Do you think the world would be any different if 9/11 never happened?

Do you think the world would be any different if 9/11 never happened?


The 2000s would have been a more liberal decade.  Cultural progressivism was taking root in the 1990s but 9/11 and the wave of conservatism afterwards pushed it back about 5 years.  Bush would have still found a reason to invade Iraq, but wouldn't have been re-elected in 2004.

Do you think the world would be any different if 9/11 never happened?


I kind of wonder that myself, If 9/11 never happened I think the plane would've missed and swerved the Twin Towers and the terrorists would have gotten shot right on the spot.

I wish they would've been caught in the airport before they got on...
I think I'd be a more liberal decade too without bush.

I went to NYC in December 2000 to visit my cousin, I can't remember much but the clearest thing is that I was sitting on the rooftop with my parents and other family members all having cigarettes and looking at the WTC and just remembering how tall they were and the alternating flashing red lights on top. We went onto the observatory but sadly I don't remember it...

I wish they would've been caught in the airport before they got on...
I think I'd be a more liberal decade too without bush.


That way this incident wouldn't have occurred.

The 2000s would have been a more liberal decade.  Cultural progressivism was taking root in the 1990s but 9/11 and the wave of conservatism afterwards pushed it back about 5 years.  Bush would have still found a reason to invade Iraq, but wouldn't have been re-elected in 2004.


Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it too. It's almost hard to overstate how different history could have turned out had 9/11 not happened.

Without 9/11, I'd give it more than a 50/50 chance that Bush does not get re-elected in 2004. Remember, the economy was entering a recession in the Summer of 2001, and Bush's approval ratings were beginning to drop below 50% just at the time that 9/11 happened, which catapulted his popularity into the stratosphere. Now, it's true that the early 2000's recession was not a particularly deep one, but the ensuing recovery was also not very strong, and unemployment stood at over 5.5% in late 2004.

I also believe that there's a very good chance that Al Gore would've been the Democratic nominee in 2004 instead of John Kerry had 9/11 not happened. Most accounts say that Gore wanted to run again in '04, but decided to stay out the race in late '02 when Bush's popularity still stood at 70% and he seemed unbeatable. If Bush hadn't been so popular because of 9/11, I think Gore gets in, and we get a rematch of 2000, with Gore likely squeaking out a narrow victory.

Of course, this also means that Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 economic collapse happen on Gore's watch instead of Bush's, so the Democrat's don't take back Congress in 2006, and a Republican is likely elected in 2008, meaning that this decade is also radically different than it is now. Under this scenario, the Republican President is likely re-elected in 2012, and Barack Obama is probably still a Senator from Illinois gearing up for his own Presidential campaign in 2016.

Less airport security?  ???

Less airport security?  ???


I probably would think so.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it too. It's almost hard to overstate how different history could have turned out had 9/11 not happened.

Without 9/11, I'd give it more than a 50/50 chance that Bush does not get re-elected in 2004. Remember, the economy was entering a recession in the Summer of 2001, and Bush's approval ratings were beginning to drop below 50% just at the time that 9/11 happened, which catapulted his popularity into the stratosphere. Now, it's true that the early 2000's recession was not a particularly deep one, but the ensuing recovery was also not very strong, and unemployment stood at over 5.5% in late 2004.

I also believe that there's a very good chance that Al Gore would've been the Democratic nominee in 2004 instead of John Kerry had 9/11 not happened. Most accounts say that Gore wanted to run again in '04, but decided to stay out the race in late '02 when Bush's popularity still stood at 70% and he seemed unbeatable. If Bush hadn't been so popular because of 9/11, I think Gore gets in, and we get a rematch of 2000, with Gore likely squeaking out a narrow victory.

Of course, this also means that Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 economic collapse happen on Gore's watch instead of Bush's, so the Democrat's don't take back Congress in 2006, and a Republican is likely elected in 2008, meaning that this decade is also radically different than it is now. Under this scenario, the Republican President is likely re-elected in 2012, and Barack Obama is probably still a Senator from Illinois gearing up for his own Presidential campaign in 2016.


