Where there is sorrow, there is holy ground

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
9/11

Owen, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 11:11 (twenty-three years ago)

huh?

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 11:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Typo - maybe he means Sorrel.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:55 (twenty-three years ago)

today's the first time i've cried about anything 9/11 related.

mitch lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:59 (twenty-three years ago)

I think I did a little at the time, but I cry a lot anyway.

Andrew Thames, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Really - I've cried buckets in the past but then I'm a big crybaby. My eyes got a bit wet reading Simon Schama on the front of the Guardian today, thinking about it.

But what's this 'holy ground' thing - is it a quote?

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:07 (twenty-three years ago)

That was in response to mitch, not Andrew.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Lest we forget.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:23 (twenty-three years ago)

N -- It's an intriguing quote by Oscar Wilde. And it seems to be the line many people are using today. Actually, I think it works well.

I'm a freelance sound recordist by trade, and recently unearthed one of my gashed DAT tapes containing an accidental recording of the events as they unfolded on September 11th. Apparently, seconds after the first plane hitting (although I wasn’t aware it had happened at the time), I had just signed for the delivery of some M-S stereo microphones and was testing them on the floor of my lounge by speaking into every part of the polar pattern.

I was disappointed to note that there was a discernible lack of stereo dynamics in my headphones as I repeated ‘left, left, left’ on the left part and then went slowly round the mic set-up, saying ‘mid, mid, mid’, and finally slurring my utterance into ‘right, right, right’ when I reached the opposite pole. All the time I experimented, I was recording, and this is what else I heard when I re-listened to the DAT a couple of days ago, ten months after the acts of terrorism: The telephone rings - it’s my wife, and I can be heard answering. ‘Hi, Babe … … really? … I’ll turn the telly on’.

The television is turned on, the mic rustles tumultuously as I retrieve it and direct it towards the speakers, and Brian Hanrahan can be heard describing, live, how the World Trade Centre has been hit; I then resume … and this is what I found most fascinating when I listened to the recording - I resume my prosaic experiment, saying ‘left, left, left …. mid, mid, mid … ‘; Hanrahan reports that the first tower has collapsed and that the fire crew entering the building have inevitably been killed; I can be heard hesitating for a moment, and then, again, I resume my callous chant - ‘mid, mid … right, right, right’. I evidently had trouble taking it in …


Owen, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:35 (twenty-three years ago)

That sounds like an interesting artefact. I didn't take it in at first either. It's was like 'woah!' but when the towers actually fell it was just like 'there they go', without comprehending that that was the point that most people died. I don't know whether I assumed everyone had got out by then or it was just too unreal seeing it on TV, but there was no sense of 'Oh no, thousands of people in there just died in there in the last few seconds'. Maybe I'm just thick.

I don't really get the poignancy of the 'sacred ground' quote. Or maybe I just don't get the quote in the first place. It just sounds purple-prosed sentimental. Why would the scene of such evil and misery be sacred?

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Has anyone read through the threads from last year?

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, and that should be 12 months (NOT TEN) after the acts of terrorism, obviously.

The quote works for me because it smacks of inclusiveness - perhaps in part because of who wrote it - and it encompasses the sorrow of all the victims of the last 12 months, since 9/11; not just the berieved associated directly with the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

Owen, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 13:56 (twenty-three years ago)

'Why would the scene of such evil and misery be sacred?'

I started this thread moments before the minute's silence; and the qoute's poignancy, again, for me, was not so much that Ground Zero has become sacred, but that anywhere an individual was (ILX board) when they remember is holy ground.

Owen, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not sure what holy means anymore, at least to irreligious people.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Has anyone read through the threads from last year?
Yes, this morning I read Parts II and III of the main thread and Ned's "POST NOW" thread. Two things struck me - (i) lots of rumours were posted as facts, equally many things now found to be true were dismissed on the day as unlikely; (ii) ILX is populated by LOVELY PEOPLE :)

Jeff W, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Hydration’s Daughter and ‘‘Siddhartha’’

Norma - an eyewash, Hydration’s Daughter -
Rescues me with some mineral water
And a tube of after sun cream.
She must have heard me scream:
‘‘I have no faith ... it stings!’’,
For Hydration’s Daughter also brings
The unity of all things:
A novel by Hermann Hesse.

They suit Hydration’s caress,
But will my sunburnt shoulders suit
The loin-clothed, holy style of dress;
Will the colour clash with the Absolute?
The holy men in the book
Are described as ‘‘burnt by the sun’’,
But, to me, their scabs and blisters look
Much more tastefully done;
My shoulders weren’t burnt in a noble way -
Through self denial or Om.
The sun in the book is the same -
The sun where my burns are from -
But my burns, to my shame,
Were designed and erected
As I bathed unprotected,
Trying to catch a tan.
And, I wish this made me a holy man.
But it doesn’t, I’m afraid.

Owen, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Reading the threads from last year is odd to say the least... the first thread in particular has this real sense of immediacy about it. I remember reading though them last year as events were unfolding and thinking "fuck..."

Likewise, I had trouble taking it in at first. I'd been on a train, coming back from a weekend away, having had very little sleep whatsoever. I was tired, I was hungover, and I only found out about two hours after the first plane hit when I spoke to my parents. I didn't take it in at all... in fact, when someone told me two planes had crashed into the WTC, my first thought was the usual novelty story about some idiot with a hang glider or something. It wasn't until I saw the first tower collapse that it all hit home... even harder when I heard that a friend of mine worked in the South Tower. Thankfully she was alright, but in retrospect those five hours before I heard were among the worst of my life.

It still strikes me as weird though when I think about it... more than the enormity of the destruction itself, was that, at the time, virtually every single person on the planet, wherever they were, was thinking about exactly the same thing. I hope that will never happen again.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:35 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's almost certain to. I think it's 99% certain that a nuclear weapon, for instance, will be used within my lifetime, probably within the next 10 years, and I expect the enormity of that to stop the world in a similar fashion.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Blimey Tom, it's just like the 80s all over again. Where's Sarah and her 'Breathing' karaoke.

I have a feeling that a nuclear weapon will be used but it will be less of a news event than 9/11.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 20:40 (twenty-three years ago)

If one gets used, it won't be filmable, certainly not the way WTC was filmable: the cameras close enough and quick enough wouldn't survive, for one thing; for another, it won't be in a major media city.

I don't think I agree with Tom, actually.

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 21:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Has anyone read through the threads from last year?

I've done that on an on and off basis throughout the last few months. A strange sort of reminder of the past, if you like. Avoiding them for now, though.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 21:42 (twenty-three years ago)

My posting was optimistic, actually: I think that one will be used and to be honest it will be less of an event than 9/11, a la Nick. I think it ought to be more of an event, obviously. But yes, less filmable.

I was thinking today - aside from nuclear weapons technology, is there any technology developed over the last 50-60 years which has not filtered down to individual use/affordability (stretching affordability a bit perhaps)?

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 22:34 (twenty-three years ago)

aside from nuclear weapons technology, is there any technology developed over the last 50-60 years which has not filtered down to individual use/affordability (stretching affordability a bit perhaps)?

Space flight.

j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 22:37 (twenty-three years ago)

"stretching affordability a bit perhaps"

Lance Bass to thread!! (Or OK that Texan bloke who actually did get into space as a private citizen)

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 22:41 (twenty-three years ago)

I have a feeling that a nuclear weapon will be used but it will be less of a news event than 9/11.

Depends on where and when it is used. A few years ago there was talk of "suitcase bombs" -- portable nuclear weapons -- that supposedly had gone missing during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I had images of a suicide bomber trundling such a device onto the sidewalk in front of the White House and setting it off.

j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 22:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Lance Bass to thread!! (Or OK that Texan bloke who actually did get into space as a private citizen)

True, but how much would that billionaire have had to pay to buy his own private space shuttle? ;^}

j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 22:44 (twenty-three years ago)

aside from nuclear weapons technology, is there any technology developed over the last 50-60 years which has not filtered down to individual use/affordability (stretching affordability a bit perhaps)?
particle accelerators, like at CERN?

lyra (lyra), Thursday, 12 September 2002 02:04 (twenty-three years ago)

You want a particle accelerator? What would you do w/it? Oh and Lance Bass is no longer off into space. The Russians nixed it I think.

Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Thursday, 12 September 2002 02:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Just think of all the uses particle accelerators have- your own homegrown physics research into the nature of matter!

lyra (lyra), Thursday, 12 September 2002 02:32 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.