First report: 6 bombs. Then 4 actually went off. Now: 2 unexploded

[Democrats_win]

bombs found. What did the news media know and who was their source?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Good question.

Excellent, actually.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Maybe that tinfoil hat isn't such a farfetched chapeau after all....

Perhaps that was what Rudi's job was..to tell them how many bombs were there.

[Nabia2004]

32. Right, what was Mr 9/11 doing there?

This is what some of the British were asking.

Sam on AAR suggested that he was there to watch over his multi million dollar security business.

[Minstrel Boy]

3. a really good question

Thanks for making me go, like, whoa.

[Sydnie]

4. I was just thinking the same thing myself

They reported 6 bombs early this morning. How could they know that unless they knew it earlier than they admit finding the two unexploded bombs sometime this afternoon.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. ...or someone called in saying there were 6 bombs because they

knew that there was SUPPOSED to be 6 bombs.

[jsamuel]

6. that would be contrary to the statement that they "had no warning"

although that would explain the "before/after" problem with the offical who was "warned"

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. The time line to the call could have gone something like this

bombs go off... those who took responsibilty called rigth after.. no wrnign but you still get your six bombs, but only four went off.... given how this works, they went back to four, while they looked for the other two

Having worked in EMS this is not that far fetched... you want to find them before they kill your responders too

[Billy Burnett]

7. Jeez. Bushco can't even keep track of their bombs.

Tisk tisk.

[sojourner]

8. This is the kind of thing that keeps my head spinning...

They do let the truth slip now and again, but just as quick as that, they cap it again and everyone runs around repeating the "approved" version. We mustn't form conclusions until the "credible" analysts examine the news, is something I'm hearing a lot of today. And why do I get the feeling that the "credible" analysts won't listen to anything but the "official" report - while this sense of foreboding grows in those who heard both versions but can't get anyone else to listen?

[sojourner]

9. Anyone have audio, video or a link to this first report?

And we should always try to get stuff recorded somehow to prove that we actually heard it. Cuz it will just be covered over, silenced and forgotten if we let it.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Problem Is, Ma'am

That initial reports are almost never accurate. Journalism is called "The rough draft of history" for good reason, and the earlier the report, the more true that is. Such are valuable to researchers years later for color detail, but not the substance of events. There were reports this morning of up to eight explosions, five in tunnels and three on buses, leaving aside the initial "transformer" business. A difference such as this between what is reported in the earliest moments, and what has become clear hours later concerning the event, is normal as scrapes on a small boy's knee.

[sojourner]

14. Hmm....

that would seem reasonable wouldn't it. Just the same, I'd really rather hear all the information and draw my own conclusions. I'm much too suspicious of "pre-digested" information, of which I fear we have more than plenty available.

On the same line of thought, here's a link for you on another matter that you called settled (on another thread that I am trying - with some difficulty - to find) http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=85346

Your thoughts?

edit: spelling

[The Magistrate]

15. It Is Settled, Ma'am

Apparently in the confusion after the blast, the original AP
story was not correct. It has since been corrected, and it
looks as if the Israeli embassy was not notified until after
the attacks began. Here is a link to the updated story:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap...

[cynatnite]

18. That does make sense

I specifically remember MSNBC saying that they had warned him just minutes before. They did say there were warnings of it right before it started.

I just don't think they had enough time to stop the bombs or even knew where to look. We'll know more later when more facts come out.

With unanswered questions you get conspiracy theories. It's just way too early right now to go speculating and thinking them up.

[sojourner]

22. Actually the story that he'd been warned has been

denied. I can see a scenario where they hear he has changed his schedule, and find he's been warned off and assume that it means he was warned ahead of time.

Don't want to be accused of making up my own facts so I'll leave it there.

[cynatnite]

23. As I said, we'll know more when the facts come out

I went by what was said this morning on MSNBC and posted as such. Given the crisis at the time, it's no wonder that information comes out that is half-truths or outright false. It happens.

I just hate seeing people making assumptions about things when so little is known. Then facts come out making them look foolish for proclaiming otherwise.

[sojourner]

25. I think I understand what you're saying.

And I sure wasn't making any assumptions...just posting the link and an "update" on the original story. I didn't want anyone here to think I was trying to push a theory.

Though I am generally suspicious of the MSM, I still don't go around making shit up. I recognize that in the early stages of a crisis, the reports get somewhat garbled, as each person reporting tells what he/she sees from their vantage point. Just that factor alone can lead to major discrepancies.

So, in short, I consider your decision to wait it out to be the only sane one. I might speculate a bit (brain has a pesky habit of trying to process information) but generally reserve judgement or verdict until there's some consensus on what has transpired.

[TheGoodCitizen]

16. The male anchor person.....

...on CNN this morning said "and these facts will change as time goes on".

I just thought that was kinda funny... wish I had the transcripts online for that comment. Do facts really change... maybe fixed facts do but really now?

[sojourner]

17. Nah...we're s'posed to b'lieve what we're told to b'lieve.

[TheGoodCitizen]

20. Be a good citizen (like me) and believe what you are told...

....history is always re-written.

[sojourner]

21. I grew up knowing this truth...and consequently have trouble

being a "good" citizen.

[Quixote1818]

12. Big Deal

Their were 6 Bombs so they were right. I am sure there was a scramble to get all the facts and it's not surprising that they might have been confused about the number of bombs and if some did or did not go off.