Great points.  Bush was hardly a popular President prior to 9/11.  Many at the time didn't see him as legitimate due to his 513 vote victory in Florida.  The leadership he showed initially after the attacks (pre-Iraq) caused the world to rally around him.  One also has to consider what would have happened in an alternate universe where 9/11 DID happen, but Bush chose not to invade Iraq.  Bush's decision to take his political capital after 9/11 and use it to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks was the beginning of the downfall of the Republican Party and the end of the U.S. as a respected nation in the world.

It's very likely that Hillary would have won in 2008 without Iraq.  One of the big factors in her loss to Obama in the primary was the fact that she voted for the Iraq war and Obama voted against it.

Great points.  Bush was hardly a popular President prior to 9/11.  Many at the time didn't see him as legitimate due to his 513 vote victory in Florida.  The leadership he showed initially after the attacks (pre-Iraq) caused the world to rally around him.  One also has to consider what would have happened in an alternate universe where 9/11 DID happen, but Bush chose not to invade Iraq.  Bush's decision to take his political capital after 9/11 and use it to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks was the beginning of the downfall of the Republican Party and the end of the U.S. as a respected nation in the world.

It's very likely that Hillary would have won in 2008 without Iraq.  One of the big factors in her loss to Obama in the primary was the fact that she voted for the Iraq war and Obama voted against it.


That's true. It seems like everybody forgets this now, but Bush was in serious political trouble at the beginning of September 2001. He was still seen as an "illegitimate" President due to election controversy from the previous year, and the effects of the Dot-Com bust were really starting to become evident. In fact, the Friday before 9/11 had just saw the release of a very disappointing August unemployment report, and Bush's approval rating had just dropped to 51%, which was the lowest of his term so far. The image that we have of George W. Bush today (the strong "decider" type leader) did not exist before September 11, 2001.

It's an interesting question about Bush choosing not to invade Iraq. The Iraq War did give Bush some short term political gain (his approval rating rose back over 70% after the fall of Baghdad in the Spring of 2003), but it obviously wound up doing much more damage to him in the long term. Without Iraq, Bush's popularity would still crater in 2008 due to the economic crash, but I do think the Republican party would've been in a stronger position. Katrina was a disaster for Bush, but the economy was actually pretty strong in 2006 with unemployment below 5%, so the Democrats likely would not have done as well in the '06 midterms without the Iraq issue to hammer Bush with.

I agree that Hilary would've had a better chance to win the Democratic nomination in 2008 without Iraq also. Obama would've still probably had the activist left behind him, but it's possible that many middle-of-the-road Democrats that wound up supporting Obama may have stuck with Hilary had Obama not been able to attack her over her Iraq vote.

The main differences that come to mind:

+ The Middle East, while still in deep conflict, would not be nearly as f'd up as it is now.
+ Bush '43 would not have won a second term.
+ 21st century civil rights movements would have occurred sooner, due to social rebellion being seen as less of an outright threat.
+ Middle Easterners would still largely support the Republican Party.
+ Bubblegum pop would've stuck around longer.
+ More effort would've been concentrated on expanding NAFTA and combating global warning than stopping terrorism.
+ FPS's would still be popular, but they wouldn't come to completely swallow up the video game industry.
+ Gun control laws would have made more progress by now.

Otherwise, I actually don't think popular culture would have been that different in the absence of 9/11.  The vast bulk of culture that defined the 2000s either already existed around 1999-mid-2001 or was in development at that time.

It's an interesting question about Bush choosing not to invade Iraq.

So why couldn't he invade Iraq? ???

I probably would think so.


I think so too.  ;D

Likely the same given global warming, peak oil, increasing debt, and other crises.

Likely the same given global warming, peak oil, increasing debt, and other crises.


I agree! The world would be a s**thole regardless of 9/11 happening or not.

I've agreed with a lot of the posts on here, while I don't agree with all of 'em. However, what would the world be like without 9/11, well, you never know, maybe our security at the airports or other big sites would have not been amped up more. Maybe a bigger, or worse attack could have been planned on us out of nowhere? Who really knows? Would TV had been different then by some people's logic?

I'm interested in your guy's thoughts on this question, do you guys feel Bush's term was closer to Clinton's term or Obama's term?

I'm interested in your guy's thoughts on this question, do you guys feel Bush's term was closer to Clinton's term or Obama's term?


Obama, easily.  Clinton's focus was NAFTA, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Dot-Com Bubble, and Lewinsky.  Bush's primary goal was to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East, a task that has burdened the Obama administration without end.

Obama, easily.  Clinton's focus was NAFTA, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Dot-Com Bubble, and Lewinsky.  Bush's primary goal was to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East, a task that has burdened the Obama administration without end.


I agree 100%! I actually saw this video the other day and I found pretty accurate (and a bit sad) MIOjmvpUUis.

Basically how the 2000's & 2010's are to us Millennials will probably been seen in similarity as the 60's & 70's were to Boomers, decades that defined us through endless wars. The 60's & 70's being defined by the Vietnam War and the 00's & 10's being defined by the War on Terror

I'm interested in your guy's thoughts on this question, do you guys feel Bush's term was closer to Clinton's term or Obama's term?


They are basically the same as they followed policies based on increased borrowing and spending which have been going on for at least three decades:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/164163-krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt

We can also see 9/11 in light of increasing debt, spending, and conflict, i.e., in terms of the gold standard and the petrodollar:

HP7L8bw5QF4

9/11 disrupted Michael Jackson's comeback in 2001.This was recently brought to my attention by a friend the other day. He released Invincible a little over a month after the Towers fell which I think was ill-conceived by Sony because the country was still picking up smoldering ruins and human remains. No one was all that worried about running to Sam Goody for a new CD. (Although the album was considered a "flop" it did sell 11 million copies)
I got the CD 2 days after it dropped because 1--I was 15 with a one-track mind, 2--I live in Texas 3--I wasn't really personally touched by 9/11 although I had a friend who lost an uncle in the disaster I later found out. 4--I'd saved and kissed ass for weeks to get the money out of my folks for the CD.
If it hadn't happened, people would remember the MSG concerts and it probably would have spawned a tour earlier than that for This Is It, which never came to fruition or it might have spawned a reunion tour for the Jackson Five in the early to mid 00s, during which I'd have had to kiss MORE ass to get tickets had it come to Texas. I spent most of my childhood kissing up and begging for MJ-related crap.
But I guess the lucky thing is this. I begged and pleased for two months to go to the shows in NYC, and Mama was staunch with her "Hell no". I can only wonder if we had gone to NYC, would we have died in the crash on a plane, flying back to Texas.  :o And I know my Mama's last words would have been cussing me out for getting her in a fix like that.

I'm interested in your guy's thoughts on this question, do you guys feel Bush's term was closer to Clinton's term or Obama's term?


Obama.  During his first term, he didn't differ all that much from Bush especially on foreign policy issues.  He even kept many of Bush's cabinet members. While Obama has become more liberal during his second term, during his first term he governed more from the center.  This is why I don't understand how Republicans can have such a disdain for Obama, with the exception of his position on abortion and LGBT issues.

The Clinton era was mostly focused on domestic policies.  There was a huge false sense of security and tranquility during that era.  The Cold War was over and the War on Terror had not begun yet.  Overall, the nation was far less polarized than it has been post-Iraq invasion.

The world would likely have largely progressed the same as it has. Just America might be different. The seeds of global 00s pop culture were already planted as early as the late 90s, so no surprises there.

Airports and border security would probably be more lax and Iraq wouldn't have been invaded(yet). The big event in the 00's that seemed to have collectively affected the world was the 2008 recession.

The Canadian economy was doing Ok from  2000-2007. Alberta became the national employer from 2008-2014 because of the mid-00's oil boom.

Interestingly, I think I heard Alqaeda was planning a similar attack on west coast. So a aircraft-based attack might not have even been preventable unless strict security measure were already put in place as they are now.

I agree! The world would be a s**thole regardless of 9/11 happening or not.


and probably more shootings.

I've agreed with a lot of the posts on here, while I don't agree with all of 'em. However, what would the world be like without 9/11, well, you never know, maybe our security at the airports or other big sites would have not been amped up more. Maybe a bigger, or worse attack could have been planned on us out of nowhere? Who really knows? Would TV had been different then by some people's logic?


and where would Osama Bin Laden be? ???

