MSNBC reairing the Today Show from 9/11

[Jailblazers7]

Really eerie to see the coverage of the event again. RIP to those who lost their lives that day.

[LJJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMNrb4aQyvI&feature=youtu.be

This single shot footage is crazy. Hadn't seen it before.

[RidonKs]

what is special about a 13 year anniversary?

just want people to consider the possibility that obama's isis speech didn't just happen to take place on september 10th for no reason. and msnbc would not be re-airing its 9/11 coverage were the united states not readying itself yet again for operations in iraq. at least i don't think they would... did they re-air any 9/11 coverage the past dozen years and if so, when?

[JohnFreeman]

Stern show 9/11 coverage was the best.

[KevinNYC]

Really eerie to see the coverage of the event again. RIP to those who lost their lives that day.

9/11 was the odd news event where my memories of it are not from TV. I just stepped of my house in Brooklyn and this woman walked by and said a plane hit the WTC. My first thought was either it was a small plane or a terrorist attack like in 1993. So we walked over to the East River to get a view. We could see the smoke but we couldn't see the buildings. We just watched the smoke get blacker and thicker as we got closer. Still didn't prepare us for how damaged the buildings were. One thing that still plays tricks on people is how massive those buildings were. As I watched, I kept wanted to minimize what I was seeing and tell myself people that people on the floors above could survive.
So my memories of it were from being in a park on the water.

I know a couple people who got caught up in the dust and a friend had the first plane zoom loud and low over his head in lower Manhattan.

[KevinNYC]

did they re-air any 9/11 coverage the past dozen years and if so, when?

Why don't you look that up.

Like this (https://www.google.com/search?q=msnbc+rebroadcast+of+9%2F11&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS525US525&espv=2&biw=731&bih=316&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A9%2 F1%2F2014&tbm=)

[RidonKs]

Why don't you look that up.

Like this (https://www.google.com/search?q=msnbc+rebroadcast+of+9%2F11&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS525US525&espv=2&biw=731&bih=316&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A9%2 F1%2F2014&tbm=)
that's why i asked.... because it's not important whatsoever and i was just curious. thanks for punching that into google for me.

so obviously msnbc re-airing its 9/11 coverage has nothing to do with ongoing affairs. that nevertheless does not undermine the thesis that the obama administration intentionally aired its isis speech on 9/10, which was my central premise. i offer no evidence for the fact, and if you have counterevidence, like say the president makes a foreign affairs speech on 9/10 every year or something really dramatic just happened on 9/09 forcing the president to make a speech on 9/10, well then i'd have to reconsider the entire idea.

which again i don't offer as a matter of any import nor as some grand conspiracy between the white house and the major media. merely suggesting people consider the possibility.

[Thorpesaurous]

It's gotta be the most iconic footage in the country's history. And they really replay it every year. It may feel like some years are more than others, but they probably aren't.


I know a lot of people think it should be a national holiday, and as such should be a paid day off from work, which often seems more the motivation. But I was thinking today that I'd be willing to do the opposite. Make it a national work for free day. Everyone goes into work for their normal shifts unpaid. I'd expect things to go pretty easy in the workplace, but even marginal productivity would theoretically be an economic boon, and it would be a real symbol of community, and be a symbolic effect (maybe more) on our financial base that was at the heart of the attack.


I've lived most of my life not far from NY in southwest CT. I know a lot of people there, and knew even more at the time. It was a crazy day. It's probably the definitive moment of knowing exactly what I was doing when everything was happening. This generations Kennedy Assassination. I have a few moments like that. The Challenger explosion which I was pretty young for. And I have distinct memories of Columbine. But nothing quite like 9/11.

[KevinNYC]

that's why i asked.... because it's not important whatsoever and i was just curious. thanks for punching that into google for me.

so obviously msnbc re-airing its 9/11 coverage has nothing to do with ongoing affairs. that nevertheless does not undermine the thesis that the obama administration intentionally aired its isis speech on 9/10, which was my central premise. i offer no evidence for the fact, and if you have counterevidence, like say the president makes a foreign affairs speech on 9/10 every year or something really dramatic just happened on 9/09 forcing the president to make a speech on 9/10, well then i'd have to reconsider the entire idea.

which again i don't offer as a matter of any import nor as some grand conspiracy between the white house and the major media. merely suggesting people consider the possibility.Well, in addition to misreading the motivation of MSNBC on airing the footage, I think your thesis has some obvious flaws. Something dramatic did happen. Do you think the Obama administration planned to go after ISIS in Syria months ago and waiting until Sept 11th? Or was this in response to recent dramatic events?

I would say there's there is a dramatic reason this escalated like it did: ISIS released video beheading an Americans
Without that provocation, we are probably still doing airstrikes in only in Iraq. I think that's the single reason for the change in policy. The change in political mood and the pressure that created. Let's take a look at recent events

August 19, 2014 James Foley video released
Sept 2 Steven Sotloff beheading video released.
Sept 4 Obama speaks at NATO Summit on ISIS.

Every since then they have been preping the rollout of the speech announcing the policy and building the coaltion. Kerry has been travelling all over the place. Obama met with previous Nation Security officials. I'm sure that within this context they chose September 10 as a very useful date, but I don't really see any big delay.



something really dramatic just happened on 9/09 forcing the president to make a speech on 9/10,

Do you think a major presidential speech comes together in a day? Especially when that speech is about a complex problem involving action from multiple other nations? Even a week after the first beheading Obama said that they were going to need buy in from the Sunni countries to confront ISIS and said they didn't have a strategy yet. You don't give a speech like that without talking to other countries.

So something really dramatic did happen. ISIS killed a couple of Americans and bragged about it. You may not think that's important, but you underestimate the political pressure those videos caused. Your argument also seems close to taking your own suspicions as evidence.

[KevinNYC]

But I was thinking today that I'd be willing to do the opposite. Make it a national work for free day. Everyone goes into work for their normal shifts unpaid. I'd expect things to go pretty easy in the workplace, but even marginal productivity would theoretically be an economic boon,

JailBlazers can probably answer this better than I can, but I think this would be the opposite of an economic boom.

It would be a contractionary anti-stimulus. Employers would see a boost in their profits, but workers would get their pay and thus be likely to spend less. I think this along the same lines of why tax cuts on the lower end have more economic benefits than tax cuts at the upper end. The flow of money circulating through the economy would slow down due to this.

[Rake2204]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMNrb4aQyvI&feature=youtu.be

This single shot footage is crazy. Hadn't seen it before.Chilling. Everyone is so isolated and lost. Crazy how we see an interview with a man named Mike Benfante around the 16:30 mark then a few minutes later, we see him sprinting past the cameraman as the second building collapses.

Speaking of the cameraman, I am fascinated by his presence. I understand it's never easy to risk one's life but I imagine for many firefighters and others that day, the will to save and protect others took over, blindly putting themselves in grave danger for the sake of human life.

But with the cameraman, what must be going on in his mind? He's not really saving anyone, yet he's still willingly walking toward the horrifying events. It's tough to even pick up on a feeling of "What the hell am I doing?" from him. Even when the second building collapses, he's cognizant enough to wipe off his lens as the death plume rolls upon him.

[Thorpesaurous]

JailBlazers can probably answer this better than I can, but I think this would be the opposite of an economic boom.

It would be a contractionary anti-stimulus. Employers would see a boost in their profits, but workers would get their pay and thus be likely to spend less. I think this along the same lines of why tax cuts on the lower end have more economic benefits than tax cuts at the upper end. The flow of money circulating through the economy would slow down due to this.


That may be the case. But it would be more valuable economically than a paid holiday.

And if it is true I'm gonna need to stop hearing the corporate outcry at the cost of hollidays, and things like "The Madden Effect", which always felt overstated.

[tomtucker]

still awful after 13 years.........and then bush made it worse by getting american and allied soldiers killed in iraq :facepalm ..........then came afghanistan.......:facepalm ...........what an terrible decade

[KevinNYC]

still awful after 13 years.........and then bush made it worse by getting american and allied soldiers killed in iraq :facepalm ..........then came afghanistan.......:facepalm ...........what an terrible decade


Uh, what?

[KevinNYC]

Can I crash at your crib next weekend?

The conversation went like this

"you want some guy from that board that is full of pervy anime fans, conspiracists, dude lusting after Arianne Grande and internet tough guys bitching about betas who should know the their role to come stay with us?

Yes.

OK, but better not be Macho Man."

So you're in, but two things

1. You need a tie-dyed shirt because I told her you were Starface
2. If you bring up Bad Boys or Jurassic Park, you're on the street.

[RidonKs]

Every since then they have been preping the rollout of the speech announcing the policy and building the coaltion. Kerry has been travelling all over the place. Obama met with previous Nation Security officials. I'm sure that within this context they chose September 10 as a very useful date, but I don't really see any big delay.
again, i'm not suggesting this 'plot' or 'scheme' is important in any particular way. it's just useful in understanding how powerful interests use the mass media to interact with the public.

a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making. let's say everything that's happened over the past six months gets pushed back a day... or even a week. hypothetically. would the president have delivered his speech to the american public declaring an attack on another country at the same time? or would he have waited until september 10th? i believe he would have waited until the eve of the anniversary.

once again, i have no evidence for this belief nor do i think it's particularly important and i'm not going to waste any more time on it starting.... now. but i do think it's worth a few minutes of consideration from somebody else which is why i posted it.

[Jailblazers7]

again, i'm not suggesting this 'plot' or 'scheme' is important in any particular way. it's just useful in understanding how powerful interests use the mass media to interact with the public.

a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making. let's say everything that's happened over the past six months gets pushed back a day... or even a week. hypothetically. would the president have delivered his speech to the american public declaring an attack on another country at the same time? or would he have waited until september 10th? i believe he would have waited until the eve of the anniversary.

once again, i have no evidence for this belief nor do i think it's particularly important and i'm not going to waste any more time on it starting.... now. but i do think it's worth a few minutes of consideration from somebody else which is why i posted it.

I think it is almost a basic human instinct to appropriate the emotional weight of an event for other purposes. Even children do it to a far lesser extent when thy play off their parents emotions and events in their lives to get a new toy or deliver some bad news. I don't think the White House was exactly subtle about it since it's an easy connection to make and has probably been brought up on many national media outlets.

[RidonKs]

I think it is almost a basic human instinct to appropriate the emotional weight of an event for other purposes. Even children do it to a far lesser extent when thy play off their parents emotions and events in their lives to get a new toy or deliver some bad news. I don't think the White House was exactly subtle about it since it's an easy connection to make and has probably been brought up on many national media outlets.
you may think it's natural and part of our instinct. i think its shameful.

[Jailblazers7]

you may think it's natural and part of our instinct. i think its shameful.

I'm not saying it isn't a little perverse and manipulative but I don't think it is so egregious that I'd feel strongly about it. Didn't watch the speech so I can't comment about whether or not the contents of the speech played into the date too heavily but the mere fact that he used the proximity to 9/11 to add emotional weight to his address isn't a huge concern to me.

[KevinNYC]

a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making. let's say everything that's happened over the past six months gets pushed back a day... or even a week.

I think a week's delay is pretty minor, too minor to worry about. A venal sin rather than a mortal sin.

[RidonKs]

I'm not saying it isn't a little perverse and manipulative but I don't think it is so egregious that I'd feel strongly about it. Didn't watch the speech so I can't comment about whether or not the contents of the speech played into the date too heavily but the mere fact that he used the proximity to 9/11 to add emotional weight to his address isn't a huge concern to me.
the contents of the speech did not play too much into it because that would have been too overt... imo.

and again without evidence to back up my belief, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find out 30 years down the road from declassified records that this particular speech found yesterday's particular date through no sheer accidence.

and again i agree the 'coincidence' does not concern me. but it does happen to shed light on institutional dynamics that concern me significantly.

[RidonKs]

I think a week's delay is pretty minor, too minor to worry about. A venal sin rather than a mortal sin.
i don't think you're following my logic here. the extent of delay has nothing to do with it, which is what i meant by "a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making".

[Jailblazers7]

the contents of the speech did not play too much into it because that would have been too overt... imo.

and again without evidence to back up my belief, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find out 30 years down the road from declassified records that this particular speech found yesterday's particular date through no sheer accidence.

and again i agree the 'coincidence' does not concern me. but it does happen to shed light on institutional dynamics that concern me significantly.

I get what you're saying because it loosely falls under the idea of manufacturing consent that Chomsky wrote about but I think this is almost entirely benign and doesn't shed much light on those institutional dynamics. The truly concerning stuff is how media narratives tend to fall in line with government goals and how the government (with help from the media) largely controls the flow of information regarding foreign policy matters. I just don't think that the date of this speech is very connected to that dynamic.

[RidonKs]

more accurate : we have no proof that it's connected and it might not be. it would just make a lot of sense if it were

you're right, by comparison to other examples of the mass media dynamic, this particular case is benign and belongs in the category of afterthought. but to fresh eyes who have never encountered these ideas before, the hypothesis that a presidential speech was dated specifically for its emotional impact on a still grieving / ever fearful american public is a powerful one. hence my mentioning it.

and yeah, i'm using the propaganda model to some extent

[longhornfan1234]

Bubba's administration dropped the ball. He had Osama in sight. :biggums:

[KevinNYC]

Cool

Can I bring girls back or nah?

No need, we're pretty well stocked.

However, we charge for liquor and ice.

[KevinNYC]

Really eerie to see the coverage of the event again. RIP to those who lost their lives that day.

The Atlantic has an amazing photo gallery up about the day of. If didn't know why there was so much smoke, this is just a beautiful photo.

http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-38905-galleryV9-wwww.jpg

Some of the photos are real rough, though, so I won't link to it.

There's another gallery about the aftermath. I forgot about this

http://img.pixtale.net/imager/w_990/h_/4a96d4e110116a9a45e3456f67f2bd37.jpg

Posters of people who never came home. Damn.

These were all over NY for a while.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Stern show 9/11 coverage was the best.

Eh, not really. I love Howard, but the xenophobia he and his listeners displayed as the events unfolded was cringe-worthy.

[JohnFreeman]

Eh, not really. I love Howard, buy the xenophobia he and his listeners displayed as the events unfolded was cringe-worthy.
It is funny to listen to, they were so wrong about anything

[tomtucker]

Uh, what?

did bush and company not claim saddam and his (never found) weapons of mass destruction had links to 9-11 ? ...........even if the terrorists and osama were saudis .

.
were iraq and afghan. wars not only given the green light because of 9-11 ?

[KevinNYC]

did bush and company not claim saddam and his (never found) weapons of mass destruction had links to 9-11 ? ...........even if the terrorists and osama were saudis .

.
were iraq and afghan. wars not only given the green light because of 9-11 ?What ever they did or didn't do, the war in Afghanistan came before Iraq.

still awful after 13 years.........and then bush made it worse by getting american and allied soldiers killed in iraq :facepalm ..........then came afghanistan.......:facepalm ...........what an terrible decade