Where were you on 11 September 2001?

[rickmastfan67]

Was nice to see NBC atone for cutting to an interview during the 7/7 (and if you are Israeli, Munich) minutes silence in the Olympic Opening Ceremony by also having an interview when the other networks were holding a minutes silence for 9/11. We did wonder if it was a location thing - deaths in NYC being worth more than deaths in London (we reckoned on it being unthinkable that they would have done the same with a 9/11 minutes silence). Turns out NBC is simply massively disrespectful to all victims of terror - either that or ridiculously incompetent.

Yet back in 2001, NBC (Sports) had no problems not speaking during Lap 3 at NASCAR races for Dale Earnhardt.  Shows how messed up in the head NBC now is.

[cpzilliacus]

Not just TSA, but also county police that pull you over under the guise that "terrorists routinely run up this highway and drive erratically because they are running for 24 straight hours", when they are just looking for anything to cite you with.

Or MTA bridges and tunnels with their photography prohibited signs.

The world was a better place pre 9/11, but some will contend it was because "our watch was down and now it is not"...

Wasn't the transit part of NY MTA put on notice that they (and the law enforcement officers that patrol their properties) could not interfere with private persons taking photographs of or on MTA property?

I know this was discussed in some detail in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (well before 2001), and a person issued a ticket by the NJSP for illegal picture taking on the Turnpike had to appeal to at least the intermediate appeals court in New Jersey (and maybe the highest appellate court) to get the Turnpike Authority's administrative rule against photography struck-down as unconstitutional.

[Alps]

I know this was discussed in some detail in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (well before 2001), and a person issued a ticket by the NJSP for illegal picture taking on the Turnpike had to appeal to at least the intermediate appeals court in New Jersey (and maybe the highest appellate court) to get the Turnpike Authority's administrative rule against photography struck-down as unconstitutional.

I got bemused looks when I used my own photography for a powerpoint to the NJTA. Of course, the rule is no photography, but reading the rule, it seems that it applies to those looking to stage photos (i.e., not just driving along at speed). How so? I shouldn't have to apply for a full permit and list my impacts to traffic and hours of photography if I'm going with the flow of traffic the entire time. So they needled me, but I smiled and said that I wasn't holding up traffic. They also liked my 1960s/50s photos from Michael Summa, so it balanced out.

Now, can we get the MTA's "terrorism" ban on photos thrown out also? Not that I've ever seen it enforced.

[cpzilliacus]

I know this was discussed in some detail in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (well before 2001), and a person issued a ticket by the NJSP for illegal picture taking on the Turnpike had to appeal to at least the intermediate appeals court in New Jersey (and maybe the highest appellate court) to get the Turnpike Authority's administrative rule against photography struck-down as unconstitutional.

I got bemused looks when I used my own photography for a powerpoint to the NJTA. Of course, the rule is no photography, but reading the rule, it seems that it applies to those looking to stage photos (i.e., not just driving along at speed). How so? I shouldn't have to apply for a full permit and list my impacts to traffic and hours of photography if I'm going with the flow of traffic the entire time. So they needled me, but I smiled and said that I wasn't holding up traffic. They also liked my 1960s/50s photos from Michael Summa, so it balanced out.

Wonder if the NJTA enacted a new rule against photography on the Turnpike, because the old one was invalidated (or at least declared unenforceable) by one of the Garden State's appeals courts?  Or did they leave the old one in place, hoping people would not notice that it had been tossed out by the New Jersey courts?

I just wonder what justification they use for a photography ban in the first place.  And is it illegal for someone to snap an image of a family member while stopped at one of the many service plazas on the Turnpike (or the Garden State Parkway)?

The Turnpike's regulation does not seem to have deterred Google from imaging both highways for Street View, and I suppose anyone that were to be charged with illegal photography on either road could probably cite that (along with New Jersey case law) as a reason to invalidate the Turnpike Authority's rule again.

Now, can we get the MTA's "terrorism" ban on photos thrown out also? Not that I've ever seen it enforced.

Sounds like a fine idea to me!

Just another example of wasteful "security theater" that contributes nothing to actual security.

[Alps]

I know this was discussed in some detail in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (well before 2001), and a person issued a ticket by the NJSP for illegal picture taking on the Turnpike had to appeal to at least the intermediate appeals court in New Jersey (and maybe the highest appellate court) to get the Turnpike Authority's administrative rule against photography struck-down as unconstitutional.

I got bemused looks when I used my own photography for a powerpoint to the NJTA. Of course, the rule is no photography, but reading the rule, it seems that it applies to those looking to stage photos (i.e., not just driving along at speed). How so? I shouldn't have to apply for a full permit and list my impacts to traffic and hours of photography if I'm going with the flow of traffic the entire time. So they needled me, but I smiled and said that I wasn't holding up traffic. They also liked my 1960s/50s photos from Michael Summa, so it balanced out.

Wonder if the NJTA enacted a new rule against photography on the Turnpike, because the old one was invalidated (or at least declared unenforceable) by one of the Garden State's appeals courts?  Or did they leave the old one in place, hoping people would not notice that it had been tossed out by the New Jersey courts?

It's not a ban. You just need to apply for a permit. But again, I don't think it's the same thing - I don't think it's intended for vehicles moving at speed, only those that want to stop and take photos. I don't know whether that extends to rest areas, but I can say this - they are a smart agency, so they're not going after people taking souvenir photos at rest areas.

[formulanone]

Now, can we get the MTA's "terrorism" ban on photos thrown out also? Not that I've ever seen it enforced.

Freedom of panorama (i.e. that which exists in a public place) should not be taken away. FFS, I take photos all the time at airports, large and small, of aircraft, gear, equipment, terminals, even TSA checkpoints (although the latter, without flash)...and nobody seems to care, rightfully so!

Was nice to see NBC atone for cutting to an interview during the 7/7 (and if you are Israeli, Munich) minutes silence in the Olympic Opening Ceremony by also having an interview when the other networks were holding a minutes silence for 9/11. We did wonder if it was a location thing - deaths in NYC being worth more than deaths in London (we reckoned on it being unthinkable that they would have done the same with a 9/11 minutes silence). Turns out NBC is simply massively disrespectful to all victims of terror - either that or ridiculously incompetent.

Yet back in 2001, NBC (Sports) had no problems not speaking during Lap 3 at NASCAR races for Dale Earnhardt.  Shows how messed up in the head NBC now is.

I think you meant 2011...It wasn't uncommon for a race to have a lap or two in which the commentators "laid out", to enjoy the sights and sounds. But I suppose that experimental football game in 1980 was just too much for people to handle...are people that spooked out by a lack of talking heads, most of which add nothing to the event? Maybe if you we a novice nor newcomer, but I could easily watch a race or game without commentary; there's always a score on the screen, a graphic telling you some stat, et cetera. Although a dull game or event can be livened up with commentary - I'd miss Benny Parsons chatting it up about the local places to eat or David Hobbs mentioning an odd driver story from the past when the race was on its nineteenth caution. So I suppose it works both ways.

Actually, I missed the opening ceremony, but I had heard the IOC originally did not want to take a minute's silence to supposedly "honor" another country. Looks like they made the right choice, after all.

[Scott5114]

I think there's a need for some sort of commentary–even high school football has someone in the press box mentioning key players of the last play over the PA.

[rickmastfan67]

Was nice to see NBC atone for cutting to an interview during the 7/7 (and if you are Israeli, Munich) minutes silence in the Olympic Opening Ceremony by also having an interview when the other networks were holding a minutes silence for 9/11. We did wonder if it was a location thing - deaths in NYC being worth more than deaths in London (we reckoned on it being unthinkable that they would have done the same with a 9/11 minutes silence). Turns out NBC is simply massively disrespectful to all victims of terror - either that or ridiculously incompetent.

Yet back in 2001, NBC (Sports) had no problems not speaking during Lap 3 at NASCAR races for Dale Earnhardt.  Shows how messed up in the head NBC now is.

I think you meant 2011...It wasn't uncommon for a race to have a lap or two in which the commentators "laid out", to enjoy the sights and sounds. But I suppose that experimental football game in 1980 was just too much for people to handle...are people that spooked out by a lack of talking heads, most of which add nothing to the event? Maybe if you we a novice nor newcomer, but I could easily watch a race or game without commentary; there's always a score on the screen, a graphic telling you some stat, et cetera. Although a dull game or event can be livened up with commentary - I'd miss Benny Parsons chatting it up about the local places to eat or David Hobbs mentioning an odd driver story from the past when the race was on its nineteenth caution. So I suppose it works both ways.

No, I do mean 2001.  Dale Earnhardt died in a last lap crash in that year's Daytona 500.  After that happen, each network (FOX, NBC, TNT) that covered the races for the remaining of the season didn't speak on Lap #3 in his honor (unless the race was under Caution for that lap, then they did the 3rd green flag lap if I remember correctly after the yellow ended).  Here's an example.  That example comes from the 1st race after 9/11, so it's a combo of both at the same time.

[formulanone]

Ah, faded memory of mine...You're right.

[achilles765]

I was sitting in my first period homeroom class, AP World History as we reviewed for the next day's exam when our principal came in to tell us to turn on the news because a plane "accidentally hit the Twin Towers in NYC."  Then every class was tuned in and glued to the day's coverage.

[Special K]

I was sitting in my first period homeroom class, AP World History as we reviewed for the next day's exam when our principal came in to tell us to turn on the news because a plane "accidentally hit the Twin Towers in NYC."  Then every class was tuned in and glued to the day's coverage.

When the first one hit, I think everyone assumed it was accidental since planes accidentally hitting skyscrapers had happened several times before.  I certainly did as I heard the first report on the car radio while on my commute to work.  It wasn't until the second one hit the other tower that it became clear that it was an intentional act.

[Mr_Northside]

When the first one hit, I think everyone assumed it was accidental since planes accidentally hitting skyscrapers had happened several times before.

That was my reaction.  I was in "college" spending as much time reading the news online as paying attention.  When "Plane Hits World Trade Center" came up in a line as breaking news on the Post-Gazette website, I assumed it was some small plane accidentally crashing into a building, and didn't even bother clicking on the link to read about it. 
Shortly after that there was an image associated, and it was obvious my assumption was pretty off......

[empirestate]

I was sitting in my first period homeroom class, AP World History as we reviewed for the next day's exam when our principal came in to tell us to turn on the news because a plane "accidentally hit the Twin Towers in NYC."  Then every class was tuned in and glued to the day's coverage.

When the first one hit, I think everyone assumed it was accidental since planes accidentally hitting skyscrapers had happened several times before.  I certainly did as I heard the first report on the car radio while on my commute to work.  It wasn't until the second one hit the other tower that it became clear that it was an intentional act.

That occurs to me as well–while the first impact was widely believed to be accidental, so many people still tuned in just on that basis that the second impact was widely witnessed. I've wondered since why there was such attention paid to what was thought to be an accident (interrupting classrooms and so forth), especially since it wasn't realized at first to be a jet liner. But maybe I'm misremembering a time in our lives when even a small-engine aircraft accident was enough to raise national attention, without wanton intentional destruction having to be an ingredient.

I distinctly remember thinking it was an accident because it wasn't yet 9:00 am. Although intentionally flying planes into buildings had occurred to me previously as a dangerously achievable means of terrorism, I would have assumed the attackers would wait until the workday was in full swing for maximum casualties. I'm glad, I suppose, that real terrorists' thinking doesn't match my own quite so closely.

[Road Hog]

I was working a graveyard shift at the time. I had cracked a beer and was 10 minutes from going to bed when I heard a local radio show say "Hey, what's going on at the World Trade Center?" I turned the TV on and saw the second plane.

[bugo]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

[agentsteel53]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

two planes?  hell of a coincidence.

[Beltway]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

two planes?  hell of a coincidence.

Two large airliners, 18 minutes apart...

[kphoger]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

two planes?  hell of a coincidence.

Two large airliners, 18 minutes apart...

It would have been an embarrassing statement if it turned out to be false...

[Beltway]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

two planes?  hell of a coincidence.

Two large airliners, 18 minutes apart...

It would have been an embarrassing statement if it turned out to be false...

If what had turned out to be false?  Incorrect reports?  That both crashes were accidents?

[kphoger]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

two planes?  hell of a coincidence.

Two large airliners, 18 minutes apart...

It would have been an embarrassing statement if it turned out to be false...

If what had turned out to be false?  Incorrect reports?  That both crashes were accidents?

If the crashes had indeed turned out to be anything other than an attack (some sort of unlikely error), then it would have been embarrassing to have announced them as such.  Of course, with 99% certainty, any one of us would have gone ahead and made the announcement too.

[Beltway]

I remember Bush getting on the radio not long after the second impact claiming we were being attacked.  Which turned out to be the truth, but how did he know it was an attack and not an accident so soon after it happened?  Sounds fishy to me.

two planes?  hell of a coincidence.

Two large airliners, 18 minutes apart...

It would have been an embarrassing statement if it turned out to be false...

If what had turned out to be false?  Incorrect reports?  That both crashes were accidents?

If the crashes had indeed turned out to be anything other than an attack (some sort of unlikely error), then it would have been embarrassing to have announced them as such.  Of course, with 99% certainty, any one of us would have gone ahead and made the announcement too.

Errmmm ... one large airliner from the north at full speed, then 18 minutes later another large airliner from the west at full speed ... each hit a different Trade Tower ..

99.99% certainty?