Brasscheck TV heeft eerder al gewezen op de rustige manier waarop veel mensen met elkaar omgingen na de aanslagen op de Twin Towers op 11 september 2001. Zoals de burgers die met een vloot aan bootjes mensen van Manhattan haalden, niet gepland maar spontaan door deze burgers in gang gezet. 

Hetzelfde moet je concluderen als je bedenkt dat 90% van de mensen aanwezig in de torens deze hebben weten te ontsnappen, met grote paniek die de reguliere media suggereerden was dit onmogelijk geweest. Daarover gesproken: nog steeds wordt deze suggestie volgehouden en men heeft in die media geen belang bij kalmte onder de mensen die uit die torens wisten te komen, niet zo vreemd als je bedenkt dat men in de reguliere westerse media uit is op zoveel mogelijk sensatie en nee die sensatie ontbreekt als je ziet hoe kalm een groot aantal mensen hebben gereageerd en elkaar hebben geholpen en bijvoorbeeld niet hebben gevochten om de torens uit te komen….

Professor Kathleen Tierney, leider van Disaster Research Center van de University
of Delaware deed onderzoek naar deze zaak en komt tot heel andere conclusies dan de reguliere media waar je dergelijke conclusies niet kan vinden, ze heeft e.e.a. gerapporteerd op de jaarlijkse bijeenkomst van de American Sociological Association (ASA).

Bemoedigend te zien dat de mens in basis toch vooral een sociaal wezen is dat niet alleen voor zichzelf, het gezin, familie, vrienden, bekenden en buren zorgt, maar ook voor totaal vreemden (dat was overigens ook te zien bij de overstromingen eerder dit jaar in Duitsland). Daarentegen is het triest te zien dat de overheid dit soort zaken steeds meer van bovenaf wil organiseren en dat welhaast op militaire manier, alsof we dat nodig hebben in situaties waarbij men paniek verwacht, ook al laat het verleden zien dat dit meestal niet het geval is, daarmee lopen zelfs spontane acties van burgers gevaar de kop te worden ingedrukt……. Je zou zelfs kunnen stellen dat men daarmee juist paniek uitlokt…… Wellicht was dat laatste ook de bedoeling in geval van 9/11, dit door haat en angst te zaaien tegen/voor de daders en daarmee de weg vrij te maken voor oorlog zoals na die aanslagen gebeurde, waar het gemanipuleerde volk zich vervolgens voor het grootste deel achter heeft geschaard…….

Media ignored 9/11calm amid chaos

The story you were never told

 

Original video produced by BrasscheckTV.com and narrated by Goodman Green

Click here to support Brasscheck

Script by Andrew Greeley

Reprinted by special permission

On Sept. 11 last year, up to 1 million people were evacuated from
Lower Manhattan by water “in an emergent network of private and publicly
owned watercraft–a previously unplanned activity.” It was an American
Dunkirk, as the epic rescue of the British army at Dunkirk in 1940 by an
armada of a similar craft.

Yet you most likely never saw this astonishing event, reported last
month by Professor Kathleen Tierney at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association (ASA), on television and never read about it
in the print media. It would have made for spectacular TV imagery; yet,
as an example of calm and sensible and spontaneous action, it did not
fit the media image of panic, an image that will doubtless be re-enacted
next week.

Tierney, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University
of Delaware, argued that the reaction of people at the World Trade
Center was what one might have expected from the research literature of
the last 50 years on behavior in disaster situations. ”Social bonds
remained intact and the sense of responsibility to others–family
members, friends, fellow workers, neighbors, and even total strangers
remains strong. . . . People sought information from one another, made
inquiries and spoke with loved ones via cell phones, engaged in
collective decision-making and helped one another to safety. When the
towers were evacuated, the evacuation was carried out in a calm and
orderly manner.”

There is growing research literature that Tierney cites that leaves
little doubt about this description. (See also Lee Clarke’s article in
the current issue of the new sociological journal Contexts.) Many will
not believe that the scenario could possibly be true. Doesn’t everyone
know that there is panic in disaster situations? Don’t people become
frightened, selfish, and flee in headlong panic?

The answer is no, they don’t. The proof that this was not true on
Sept. 11 is to be found in the fact that 90 percent of the people in the
World Trade Center (WTC) escaped–which would have been impossible had people
panicked. Most people are cool under such pressure. Their old social
networks do not dissolve, and new social networks emerge. The paradigm
of humankind as a mob simply isn’t true. We are social animals, and even
when terribly frightened we remain social animals.

Note that most of the positive social behavior that saved so many
lives was not organized by any formal agency, much less by any
command-and-control mechanism. People saved themselves. Other people
converged from all over the city to help. As Tierney says, “The response
to the Sept. 11 tragedy was so effective precisely because it was not
centrally directed and controlled. Instead, it was flexible, adaptive
and focused on handling problems as they emerged.”

In some sense, Sept. 11 was a victory over the terrorists. Socially
responsible free Americans prevented the loss from being much worse.
Yet, the response of the planning agencies has been to establish more
and more elaborate command-and-control structures, which will force a
population that is not about to panic into panic behavior.

Says Tierney: “When Sept. 11 demonstrated the enormous resilience in
our civil society, why is disaster response now being characterized in
militaristic terms?” Perhaps because those who are determined to control
everything don’t understand that even in military situations, it’s the
second lieutenants and the sergeants who win battles, as, for example,
in the Omaha Beach chaos at Normandy.

Generals sitting in faraway bunkers cannot control battles. Neither
can bureaucrats be far from the scene of the tragedy, no matter how
elaborate their plans are.

The media got the story all wrong because the panic paradigm is still
pervasive and because no one in the media had read the
disaster-research literature. They thus reinforced the propensity of
those running the country not to trust the good sense and social concern
of ordinary folk. Rather, they want to control everything with such
ditsy ideas as the proposed Homeland Security Department (DHS). That plan
would take union and civil service protections away from government
workers and accomplish little else.

You can count on it: In the orgy of self-pity in which the media will
engage next week, no one will pay any attention to why there was no
panic in the evacuation, much less to the American Dunkirk at the lower
end of Manhattan. Nor will anyone argue that the only kind of formal
plan that will work in similar situations is one that is sensitive to
and ready to integrate with the powerful social propensity of the human
species.

====================================

Zie ook: ‘9/11: de reden voor twintig jaar westerse terreur o.l.v. de VS waarbij meer dan vijf miljoen mensen werden vermoord‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht!!)

‘De VS wordt aangevallen door landen die het haat op een manier die alleen de CIA ‘kan zien’‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht!!)

‘Samenzweringstheorie paniek wordt juist gevoed door ‘tegenstanders’ daarvan‘

Voor meer berichten over 911, senatie tv, sensatie radio en de zogenaamd onafhankelijke journalistiek, klik op het desbetreffende label direct onder dit bericht.

On
the right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation in
the language of your choice, first choose ‘Engels’ (English) so
you can recognise your own language (the Google tranlation is first
in Dutch, a language most people can’t read, while most people
recognize there language translated in English).