Basically how the 2000's & 2010's are to us Millennials will probably been seen in similarity as the 60's & 70's were to Boomers, decades that defined us through endless wars. The 60's & 70's being defined by the Vietnam War and the 00's & 10's being defined by the War on Terror


This is an interesting comparison, as both eras actually do have a lot of random things in common.

Both the '60s and the '00s had a major, earth shattering event happen early in the decade (JFK assassination and 9/11), followed subsequently by unpopular wars and major tragedies (Vietnam and MLK assassination/riots in the '60s, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina in the '00s), and closing out with economic downturns (thought the 1969 recession was not nearly as bad as the one in 2007-08).

Since the '10s are only halfway over, it's too early to compare them directly to the '70s, but I do notice a few similarities already. Both the '70s and the '10s have had sluggish economies, rising crime rates and increasing unrest in urban areas. I'm also staring to see similarities between the 2016 election and the 1976 election. Today there's massive dissatisfaction with the current political situation, just as there was back in the mid '70s following Watergate. With the desire that a lot of voters seem to have for a political "outsider" to be the next President, I could see a scenario where a Bernie Sanders, or even Donald Trump, could become in '16 what Jimmy Carter was in '76: a dark horse candidate that winds up winning it all.

The '00s and '10s thus far have been nowhere near as turbulent as the '60s and '70s were.

No anti-establishment protests near the scale of the ones during the late 1960s and nothing on the level of the Kent State Massacre.  That is a good thing.

The '00s and '10s thus far have been nowhere near as turbulent as the '60s and '70s were.

No anti-establishment protests near the scale of the ones during the late 1960s and nothing on the level of the Kent State Massacre.  That is a good thing.


I agree that the similarities I pointed out between the '60s and '00s are mostly just superficial in nature, but I really do increasingly see this decade as being comparable to the '70s.

The main comparison that I see between the '10s and '70s isn't so much in the level of turbulence of events (where the '70s obviously is in a class above the '10s so far), but just in terms of the general "feeling" in the country right now. There really has been a growing sense of "malaise" in the USA over the last few years, similar to that which took down Jimmy Carter in the late '70s. I don't think it's quite that bad yet, but with 70% of Americans believing the country is headed in the wrong direction, it's getting there. I mean, people are so dissatisfied with the way things are going right now that 40% of them are actually thinking about voting for Donald Trump to be the next President!

Let's say the plane crashed on the ground instead of The Twin Towers and killed all the terrorists, Would the Twin Towers still be standing today? ???

and probably more shootings.


It seems every second day there's a shooting somewhere.


Let's say the plane crashed on the ground instead of The Twin Towers and killed all the terrorists, Would the Twin Towers still be standing today? ???


They might be but I think that it'd still be seen as some tragedy because people outside of the WTC still might of died (not to mention the people who were in the plane), or it could of hit some other no name business building by mistake which would also still result in a lot of dead people.

It seems every second day there's a shooting somewhere.

I know, you can't get away from these shootings. ::)

I know, you can't get away from these shootings. ::)


They just keep on coming!

Let's say the plane crashed on the ground instead of The Twin Towers and killed all the terrorists, Would the Twin Towers still be standing today? ???

The other one would've still hit the pentagon. Yep. Did everyone forget about that?

The other one would've still hit the pentagon. Yep. Did everyone forget about that?


Oh yeah I almost forgot about that.

I know, you can't get away from these shootings. ::)


Those shooters are looking for attention.  ::)

Would Rudy Giuliani have still been mayor?

Would Rudy Giuliani have still been mayor?


no. Guiliani was done in Early 2002 after being elected twice in 1993 and 1997. Bloomberg was the only one who got 3 terms. After his 3rd term, they changed back to the two term limit. Rudy wouldn't have left with such a high approval rating if 9/11 didn't happen. I remember a lot of New Yorkers were really divided on him and his policies.

no. Guiliani was done in Early 2002 after being elected twice in 1993 and 1997. Bloomberg was the only one who got 3 terms. After his 3rd term, they changed back to the two term limit. Rudy wouldn't have left with such a high approval rating if 9/11 didn't happen. I remember a lot of New Yorkers were really divided on him and his policies.


I like what he did on 9/11.

I like what he did on 9/11.

A lot of people did too. He left office with a pretty high approval rating

Would we still have had a new president?

Would we still have had a new president?

Bush probably wouldn't have gotten reelected. Now Obama is a different story. Maybe he wouldn't be our president. Hilary could have won in 2008. You just never know man....

Bush probably wouldn't have gotten reelected. Now Obama is a different story. Maybe he wouldn't be our president. Hilary could have won in 2008. You just never know man....


I think people wanted Obama to be president, even if 9/11 didn't happen because he had honest political beliefs and that every civil rights politician wanted him elected.

I think people wanted Obama to be president, even if 9/11 didn't happen because he had honest political beliefs and that every civil rights politician wanted him elected.


What was Obama doing in 2001?

What was Obama doing in 2001?


I think he was working in Illinois as a state senator. He Didn't become a US Senator until 2004.

This is an interesting comparison, as both eras actually do have a lot of random things in common.

Both the '60s and the '00s had a major, earth shattering event happen early in the decade (JFK assassination and 9/11), followed subsequently by unpopular wars and major tragedies (Vietnam and MLK assassination/riots in the '60s, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina in the '00s), and closing out with economic downturns (thought the 1969 recession was not nearly as bad as the one in 2007-08).

Since the '10s are only halfway over, it's too early to compare them directly to the '70s, but I do notice a few similarities already. Both the '70s and the '10s have had sluggish economies, rising crime rates and increasing unrest in urban areas. I'm also staring to see similarities between the 2016 election and the 1976 election. Today there's massive dissatisfaction with the current political situation, just as there was back in the mid '70s following Watergate. With the desire that a lot of voters seem to have for a political "outsider" to be the next President, I could see a scenario where a Bernie Sanders, or even Donald Trump, could become in '16 what Jimmy Carter was in '76: a dark horse candidate that winds up winning it all.


I called it! 8)

I called it! 8)


So this is your fault! >:(

I called it! 8)


TREMENDOUS!

Isn't it? ;)

So this is your fault! >:(


Somebody's tired of winning already. ;)


TREMENDOUS!

Isn't it? ;)


After 11 years of getting predictions hilariously wrong, it's about time I got one right! 8)

Somebody's tired of winning already. ;)

After 11 years of getting predictions hilariously wrong, it's about time I got one right! 8)


FWIW, I (back on my former profile) predicted The Donald would win too. I think I made it around Feb 2016...? I forgot which thread I made it on ;D but nonetheless I also predicted that it would of been a similar position that the 2000 election was (the President-elect wins the electoral college, but not the popular vote).

Does that mean Trump will be a one termer, like Jimmy Carter, too?  :D  :D  ???

Does that mean Trump will be a one termer, like Jimmy Carter, too?  :D  :D  ???


Trump will get rid of the two term system and implement a new one that allows him to serve as long as he possibly can. Winning just doesn't stop with two terms, it's for life. 8)

If 9/11 didn't happen, there'd be more arguments on how the 00's started in the 1998-99 school year.

Trump will get rid of the two term system and implement a new one that allows him to serve as long as he possibly can. Winning just doesn't stop with two terms, it's for life. 8)


We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning.

FWIW, I (back on my former profile) predicted The Donald would win too. I think I made it around Feb 2016...? I forgot which thread I made it on ;D but nonetheless I also predicted that it would of been a similar position that the 2000 election was (the President-elect wins the electoral college, but not the popular vote).


Nice prediction! Back in February 2006, I actually predicted that Hillary Clinton would not win the Democratic nomination in 2008 even though she was ahead by, like, 40% in the polls, and I predicted that there would be a recession in the late '00s. It was right after I joined the site, and that was pretty much the last good prediction I made on here. 8)

We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning.