[cynatnite]

13. There was a lot of this going on during 9/11

I stayed pretty close to the TV and flipped through the channels to see where I could get the best coverage. I would switch in hopes I would get new information.

People were in panic mode at this point. Rumors were flying everywhere. At one point I remember it being reported on the news there was a car bomb at the state department and an explosion at the UN. There were evacuations all over the place.

It wasn't until calm had settled in that we started getting more facts. It was two planes in NY, one at the pentagon and the other in PA.

This morning when the bombs were going off I saw reports of several bombs going off and even here at DU that's what was being said. We never really knew the full extent until things started settling down.

The passing of information during a time of crisis is not very reliable until the crisis has started to pass.

[ikri]

19. Mistakes by reporters

I'd suggest that the claim of 6 bombs was based on 6 explosions.

When the 2 unexploded bombs were made safe (i.e. safely detonated) by the police the reporters will have been given details of 2 more explosions.

If the police didn't instantly tell the media to say that they were responsible for setting off 2 safe explosions who can blame them, they were slightly more busy with more pressing matters.

[PaulaFarrell]

24. what I heard was that

because some of the explosions occurred between two stations, and injured people came out of both stations, that some of the explosions were counted twice in the confusion. Seems logical to me.

[Kenneth ken]

26. that's what I was going to say

I went through the first LBN thread on this. Early reports in that thread name:
Aldgate
Edgeware
Kings Cross
Old Street *
St Pancras *
Liverpool Street
Russell Square
Tavistock
Moorgate
Houndsditch *
Stockwell *

* only one mention of each in all the posts.

Tavistock and Russell Square seem to be the one bus bombing, the bus coming from Tavistock going to Russell Square.

The most current report I read says:
an explosion at Liverpool Street between Aldgate and Moorgate.
an explosion between Russell Square and Kings Cross
an explosion at Edgeware
the bus explosion at Tavistock.

I've no idea how far apart any of the stations are, so it is possible survivors went from one explosion to different stations, causing one explosion to be reported as two. Also, people waiting for a tube at two different stations might report hearing an explosion and give the location at "their" station even though it was between stations.

PS - The original LBN thread did have more than one post reporting up to 10 explosions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Some are very close

King's Cross and St. Pancras are 2 overground rail stations, but they share an Underground station (they're on opposite sides of a road). The underground station is typically refered to just as 'King's Cross'.

Moorgate and Aldgate are about 500m either side of Liverpool St. (though it's strange that Moorgate was mentioned, by the Met police commissioner, as a bomb site, since the bomb they now say happened in that area went off in the tunnel between Liverpool St. and Aldgate). Houndsditch is the road that runds between Liverpool St. and Aldgate.

I hadn't heard Old Street mentioned at all. It's the next station to Moorgate (on another line from Liverpool St. though), about 1km away.

Stockwell is way out - south of the river. I'd guess that was a suspicious package, of which there were several, including outside London.

I'd agree that the first numbers came partly from a tunnel explosion being reported in 2 places, and partly from general confusion.

[Nihil]

30. Agreed and in addition ...

... the Edgeware blast damaged more than one train, again supporting
the initial hypothesis that there were two bombs involved at that point.
Turns out that the explosion from the single bomb happened at a place
where the lines run close together and there happened to be another
train passing at the time.

Last I heard (a few hours ago) there were no unexploded bombs.

[Kenneth ken]

33. Old Street

I think that was a post that had no links. In my review of the original LBN thread, I just made a list of every site mentioned, whether there was a link in the post or not.

The sites with only one mention may have been misheard by the posters or who knows what.

Thanks for the clarification on relative distances between stations.

[ucmike]

28. in the first hour or so, they knew nothing

i think some people are stretching and looking, maybe wishing, for a conspiracy.

knowing the whorish habits of the mass media, i don't find it unusual that they would create "news" out of speculation and unconfirmed sources. (they did it all day yesterday) they cobbled together whatever info they had into a story that they could go live with. they are about capturing audiences and beating the brains out of the competition. they can clear up there errors later (or not, depending on the outlet) using the excuse of "changing situations or unconfirmed reports."

seems to me that there were probably conflicting reports in the first few minutes. they probably came up with the "6 bombs" figure based on confused, conflicting information. look at it this way-a train leaves station A on its way to station B. a bomb explodes midway. now there's a report of a bomb at station A and station B. we now have witnesses reporting two bombings, police radios probably reproting the same thing.

part of the reason i say this is my experience on 9/11. i was trapped in my office trailer at newark airport, told to remain where we were by PAPD. we were told that because 25 trucks belonging to the local electric company were missing they anticipated an attack using these trucks so we were safer where we were. the whole time we were sitting in our trailer, across the street from the fuel farm, waiting for the missing jetliners to come crashing down. we know now that there were no missing planes, but that morning the media was reporting a fleet of airliners lost in the sky. why?

you shouldn't see a conspiracy just because some journalists and media outlets do a crappy job of reporting, so they can do a better job of capturing audience share.

[ICantBelieve]

29. Coincidence

I think that's a coincidence. BTW, I think the police are denying that any unexploded bombs were found. I think they're probably just trying to keep it quiet because it's an ongoing investigation.

[theboss]

31. I wouldn't expect them to get the number of bombs right

There is bound to be a lot of confusion in the first hours of an attack like this. Hell, the initial death counts for the WTC were around 10,000.