Like most folk, I have a very clear memory of when I heard. One of those bright, chilly September days. I was sitting at my desk in the small meeting room me and my team mates had commandeered as an office. The phone rang, my wife was on the line, wasn’t unusual for her to call around then. We’d gotten back from visiting her parents in Boston a couple of weeks before and she was still shifting back into a UK sleeping pattern.
“Somebody’s flown a plane into the world trade centre”
“What? Like a microlight?”
“No, a plane. A big one. Go find a TV.”
I went through to the kitchen, where my two team mates were playing pool and told them what happened. I remembered somebody had moved the TV from the kitchen to the main open plan office for Wimbledon and it had never been moved back. The person who’d done it had probably been laid off in the round of redundancies that had happened while I was on holiday, the dot com collapse was in full flow and I’d found out maybe 20 of my friends had lost their jobs in back channel email.
BBC1 had interrupted it’s programming and was showing News 24. I’d never seen that before, usually it didn’t start until the wee small hours. It was going to become a familiar sight over the next weeks and years. Smoke was billowing out, the presenter didn’t seem to know much of anything. People started gathering round the small, black CRT with rabbit ear antennae on top of a filing cabinet.
And that’s where the memory starts to fade. A few people asked what was going on, I don’t remember if we watched the second plane hit or if it was after that. I think we did, but it might have been a repeat. I’ve seen that footage so many times over the last 10 years I can’t trust that. I do remember grimly remarking about how my parents-in-law had lunch with us at the airport gate in Boston and thinking how different and relaxed airport security was there compared to the UK. A metal scanner, a bag check.. nobody asked for your boarding pass until you tried to get on the plane.
What I do remember is sitting in the smoking room while the towers burned, calling my wife and chewing over what had happened with the other half dozen regulars in there, and the half dozen more who joined us. It didn’t take long to realise that, regardless of insane project schedules, nothing else was getting done that day.
And so I spent the next few hours alternately smoking and on the internet trying to find friends and family.
I remember getting home and sitting on the floor, having wired up the monitor and keyboard to the server I remember the heat from the computers and the early ADSL modem, and staying up late talking with folk in the US, and smoking. A lot. A friend describing the amount of ash and dust that was billowing past her window in New York.
A few days later we had a company meeting in the kitchen to discuss it. Then now faded memories of Kenya and Yemen were fresh and along with the sorrow for the deaths and the fear of future attacks there was a dread of what the response would be and what that would mean for the people in the countries the US would retaliate against.
Kate adds:
It’s one of those memories where everyone will remember where they were when it happened. I was at work, in a meeting. A very important meeting with very important people. All the way through, our mobiles were humming and vibrating. We ignored them. Important stuff to discuss, two hours worth, which in the end produced some very worthwhile results for some of Scotland’s most marginalised people.
The boss’s landline rang as soon as she switched the ringer back on. Her boyfriend was almost incoherent. He worked in high finance and had business associates in the towers. Effectively the message was turn the TV on, the World Trade Centre is on fire.
I’d left the room at this point, not wishing to intrude on a private conversation. A shriek beckoned me back. We stood there in open-mouthed silence, trying to compute the images on the screen with the fragments of information we had. It was discombobulating actually. The whole office suddenly whirled, with everyone up from their desks and in and out of each others’ offices. The internet crashed. News sites were jammed.
And so it continued for the afternoon, with everyone trying to work out, find out what was going on. But work beckoned, so dipping in and out was the best that could be managed.
I do remember an uneasy, fearful quiet settling eventually. A sense that what ever it was, it was huge, an event of such enormity, it was difficult to grasp.
And most folk going home early. I picked my bairn up from school, came home, switched the TV on and spent the evening holding my wee man close, flicking constantly between channels, tears rolling down my cheeks most of the time. Still trying to sort through the snippets from the day and make sense of it all.
In the days afterwards, the mood was strange. Subdued but with everyone being kind and rather gentle. Everything slowed, and the facts leaked out. Not just the World Trade Centre, but the Pentagon. The astonishing bravery of firefighters especially, but also, all those others who ran in the wrong direction, to try to save. The unbearable sadness of all those final messages home. The tragedy of so many ordinary lives made utterly extraordinary by circumstance. By being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Everyone had an opinion on what, how and why. It was the only topic of conversation. But in amongst all the conspiracy theories and the almost unbelievable truth, a universal realisation. That everything had changed. That things would never be the same again. And so it has proved.
Malc’s recollection:
I’ll be demonstrating my youthfulness by comparison here, but on 11 September 2001, I was 17 and in my final year at Keith Grammar School. Â It was a Tuesday afternoon and we had P.E – which various members of my class frequently missed. Â Thus one of my friends was sitting upstairs in the cafe watching on TV as the attacks happened. Â When the class was over, he came down to the hall to tell us what had happened.
P.E was the final class of the day for me, but we were due to head to Aberdeen to a schools public speaking competition at the end of the school day.  The bus left at 4, so when the bell went I ran to the school’s computer room and  got myself to the BBC website to see what was going on.  Even at that stage I knew I was watching a world-changing event, though we didn’t know the whole story.  At that point, the details were still hazy – the Twin Towers had been hit, but they were still standing, and there was no news about the other two planes at that point.
What remains with me are two clear memories after that. Â The first of those was the school bus to Aberdeen. Â Strangely enough, for a public speaking competition – even though there were only 3 of us involved – we took around 25 pupils with us as support. Â I’d never been on a quieter school bus – especially when the news came on the radio. Â There were younger kids on the trip too – 12/13 year olds who would usually be joking around – and even they were quiet, desperate to find out what had happened.
The second memory is from the following day at school. Â Our sixth year was quite a small group – around 40 or so pupils – and so a few of us had a free period and were sitting around in the common room. Â It was very quiet – a very strange, subdued atmosphere for a school common room. Â Someone brought a US flag which we hung up in the room. Â I remember a few of the folks were quite upset so we decided that – just as a group of 20 or so, when we were all together – we’d go to the hall and observe a couple of minutes silence. Â A small gesture, meaningless in its simplicity and its practical implications. Â But it was something that at that point in time, we could do. Â And even though none of us – I don’t think – had any physical connection with any of the victims of the attacks, we had felt a connection with America that day, and that was a connection we felt, as a group, we had to commemorate.
As a politics undergraduate, and subsequently an International Relations postgrad, specialising in Terrorism, the events were a key influence on my area of study. Â Making sense of it at the time – as a 17 year old – was impossible. Â Making sense of it 10 years later, with an MSc in the subject isn’t any easier.
#1 by Barbarian on September 11, 2011 - 10:46 am
I was on a half day from college, when I came in to see the first tower on fire. Twenty minutes after that, I watched live as the second plane slammed in.
The rest of the afternoon was a blur, but I distinctly remember the collapse of the first tower. When the second went, it felt inevitable and there was no real surprise.
It was only later that I found out that a cousin of mine narrowly missed death. Late for work, as so many seemed to be that day, he watched the first plane fly into his office. He lost many friends.
It put some perspective on life. I had been off work due to a serious illness. Had recovered and was changing direction, hence college. Everything seemed less important after 9/11. It made one appreciate each day.
In terms of shock, the closest I can come to is the day of the Dunblane Tragedy. In Glasgow Central station that evening, for the only time in my life, the station was hushed. Few people spoke.
A similar feeling was felt on 9/11, even though events were farther from home.
When tragedy strikes, it is usually unexpected, and sometimes shocking. The Boxing Day Tsunami, the Japanese earthquake. But those were natural events. 9/11 was a deliberate act, and it sparked a war that is still ongoing and will probably never cease.
#2 by Steve on September 11, 2011 - 11:29 am
I’ve logged out so this comment can be pre moderated, I don’t want to spoil what you are trying to do with this piece. I remember watching the towers fall live on TV. It didn’t seem real, I felt like I was watching a holywood blockbuster. I am struck to this day by my own lack of immediate emotional reaction to this tragedy. It was shocking and incredible, but for me it was hard to get a handle on the devastating human impact as it happened. It’s a strange and unsettling experience but there it is.
#3 by James on September 11, 2011 - 12:44 pm
Me, I rushed back from the jobcentre to watch the rolling news with a dear friend. Even then, the staggering ambition of the people who’d organised it was apparent. It seemed very likely to be the first of many attacks at that stage.
#4 by Gavin Hamilton on September 11, 2011 - 1:00 pm
It was a shocking moment, and a shocking day.
I was enormously moved by Aaron Sorkin’s tribute, in the finest speech he put into the mouth of Jed Bartlett in The West Wing.
I posted it here this morning. These are as fitting words as I have ever heard.
http://ghmltn.blogspot.com/2011/09/911-streets-of-heaven-are-too-crowded.html
#5 by Malc on September 11, 2011 - 1:43 pm
That’s enormously appropriate Gavin.
#6 by Observer on September 11, 2011 - 1:34 pm
We listened to the radio at my work as the internet server was down. There were no images, just words. I thought walking home when I switch on the telly it’s going to look like a disaster movie, & so it did.
We talked about who did it, one of the girls at work is a Pakistani Scot & she said it was Bin Laden, she knew straight away when the people on the radio didn’t. I had a vague idea who he was, most of the others were clueless. We all know now.
There was a general feeling that it would have been better had Bill Clinton still been President. I have no idea how he would have reacted but we were all scared of what Bush would do, & we were right, I don’t think any of us anticipated how Blair would react that day. That shock came later.
#7 by Tris on September 11, 2011 - 2:27 pm
I remember it too.
The thing for me is, as a European (as opposed to American) I was at least a bit used to atrocities. The Irish situation, only a matter of a few hundred miles away from my country, had seen to that. There had been massive bombs in London and Manchester, and although Scotland had escaped, near neighbours were on constant alert.
So, awful though it was, almost unimaginably awful for people, just like me, stuck in the sky in a burning building, I had no comprehension that this was going to change life forever.
I agree with Observer. It would have been better if there had been a more cerebral president in the White House, and we could have wished for a more independently minded prime minister in England.
If blind revenge was what was wanted, the west has certainly had that. Hundreds of thousands of totally innocent people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the 3,000 totally innocent people who died in New York and Washington.
And the war against terror was started. A war that, of course, can never be won.
I wonder where it will end.
#8 by An Duine Gruamach on September 11, 2011 - 4:59 pm
I was twelve at the time, and at an international boarding school in Pakistan. If I’m honest, it didn’t really seem like such a big deal to me at the time. Bombings were and are fairly common in Pakistan, and from where we lived we could often the heavy artillery from Kashmir on still mornings. It was just another attack, or so it seemed. At least that’s how it was for us kids, I suppose our elders knew better.
My American friends were anxious, of course, but it wasn’t until the next day that the scale of it all became clear – by then somebody had put a TV up in the common room, and tuned it the BBC news channel. Within a couple of days people started evacuating – the Americans first, and when the decision was taken to close the school until the situation calmed down, we all went.
What strikes me most about those days looking back was the uncertainty of it all. I didn’t feel unsafe, I wasn’t nervous about flying out of Pakistan; but there was a very clear sense that nobody knew what was going to happen, or what to do. That’s a feeling that’s never totally left.
#9 by Indy on September 11, 2011 - 5:32 pm
When I saw the news abut the twin towers I switched the TV off. Most of the TV programmes and TV coverage would have been better unmade in my opinion. Though I did see one programme called, I think, The Falling Man which was very good and covered what happened very realistically but also sensitively. It is the stuff of nightmares, the fact that one minute you would be sitting at your desk thinking about what to have for lunch and less than an hour later you would be having to make the choice to jump or burn to death. But going over it again and again and again doesn’t help anyone – well, maybe it helps the families of the people who died but it doesn’t help anyone else.
Almost immediately the mantra that 9/11 had changed the world took hold. Well, it didn’t. It didn’t change my world, it didn’t change the world for the vast majority of people who live in it. So that annoyed me and continues to annoy me. I also think it was a profoundly stupid response, as was the whole War on Terror. You really wonder about the so-called Intelligence Services allowing that mantra to take hold. What message is sent out by insisting that, by committing a huge atrocity of that type, terrorists can actually change the world? It’s not exactly a disincentive to terrorism is it?
It would have sent out a much stronger message if America and her allies had said the world has not changed because of this, America has not changed because of this, we will not change our way of life or our laws or our values by one iota because of this.
#10 by Malc on September 11, 2011 - 6:38 pm
I’ll be honest Indy, I find this a totally strange comment. Of course, you are entitled to your view, but I think you are totally wrong.
#11 by Indy on September 12, 2011 - 8:01 am
In what sense?
It is strange in one sense I agree – I was talking with friends about this and we all agreed that Margaret Thatcher was spot on with her comments about not giving terrorists the oxygen of publicity. But that is only strange in terms of agreeing with Maggie Thatcher! Doesn’t mean she wasn’t wrong about everything else.
#12 by Allan on September 11, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Certainly in the hours afterwards, the thought occured that this was a turning point in history, one of those things will never be the same moments. The thought also occured that President Bush maybe would not resist using force – maybe Nuclear weapons, which echos the earlier comment that Bush wasn’t the most appropriate person to react to this event. For the fist time the future was a scary place, more so when members of Bush’s cabinet were intent on blaming Saddam Hussein.
Two things strike me about that day. It’s the first time I have seen a crowd stand outside a pub watching the television inside the pub (heading towards the train home, this was the first ilkling that something had happened), the first thing I saw was a huge cloud of smoke accompnied with the thought “must have been a huge bomb…”. The second is that people were coming up to me to say “You’ll never guess what has happened?”
#13 by Observer on September 11, 2011 - 7:04 pm
Why is it a strange comment Malc?
If 9/11 changed the world then it was the response to it which shaped that change.
That response was initially described by Bush as a crusade. Bush & Blair did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do. That is the tragedy of it.
#14 by Malc on September 11, 2011 - 7:44 pm
It was the “it didn’t change my world” comment I thought strange. If you’ve flown since 9/11, it has changed your world. That’s a simple thing – but obvious. That’s why I thought it strange.
I agree completely that the world changed, and the response to the event shaped the change. I disagree that American values changed – they did not.
Like I say, they guy’s entitled to his opinion – but its one I fundamentally don’t agree with.
#15 by Indy on September 12, 2011 - 8:08 am
I wouldn’t say having extra security checks at an airpor really changes anybody’s world. If we are talking about air travel Ryanair has changed my world – 9/11 hasn’t. And I would say that is the case for most folks.
Of course I am not a Muslim. I am not habitually stopped and questioned by police whenever I travel and asked to prove I am not a terrorist. The world changes for Muslims all right, they became The Other, the cuckoos in the nest. Which was exactly what Bin Laden wanted of course.
#16 by Malc on September 12, 2011 - 1:40 pm
Like I say, I fundamentally disagree. Air travel is just one example, though I clearly think the changes to airport security are more extensive than you do.
#17 by Indy on September 12, 2011 - 8:26 am
Regarding whether America’s values changed – have you ever seen The Siege? Made in 1998, it pretty much rehearses all of the arguments before 9/11 happened. Of course, being a film everything is exaggerated. The Americans didn’t actually declare martial law and round up all the Muslims and put them into a giant camp, as happened in the film. But nonetheless we still see the two very different ways America could have reacted to a terrorist campaign in New York and it touches on issues like whether torture is justified, whether the curtailment of civil liberties is justified and whether a whole community can be scapegated because of the actions of a few. And it touches on the murky involvement of the intelligence services with terrorists in the first place.
In the film Denzel Washington’s character, who is clearly the goodie as opposed to Bruce Willis’s crazy military baddie, wins through. The values he stands for, such as not torturing people, win through. That was a mainstream movie, starring mainstream stars. It reflected mainstream values. Maybe the reality of government was different – well, we know it was – but in terms of the values that ordinary Anericans subscribed to the film had something quite powerful to say, which would be difficult to say now.
#18 by Malc on September 12, 2011 - 1:52 pm
I was 14 when that movie came out. I haven’t seen it, and I’m not sure talking about a film is relevant when reality provides enough of a talking point.
I think the distinction between what American values and American government values are needs exploration though. You’re talking about values surrounding security – whether torture is justifiable when lives are at stake. I’m talking about more basic values – those of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Those haven’t changed. What has changed is American perceptions of how far they should go to protect the values they cherish.
