It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Cameras in Manhattan, and the reasoning behind the Times Square attack.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:38 PM
New Cameras in Manhattan, and the reasoning behind the Times Square attack.

So as I'm sure you've all seen, there is a thread on the front page arguing that the New York Bombing suspect is a fake.

Here's the link to the thread --------->Faker

Now, as I was looking around the web today, I ran across this article, which may explain what the reasoning was behind the false flag attack.

The article is on Google News and you can find it Here.

Police cameras to flood Manhattan to prevent attacks

Look at the very first headline:

New York officials say they could stop attacks like the attempted Times Square car bomb by expanding a controversial surveillance system so sensitive that it will pick up even suspicious behavior.

There is the entire reason in a nutshell.

But to further my point, here are a few other quotes from the article...

Saturday's failed terrorist bomb in the Times Square tourist hot spot has provided the authorities with a new argument for expanding a sometimes controversial security blanket of cameras, sensors and analytical software.

Headquartered at 55 Broadway, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative goes far beyond the traditional hodgepodge of police cameras, such as the 82 devices installed around Times Square.

Instead, an integrated system maintains an unblinking eye, not just watching, but constantly collecting license plate numbers and video of pedestrians and drivers, as well as detecting explosives and other weapons.

Big Brother anyone?

The article goes on to say,

alarms would trigger when cameras noticed an unattended bag or a car circling a block too many times to be considered normal, Kelly said.

So these are just a few example of what it would pick up on. What else would it pick up on? Furthermore, how can you possibly operationally define "suspicious behavior?"

In my opinion, this whole thing reeks of "suspicious behavior." I'm surprised the system hasn't reported it's creators yet....

Let me be frank though.

I am not trying to fear monger, just trying to raise awareness.

They are trying to define something whose meaning is completely subjective to the individual.

Like trying to define something as 'good.'

Any situation where this is the case is suspicious.


posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:15 PM
Good thread,op! S&F for ya.
I have heard that Bloomberg and DHS have been pushing to expand the security camera system.I think the whole senario reeks of a drill...

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:24 PM
One reason was to push security cameras, the other reason is:

Notice nobody has been discussing the oil leak since the Times Square incident?

I hate a nanny state. But for argument's sake, let's say the NYPD and FBI and whomever else DID manage to catch this guy out of roughly 2 million people or so in less than 60 hours. Let's say he is a terrorist and it all went down like the OS. You have to admit that's pretty impressive.

Now, I would favor security cameras as long as a Federal Law [or state, but I'd rather it be Federal] were enacted that simply said:

No security camera footage can be used until a crime has been committed and an investigation launched. No footage will be allowed in court for a crime that was prevented, but rather, will only be used to determine the criminal or criminals responsible for the crime after it happens.

Of course it can be abused. I'm thinking it would work like a warrant or something, where they would only be allowed to use footage pertaining to a specific crime or location. Just thinking out loud.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:29 PM
Couldn't help but think this is just another excuse for TPTB to invade personal space / rights,
here in the UK we are one of the top countries having the most cameras, you'd think that crime would be reduced
but it isn't the case,we still have assaults in high streets,mugging and robberies where cameras operate so the
deterrent factor don't wash

l also read that an lsraeli company has supplied most of the UK cameras (looking for link will update when found)
It would be interesting to see where NYC officials will be purchasing these from l8rs.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:46 PM
from what I recall, we were all set to get funding for the cameras and a bunch of other necessary items, such as radiation and air detection devices the Bush administration cut funding for NYC and DC in favor of midsize cities.

We got a bump in funding back in december but we need way more than we're getting. NYC and DC should recieve a hell of a lot more than any other city in the country and, yet, we don't.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:12 PM
I still notice, in the thread subject is fake, some people dont believe this was a false flag

I guess those people are living in the lies of the media and news networks that make up news stories for there ratings.

you could say this proves it was a false flag.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

new topics

top topics

log in