasons I've already given.

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on February 13th, 2008

• When I mentioned 500. I was referring to the amount of troops Sak's country has in this conflict. They will all be withdrawn by August.
  The WHO est. 151,000 cicvilian deaths.
  Iraq Body count has it at about 90,00
  John Hopkins has it at 225,000, this one has been discredited due to incomplete surveys

  • Report
  

  by designer is wearing a ....... on February 13th, 2008

• sak........journalism had nothing to do with that survey i posted......they got the info from US (and coalition) troop reports and iraqi government tracking morgues.......re-read it
  .
  and as you say, if only 30-40 percent of all causualties are reported, then let us multiply their average of 30 people dying per day by 3 (30-40 percent is approximately 1/3 so we multiply by 3)...........and look......we still aren't even up to 100, we are at about 90, mabye less.

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• not to mention you haven't responded to my post about US troops NOT killing even close to 1/3 or 1/2 of all civilians
  .
  how do you come up with that estimate?

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 13th, 2008

• Sak - I don't know if you've been able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, but if you have/did, you would be able to see almost instantly why statistics of any sort are a bitch.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on February 13th, 2008

Comments

• honestly speaking, i could watch the towers fall multiple times over on repeat and never shed one tear because of it.

  • Report
  

  by daishotachi on March 31st, 2007

• +6 for you.

  • Report
  

  by Halskiisaklink on May 27th, 2007

• oh quit your whining about some stupid downrate and just answer the question....

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 19th, 2008

• ....geeze....

  • Report
  

  by COMMON SENSE on February 19th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• In person? I saw it in person...

  • Report
  

  by Fun on February 9th, 2008

• no i've seen videos

  • Report
  

  by Seraphim Shinobi on February 10th, 2008

Comments

• Ground Zero is strange isn't it? It's a big construction site.

  • Report
  

  by Fun on August 24th, 2007

• yes and wasn't there a metro station at the World Trade Center?

  • Report
  

  by brethartfan316 on August 24th, 2007

• That's where I was... coming in on the PATH train. =(

  • Report
  

  by Fun on August 24th, 2007

• eek! was it scary? i bet it was

  • Report
  

  by brethartfan316 on August 24th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments