It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

why 9/11 is so unique, and such a hot topic

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
This is not a theory thread, but a general observation about why and how so many theories come up, and why 9/11 seems to be the most widely "accepted" CT (accepted, in that many people agree something is fishy).

The difference between this, and every other conspiracy, or military / political / terrorist event, is that it was the first ever, to occur in a time when many people had handheld cameras (especially in nyc), and also the first time the internet was being widely used - on top of that, the broadband market had just emerged on a wide scale.

In addition to this, the digital age made recording, editing and posting footage of the event, literally within minutes. At no other time (until 9/11 and thereafter) as there been such an opportunity to document, discuss and continue to discover facts / opinions on a worldwide scale, simultaneously, and in real time.

Of course, it has pros / cons, however judging by the quick response of that police officer in St George from the other day, this could be the start of a good thing.

I would like to hear your thoughts on whether or not you agree with my observation. Let's please not turn this into a dispute over theories, or whether or not it was planned and etc. Let's keep this strictly to discussing the affect of the digital era / popularity with consumer video with "questionable" events, especially considering it's the first time in history. There aren't many times you can state that about something, that is such a large influence.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
This is not a theory thread, but a general observation about why and how so many theories come up, and why 9/11 seems to be the most widely "accepted" CT (accepted, in that many people agree something is fishy).

The difference between this, and every other conspiracy, or military / political / terrorist event, is that it was the first ever, to occur in a time when many people had handheld cameras (especially in nyc), and also the first time the internet was being widely used - on top of that, the broadband market had just emerged on a wide scale.

In addition to this, the digital age made recording, editing and posting footage of the event, literally within minutes. At no other time (until 9/11 and thereafter) as there been such an opportunity to document, discuss and continue to discover facts / opinions on a worldwide scale, simultaneously, and in real time.

Of course, it has pros / cons, however judging by the quick response of that police officer in St George from the other day, this could be the start of a good thing.

I would like to hear your thoughts on whether or not you agree with my observation. Let's please not turn this into a dispute over theories, or whether or not it was planned and etc. Let's keep this strictly to discussing the affect of the digital era / popularity with consumer video with "questionable" events, especially considering it's the first time in history. There aren't many times you can state that about something, that is such a large influence.


Personaly I think that 9/11 was so obvious because America is being set up to go down... I mean with all the cold war stuff that went on and now all the "terrorism" stuff happening... man it pisses me off.

-fm



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


I agree. In the past, because of the lack of "immediate media" (such as the internet, mobile phones, etc), it was a lot easier for the establishment to lock things down and establish the official line. Now bearing in mind the brainwashing effect the "official story" has on the vast majority of people, this is extremely important. To most people, even if their gut tells them something is not right, the fact that a story comes from official sources is usually enough to convince them that people who have their best interests at heart are on the case.

9/11 was different. It took place in full view of the world, and despite the speed with which the official story took shape, coupled with the amazingly quick "consensus" that OBL was to blame, there were actually a lot of mistakes in the plan. Leaving aside how they actually pulled off 9/11, it did NOT go completely to plan, and a lot of the mistakes were obvious right from the start. The explosives going off before the planes actually struck, as a for instance; I'm quite sure these were supposed to go off simultaneous with the impacts. So, there were mistakes - and people noticed them. The likes of William Rodriguez and numerous first responders. And, with the availability of "immediate media" it was possible for word to spread before the official lockdown took place. That the official lockdown DID take place is undeniable, but the number of mistakes coupled with the number of people who noticed them meant that it wasn't as effective as, say, in 95 at OK, or JFK, or pretty much any other event of its size. Sure, there have been other incidents in modern times which were deeply flawed, but many of them were relatively minor in comparison to 9/11; TWA 800 as an example. A plane going down on its own is not that unusual an occurrence to have the whole world on the edge of its seat - whereas 9/11 was.

So yes, I'd agree. Because of the size and significance of 9/11, coupled with the mistakes in the plan, and added to the availability of the internet, mobile phones, digital cameras and so on, it is probably the least-effectively locked down event of modern times. I'd love to think they overreached themselves this time, but sadly I don't think I can honestly claim that - despite the numbers in recent polls who suggest they don't believe the official story. It's one thing saying you don't believe the official story, it's quite something else to do something about it - and to date nothing has been done about 9/11 and my pessimism leads me to believe that nothing ever will be done as far as justice and truth are concerned.

I can easily see the attitudes of people in the future, who will blithely say (as they do about JFK) "yeah, the government did it", whilst thinking no further about it and about how it was "the government that did it" that provided the justification for a whole new way of life. Imagine when (not if) we have an openly declared World Government, with people forced to queue up to have their microchips implanted; whilst they stand in line talking about history and how the government did 9/11 most of them will not have the common sense and forethought to realise that the only reason they are in that line in the first place is BECAUSE the government did 9/11.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
yes, you bring up a good point in that 9/11 was so complex, and involved so many elements - the fact that so many mistakes were made both leading up to the events, and in their subsequent investigations and stories.

That adds another element to the equation, which was the proverbial "jet fuel" to melt the foundation of the official stories and therefore their perception by the world.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
It's my belief that the '93 WTC bombing was a trial run, as was the '95 OK City bombing. Not so much to see if they could bring down the buildings, but to gauge the public reaction. These were both relatively complex plans and whilst they failed I really don't think success was actually the point - I think the idea was simply to see how effectively they could lock down the story and influence the public perception. Remember that there were lots of anomalies in the early reporting about OK City, the fact that there were supposedly additional bombs and so on - and yet very few people caught on. This will have taught "them" a lot about how far they could go, and how quickly they'd need to get the "official story" out to the gullible masses. Those events may also have provided the impetus for "them" to make sure they had the right people in the right places in the media in preparation for 9/11, the planning for which I'm pretty sure went back a good few years.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I agree with the original post. Except that TV did the same thing, the powers that be were unprepared for tv coverage of Vietnam, by Reagan era they had adjusted and politics had conquered TV.

I have heard political consultants talk about the internet being a "disruption to the way they do politics. but it will shake out and by the end of this election cycle we will see how to do politics on the internet."

So in the world of the framed message the Internet destroys the bought perspective since many voices are available and the quality of the voice causes it to rise not just the dollars behind it.

But even the bad internet info is important. I find the Internets uniqueness is not just the information but the way it makes people learn to question information. So much Internet info is bad that people must begin to think, they take this lesson into the TV news viewing experiance and begin to see through many things.

I do not believe any of us came upon our 9/11 thoughts because of one internet source, but it was the internet that challenged us to think about it and question, then we thought our way out of the mind cap of propaganda.

Down with the Tripods!!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Redge777]




top topics
 
0

log in

join