Damn right! #MAGABrother #Draintheswamp

Nice prediction! Back in February 2006, I actually predicted that Hillary Clinton would not win the Democratic nomination in 2008 even though she was ahead by, like, 40% in the polls, and I predicted that there would be a recession in the late '00s. It was right after I joined the site, and that was pretty much the last good prediction I made on here. 8)


What do you predict politically for the 2020s?

What do you predict politically for the 2020s?


I don't think my predictions went past the early '10s.

What would've become of Osama Bin Laden if there wasn't a 9/11? ???

I don't think my predictions went past the early '10s.


I mean predictions you make today for the future.

I mean predictions you make today for the future.


For the immediate future, I think that another economic recession will occur sometime around 2019 (although it wont be as bad as the Great Recession), and Donald Trump will lose re-election to a Democrat in 2020, though I don't have a clue who that will be.

nobody really knows what would've happened if the World Trade Center bombing attacks never had happened. ???

I had my moment of silence this morning. I didn't lose any family members or friends that day, but I still feel badly for those who did lose their lives innocently and their families. I did watch the president speak this morning....I don't know what to say about that. I can't say what the world would have been like if 9/11 never happened. Maybe the world would be a better place right now? Just maybe?

This video from 2014 gives an explanation of that possibility:
oG6uv9gVruc

Hard to believe it's been 16 years now. :o :\'(

O1R-Drpjpmk

O1R-Drpjpmk


We can only imagine.

We can only imagine. :(

It's not supposed to be sad...the video is supposed to make you chuckle. It's a bit of dark humor ;).

Hard to believe it's been 16 years now. :o :\'(


Even though I can't even remmeber it, I find it hard to believe that was 16 years ago aswell! :o

Even though I can't even remmeber it, I find it hard to believe that was 16 years ago aswell! :o


I was in a program in the city W.24th street when The Twin Towers crumbled.

Just to think that all those within kid and teen culture don't remember or were effected by 9/11. Which is somewhat nice to me.

All I do is type into YouTube's search bar 9/10/01, the day before the big tragedy, I feel a bit calmer watching it.

I was in a program in the city W.24th street when The Twin Towers crumbled.


Is that nearby the WTC?

Just to think that all those within kid and teen culture don't remember or were effected by 9/11. Which is somewhat nice to me.


Some current 19 year olds born in 1997, can possibly remember 9/11 though.

Is that nearby the WTC?


I think that was far away.

I think that was far away.


Wow! I think it would have been scary to be around Manhattan/New York that day whether you actually saw the collisions and the buildings collapse or not :o

Some current 19 year olds born in 1997, can possibly remember 9/11 though.

That would be very, and I mean very few. Most 1997 borns don't remember 9/11. 1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it. However, 1990 or 1991 borns are the last to at least understand the situation...somewhat.

That would be very, and I mean very few. Most 1997 borns don't remember 9/11. 1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it. However, 1990 or 1991 borns are the last to at least understand the situation...somewhat.


How I tend to see it is if you were in school when the event happened then you could remember it. Being in school when the event happened is different from learning about in school during a history class. ~1995 being the lasts sounds about right. They were 6 in first grade when it happened. And literally everyone can remember being 6. But in terms of who fully understood the effects if the situation from an economical/political stand point? I'd say you've have to be a pre-teen/teen (late childhood or older) in middle school and above to understand. So ~1990 for those who'll remember and understand the event. As for just remembering? ~1995.

How I tend to see it is if you were in school when the event happened then you could remember it. Being in school when the event happened is different from learning about in school during a history class. ~1995 being the lasts sounds about right. They were 6 in first grade when it happened. And literally everyone can remember being 6. But in terms of who fully understood the effects if the situation from an economical/political stand point? I'd say you've have to be a pre-teen/teen (late childhood or older) in middle school and above to understand. So ~1990 for those who'll remember and understand the event. As for just remembering? ~1995.

Yep...so you agree with me 8).

I would recommend that ALL of you watch this video:
eANoGQ89O5k

It was uploaded yesterday and it explains what the world would look like if 9/11 and the "War of Terror" didn't happen. I don't want to spoil the video but it got very deep at the end and it puts not just the past 16 years in perspective but also the past 100 or so years.

