Reply #28: in the first hour or so, they knew nothing

[ucmike]

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.