Next on a special edition of New Hampshire Outlook tonight.

Terrorists strike at the heart and minds of America.

We'll look at what happened today and how we can begin to prepare for tomorrow.

Theme Music Good evening.

I'm Allison McNair.

Welcome to this special edition of New Hampshire Outlook.

September 11th, 2001.

Just after 9 a.m.

Eastern Time, America was hit by the worst terrorist attack in memory.

Four hijacked planes.

Hundreds, possibly thousands of people killed, thousands more injured.

New York's World Trade Center is no more.

A section of the Pentagon is destroyed.

The heart of America's power has been shaken to the core.

What happened?

How can we begin to process the horror of today's terrorist attacks?

These are some of the questions we'll try to answer in the next hour.

But first, CNN reporter Ben Wedeman shows us just what happened.

8:45 a.m.

in New York.

Smoke billows from the World Trade Center after a large passenger plane slammed into the North Tower.

Initial reports suggested it was an accident.

9:03, another airliner hits the Trade Center South Tower, an explosion bursting from the building's upper floors.

Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center.

President Bush calls the crashes an apparent terrorist attack.

9:455.

Another hit.

A commercial plane crashes into the Pentagon.

9:51.

Taking no chances, the Federal Aviation Administration grounds all takeoffs and landings and reroutes incoming international flights to Canada, and the Pentagon soon upgrades its terrorism alert status to Delta, the highest possible level.

10 a.m.. Back in New York, the Trade Center South Tower crumbles to the ground.

10:29.

The North Tower collapses.

These buildings were once the tallest in the world.

Lower Manhattan, home to the city's financial district, is shrouded in smoke, dust, and ash.

10:10 a.m.. A half hour earlier, United Flight 93, bound from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, crashes into western Pennsylvania.

Police there say initial reports suggest there were no survivors.

In Washington, the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury, and Defense were among those ordered evacuated, as were the Capitol and the White House.

In New York, major businesses and stock exchanges were evacuated.

All tunnels and bridges into and out of the city were shut down.

United Nations was evacuated as a precaution.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are feared hurt or killed in what is clearly the worst ever terrorist attack on the United States.

Ben Wedeman, CNN.

Late today, CNN reported that explosions and mission fire were reported in Kabul, Afghanistan.

They showed pictures of the attack using video phone technology.

A U.S.

official says the United States is not attacking the Afghanistan capital, but that it was the result of rebel unrest.

President Bush was taken to an undisclosed location after leaving a military base in Louisiana.

He is scheduled to be back at the White House and address the nation tonight at 9:00 Eastern Time.

You can see that address here on New Hampshire Public Television.

Earlier, the president said the terrorist attacks are a test of America's resolve.

He assured Americans that government is functioning and that the terrorists will be found and punished.

For the first time in American history, all U.S.

airports were ordered closed by the FAA.

Soon after the attacks, all airplanes in the air were ordered to land.

The airports will remain closed until at least 12 noon tomorrow.

Amtrak service to New York and Boston has also been suspended.

The stock markets were closed.

Tens of thousands of people were evacuated from state and federal buildings in New York, Washington, and Boston.

The terrorists struck at the heart of the U.S.

economic and military centers.

In Massachusetts today, when the two flights that hit the World Trade Center originated Boston's Logan Airport, Governor Jane Swift denounced the terrorists.

The governor delivered this message to citizens of the state.

I also want to convey one special message to the citizens of the ninth Congressional District.

I think the most important thing that the citizens of Massachusetts can do today is to show up in large numbers to vote.

Terrorists operate by creating a culture of fear.

It is understandable that citizens of Massachusetts, seeing these reports on television, would have some fear.

I want them to know that we will take all necessary actions and have taken actions to make sure that our public voting places are safe.

We will continue to have a state police presence at those places.

But the best thing that citizens of our great country and our great Commonwealth can do today is to send a very strong message that we will not bend to the terror that has been inflicted on our citizens and on our nation, and we will not shut down democratic exercises of government.

And - One of the pilots of American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center, was from New Hampshire.

Officials at the Bethany Church in Greenland say Congregational member Tom McGuinness of Portsmouth was a pilot aboard that plane.

A spokesperson with the church said pastors were with McGuinness’ wife, Cheryl, and the family.

The church has scheduled a prayer services evening for McGuinness and the nation.

Church services and other vigils are being held all over the state tonight.

Neighbors are coming together to mourn for the nation.

A makeshift banner was hung by the State House this evening.

It read, live free or die against terrorism.

God bless America.

Dozens gathered there for a silent vigil.

(no dialogue) They reflected upon the day's events and offered each other solace and support.