Put it in this context. I’m opposed to the death penalty, and I think discussion trumps violence. But if someone broke into my home, I’m not convinced I’d stand and debate the finer points of the law. I’m pretty sure I’d attack the intruder and defend what I valued of my material possessions. That doesn’t mean my values have changed or that I now think that violence is acceptable. Its about finding a means of defending what I hold close.
That’s how I see the US post-9/11. Whether they’ve gone as far as Tony Martin you can debate – and likely will. But I don’t think it affects the values they are trying to protect.
#19 by Indy on September 12, 2011 - 2:42 pm
I don’t really get your point. I have no issues with America hunting down Bin Laden and co by whatever means necessary.
But where does the war on Iraq fit into that scenario?
Where does the rhetoric about crusades and a clash of civilisations come into that scenario?
#20 by Malc on September 12, 2011 - 3:03 pm
I thought it was a rather simple point to be honest. Tony Martin was found guilty of basically lying in wait with a gun for the burglars. His actions taken to protect his property were pro-active rather than reactive. I’d make an argument that the US has done the same with Iraq – rather than wait for it to attack, it pre-empted terrorism by striking at what it saw as its source. Iraq clearly wasn’t about Bin Laden, but it was about the US protecting its own interests. Cynically you can argue it was about oil – and it was, to an extent – but that’s also part of the US’s interest.
The point is that values are independent of government actions. The values – in my view – haven’t changed. But the means employed to protect them have.
And I happen to find some of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” argument pretty valid. Sure, he makes dangerous assumptions about Islam in some places, but his primary point – that wherever there is a border between westernised nations and other civilisations, there is likely to be tension – is as valid for me as anything else that has been written in the field of International Relations in the past quarter century.
#21 by Indy on September 12, 2011 - 3:35 pm
? Seriously? You think Iraq was going to attack the United States?
#22 by Malc on September 12, 2011 - 3:46 pm
It doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what the US government thought.
They identified Iraq as posing a threat to the US interest. That wasn’t necessarily a military threat – and this is where the oil thing comes in. It could have been an economic threat. It could also have been elements within Iraq – a terrorist threat. Whether either was ever a credible threat is debatable – but at the height of the country’s reaction to 9/11, I’d suspect that perception mattered more than reality at the time, and they determined that being proactive was better than being reactive when it came to security.
That’s not to say I thought they were right – just explaining how I saw it.
#23 by Doug Daniel on September 12, 2011 - 2:29 am
When it happened, I remember seeing it on the TV at home, and thinking “wow, that’s interesting” before going to the gym. While there, everyone was pretty much standing watching the TVs, which made me think “hmmm, maybe this is quite big news then.” I then spent 20 minutes on the running machine, where I believe I took it up to level 15 for the first time ever, and spent a bit of time on the rowing machine and the upright bike too, as I was doing a CV day. Then I think I went home and read the Manic Street Preachers forum, where there were a few threads about the day’s events.
#24 by Indy on September 12, 2011 - 9:06 pm
I don’t recall anybody suggesting that Iraq was a source of terrorism before 9/11 so I don’t think the self-defence excuse is at all valid. The analogy of defending your property against an intruder doesn’t hold up either – you can defend yourself against an intruder- but if you then go on to take over your intruder’s next door neighbour’s house as well it’s a different story.
Basically my point of view is that if, in the aftermath of 9/11, America had focussed on destroying Al Quaeda and its allies the rest of the world would have, for the most part, said fair enough and left them to it. But by invading Iraq they went further than they had a right to and by hyping up the war on terror rhetoric by talking about a crusade and a clash of civilisations and so on they antagnised a lot of people that they didn’t need to antagonise and made life pretty uncomfortable for their own Muslim citizens and, to a lesser extent, for Muslims in Europe. All completely unnecessary and, in my view, pretty counter-productive and stupid. And not part of the great American tradition of offering a safe haven for people fleeing religious persecution.
And overall I still maintain that the hyped up rhetoric about the world changing as a consequence of 9/11 is a lot of hooey. America changed but America is not the world. That’s not an anti-American point it’s just a fact.