That would be very, and I mean very few. Most 1997 borns don't remember 9/11. 1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it. However, 1990 or 1991 borns are the last to at least understand the situation...somewhat.


I would extend that to '96; they were at least in Kindergarten when 9/11 happened.

For the immediate future, I think that another economic recession will occur sometime around 2019 (although it wont be as bad as the Great Recession), and Donald Trump will lose re-election to a Democrat in 2020, though I don't have a clue who that will be.


And the Chinese Zodiac will probably have a pattern here.

Some current 19 year olds born in 1997, can possibly remember 9/11 though.


They can, but most, especially ones outside the eastern part of the United States, probably won't.

For 1999 borns, it's probably like finding a needle in the haystack for the most part.

I would extend that to '96; they were at least in Kindergarten when 9/11 happened.

When it comes to 1996 borns..it's about 50/50 or 60/40 (60% don't, 40% do) when it comes to remembering 9/11...so that's why '96 borns don't count. Also, I said that "1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it."...I think that is very much true.

Anyways, watch the video I posted guys.

When it comes to 1996 borns..it's about 50/50 or 60/40 (60% don't, 40% do) when it comes to remembering 9/11...so that's why '96 borns don't count. Also, I said that "1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it."...I think that is very much true.


Yeah I agree with that. When I mentioned 1997 borns, I meant they were the last year there is still somewhat of a possibility that a percentage do remember 9/11, unlike 1998+ borns which I highly doubt would rmemeber it. But yes I agree that 1995 would be the last were at least half or a majority would remmeber it.

Yeah I agree with that. When I mentioned 1997 borns, I meant they were the last year there is still somewhat of a possibility that a percentage do remember 9/11, unlike 1998+ borns which I highly doubt would rmemeber it. But yes I agree that 1995 would be the last were at least half or a majority would remmeber it.

*Fist bump* 8)

When it comes to 1996 borns..it's about 50/50 or 60/40 (60% don't, 40% do) when it comes to remembering 9/11...so that's why '96 borns don't count. Also, I said that "1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it."...I think that is very much true.


I'd probably say that is more 50/50 (or around abouts) when it comes to 1996 borns. I do agree that 1995 is the last in which a slight majority would remember it.

I'd probably say that is more 50/50 (or around abouts) when it comes to 1996 borns. I do agree that 1995 is the last in which a slight majority would remember it.

Yep 8).

Wow! I think it would have been scary to be around Manhattan/New York that day whether you actually saw the collisions and the buildings collapse or not :o


according to Google Maps, it is 20 minutes away or 32 minutes if you were to take a different direction.

That would be very, and I mean very few. Most 1997 borns don't remember 9/11. 1995 borns are really the last where most people born in that year could have remembered it. However, 1990 or 1991 borns are the last to at least understand the situation...somewhat.

I presume you were born in 1999?
I wasn't watching TV at the time, but I remember some chatter about it after it happened, that was it. The atmosphere in my city certainly didn't change.

This guy thinks he's so cool! You don't know what it's been like listening to him over and over, but I'll tell ya one thing: He should watch his back.

I have a feeling that the person who said this meant Shemp97.  ;D

This guy thinks he's so cool! You don't know what it's been like listening to him over and over, but I'll tell ya one thing: He should watch his back.

I have a feeling that the person who said this meant Shemp97.  ;D

Who are you talking about?

I presume you were born in 1999?
Yeah...that's a well-known fact.

Who are you talking about?


Dr. Shemp (the second boss from Spyro the Dragon), the character in Shemp97's avatar.

Yeah...that's a well-known fact.

How would you know what people a few years older than you remember? You were 2 in 2001 so of course it would feel distant to you.

How would you know what people a few years older than you remember? You were 2 in 2001 so of course it would feel distant to you.

A few years older? 1997 borns are only 1-2 years older than me (so spending on their date of birth).

Also, I know a good amount of '97 borns and it's also pretty obvious that 3-4 year olds are going to have little if any memory at all of an event like 9/11. Also, the very few 1997 borns like yourself who do have some recollection of 9/11...those memories are only vague and you didn't understand the event. Calm down, don't try and to be an elitist.