Under the guise of telling us everything we needed to know, NBC television coverage on 9/11 withheld and suppressed vital information; specifically, that all the Boeing planes-in-question can fly, navigate, and even land themselves without anyone at all in the cockpit (source).
So, how is that important?
It does not change what actually happened on 9/11, but it helped solidify our [mis]perception of 9/11, and thus what we think actually happened and why: the networks kept a certain alternate possibility from ever entering our minds while, at the same time, painting for us in our minds a picture of "the evildoers" we were supposed to fear and loathe for an unimaginably horrible crime which was being repeatedly, almost incessantly, drilled into our heads, without commercial interruption, all day long. The combination of not having been informed of any other possibility, plus our (once-)trusted network reporters telling us "who dunnit" and how, under very stressful, emotional circumstances, made "the hijackers" seem totally real, making belief in 'them' seem not only reasonable but certainly true beyond any reasonable doubt. In other words, "the [dead] hijackers" were (tried, without any defense, and) convicted in and by the media, in near real-time. That almost seems reasonable, once everyone presumes that "it must have been" the claimed airliners which struck the buildings, and that that presumption somehow proves "Muslim hijackers" must have (existed and) been responsible.
Yet we still, to this day, have no hard evidence to substantiate the government+media's legend of "evil suicidal Muslim hijackers". (Then there's also that 'little' matter of airplanes and gravity possessing insufficient energy to reduce steel skyscrapers to nanodust.) The reports of "Muslim hijackers having hijacked airliners" had seemingly become established, without any substantive proof. The belief in "Muslim hijackers" is based upon a mass perception and some very flimsy evidence (plus some clearly fraudulent evidence). On the other hand we have plenty of indications that 9/11 was not, and could not have been, perpetrated by "Muslim hijackers". So you can see how important it was to have gotten out in front and generate a faultily-built mass certitude about "Muslim hijackers" (which has since then been reinforced by Hollywood and the TV networks), like a kind of flat-earth disease -- what "everybody knows" must be true, right?
But there is more evidence on this 1 web site that the mass perception regarding what 9/11 truly was, and who perpetrated 9/11, is based upon unsound beliefs, than exists anywhere, in total, in support of the widespread but mistaken belief that "19 Muslim hijackers" can honestly be blamed for what truly occurred on 9/11.
That's some powerful gatekeeping! By excluding awareness of one possibility, another possibility had become an unquestionable unshakable solid truth in the minds of tens of millions of people, just like that. And since that possibility had subsequently become the object of much cogitation, and so much emotion, by so many people, how could it possibly not be real?
Is this an example of gatekeeping that is so powerful that its effect can be considered permanent in the minds of many people? Have the emotions resulting from the horrific lies caused some people's brains to become etched so deeply that, for them, contrary thoughts are no longer even possible?
Remember, it is the withholding of information, under the guise of telling people everything relevant there is to know, that makes gatekeeping so effective in helping keep certain possibilities and thus thoughts from ever entering the minds of the trusting audience.
Do you suppose Robert Hagar intentionally deceived his audience , or had he just been taken in by the horrendous surrealism of the story he was covering? And what about Jim Tillman, and that presumably clairvoyant Neil Livingstone?
Back to Gatekeeping 101