Did 9/11 change the world for people in Mongolia, or Vietnam or Peru? I don’t really think so. And to what extent has it really changed our world? I lived in London when the IRA were active and security precautions were pretty tight. People just got on with it, as they just get on with it now. My neighbour was one of those who lived through the Blitz though half her family died. 9/11 did not change her world – well, it couldn’t have because she’s probably dead now but if she was alive it wouldn’t have changed her world because she lived through something that was worse.
I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but I think people need to keep a sense of proportion. The 9/11 attacks were an act of calculated evil and the people who were behind it deserved to be hunted down and destroyed. But there is a great deal of wickedness in the world, what about all the other people who have lost their lives to violence since 9/11 that we never even hear about because they are dying in countries far away that we have no interest in? Doesn’t their dying change the world too?
#25 by douglas clark on September 13, 2011 - 12:37 am
There are some folk that think this is all “Tragedy porn” I think they have a point. See here:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/09/911.html
#26 by Davie Park on September 13, 2011 - 1:00 am
Malc proposes that the US…
“identified Iraq as posing a threat to the US interest. That wasn’t necessarily a military threat …”
But they invaded Iraq because (Malc suggests);
“they determined that being proactive was better than being reactive when it came to security.”
So now they ARE countering a perceived military threat? (I’m convinced the US knew there was NO element within Iraq that posed a credible terrorist threat).
Or, by ‘security’ do you mean ‘security of oil supply’?
Incidentally, there’s a quite superb analysis of the US concept of ‘preventative’ military action in Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky. It seems to fit quite nicely with your idea of the US ‘pro active’ invasion of Iraq.
Chomsky begins by making the distinction between ‘pre emptive’ action and preventative action – the former potentially falling within the framework of international law.
He goes on;
“But the justifications for preemptive war, whatever they might be, do not hold for preventative war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by it’s current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an imagined or invented threat, so that even the term preventative is too charitable.
Preventative war falls within the category of war crimes.”
#27 by Malc on September 13, 2011 - 1:26 pm
I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent in what I’ve said. State security extends beyond the military. As I said in response to Indy, it also refers to economic security – and yes, that includes oil supply. They recognised that a large part of their industry is dependent upon the continuation of economic ties with oil, and that security of that source was of paramount importance to the US economically. Its what in International Relations theory is called a “realist” perspective (as opposed to liberal internationalism or Marxism).
I’m not saying they were right to do so, merely that it is an explanation for their actions. But I’m apparently permanently wrong, so don’t bother about what I say.
#28 by Davie Park on September 15, 2011 - 3:29 pm
Malc wrote: Its what in International Relations theory is called a “realist†perspective
So, given that they were prepared to invade Iraq because they needed Iraq’s oil (with the entirely forseeable concommitant of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths), is it “realistic” not to expect a cycle of retaliatory violence?
And whilst you assert that your explanation doesn’t mean you think the invasion of Iraq was right, it does seem perilously close to an attempt at justification.
#29 by Malc on September 16, 2011 - 8:43 am
You’re misunderstanding me. Here’s Wikipedia’s article on political realism.
Political Realism as a theory deals mostly in state security issues, and as I said, that isn’t simply military. Its also about power politics – projection of power on a world stage, and the understanding that, as a massive military power, whatever was thrown at them, they could handle. Its about placing security above ideology. And yes, sometimes that means accepting particular outcomes (retaliatory violence) because you expect to be able to overcome that – its a judgement call.
As for justifying it – I’m trying to explain the logic behind the thinking. In the UK, we tend towards a much more liberal internationalist viewpoint with regards international relations. Hence when the US does something like Iraq, we baulk at the action rather than consider why they are doing so.
#30 by Davie Park on September 16, 2011 - 2:08 pm
Thanks for taking the time to explain Malc.
So, for ‘political realism’, read ‘amoral self interest.’
I’ll bear that in mind whenever US foreign policy has me stumped. ; )
#31 by Malc on September 16, 2011 - 2:46 pm
I’ll agree with self-interest. “Amoral” is judgement on your part.
All countries act in what they think is their own interest though – its just that some have different views on a) what that interest is and b) the lengths to which they can legitimately go to to preserve it. American foreign policy tends to be less squeamish (to use a non-technical term!) than we are.