In a phone teleconference this afternoon, New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen said she is confident that the people responsible for the attacks will be found and held accountable.

The governor was attending an education conference in Washington and said security was heightened around the state today following the attacks.

There is no reason, no threat to the state of New Hampshire, and we think it's important to let people know that they should continue about their normal business.

We can't let an attack like this shut down this country.

These are terrorist attacks.

Their intent is to get us to shut down this country.

And certainly, if if there is reason to believe that people were in danger, we would be responding to that.

And we are monitoring the situation very carefully.

But we think it's important for people to know that there isn't any threat to New Hampshire, and they should continue their business.

The governor spoke to us from Washington, D.C.

She added that New Hampshire has not been asked to provide medical or other help, but the state is preparing in case it is.

The overall coordinating agency for major disaster response in New Hampshire, including terrorism, is the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management.

Its public affairs manager, James van Dongen, tells us they are on a level two out of a possible four level of activation within the agency.

This includes a 24 hour operations in a watch and wait mode.

Four.

I mean, level one is normal day to day business operations.

Level two is activation within our own agency and going 24 hours a day, by the way.

Statewide, we're seeing an increase in security, not necessarily more police, but maybe they'll be more visible, an increase in state police coverage, for example, at the State House.

Our own offices are being locked down, you can't get in without a security pass, that sort of thing.

At this point, there has been no credible threat to the state of New Hampshire.

So there's really nothing that people need to do to to work themselves into a panic about this.

This is obviously a major tragic event.

But here in New Hampshire, we urge people to take reasonable precautions, to pay attention to their surroundings.

But really to try as much as possible, go on with life is normal.

This is certainly an attack on the United States by, not not a national government, but by rogue elements out there.

And I'm not, I don't know that any claim of responsibility has been made yet, so I don't know who they are.

I couldn't even speculate.

But certainly, I mean, the military has plans to deal with that as well as the civilian agencies.

What are the things that came out of Oklahoma City, for example, which also came out of nowhere, was a directive by the president, then President Clinton, to to designate who's in charge.

I mean, that's the first thing you need to know.

And in terms of the criminal aspect, it's the FBI.

And in terms of the the recovery, the management of the physical resources, recovering from the disaster, etc., it's the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Those plans are all in place.

FEMA Region Two, which is the New York area, is in charge of that on their level.

And they've already begun calling in resources from from other regions.

You know, would New York ask for New Hampshire state troopers or firefighters?

Probably not.

But they could ask assistance from hospitals.

They could ask assistance from the state medical examiner.

The only thing that I'm aware of right now that the state has put on standby are two Air National Guard aircraft.

Every town in the state, all 243 of them, are required to have an emergency management director.

There are very few people who do that full time in this state, as you can imagine.

I'm not sure anybody does it full time.

It tends to be, in the smaller towns, the local police chief or fire chief or a member of those agencies.

If no one has been designated by default, it's the chairman of the board of selectmen.

But state law requires every municipality to have a emergency management director, and that's our primary point of contact.

You know, it almost seems trite, but I just would encourage people to stay calm.

Pay attention.

Obviously, the whole country is concerned about what happened, but we don't, we don't need to make things worse by either panicking or starting or spreading rumors.

This is bad enough on its own.

The appropriate agencies are dealing with the situation and you know everything that can be done is being done.

Everybody from the president on down.

Pease Air National Guard in Newington is also in a watch and wait mode tonight.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Governor Shaheen says two tankers of the New Hampshire Air National Guard have been put on standby as a routine response to the crisis.

If there is any kind of military response to the terrorists involved, Pease could become a staging area for the task force, with planes and equipment flying in from around the country.

But in the meantime, a spokesman told us that security is very tight.

The National Guard is taking appropriate defense measures required by regulations to respond appropriately to the situation.

At this time, we've activated the Emergency Operations Center at the Concord Readiness Center, which is at the that's at the state military reservation in Concord.

We've also assembled the control center at the Air National Guard base located right behind me.

And at this time, we are waiting further instructions from our higher headquarters.

This is a fluid situation.

And at this time, we've just taken heightened defensive measures here at the base.

And like everyone else in the country, we're waiting to see what happens next.

The Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant was placed under heightened security today, while a spokesperson at the plant said they had not been threatened and operations were normal.

The science center at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant was closed and the public was evacuated as a precautionary measure.

There were also barricades placed on the entrance road and armed guards were stopping and turning around all non-essential vehicles.

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was also under heightened alert today, as a Coast Guard vessel patrolled the waters in front of the shipyard, and guards searched vehicles entering the shipyard through its main gate.

Today's attack struck at the core of America's sense of safety and security.

Until now, our lives have been relatively untouched by terrorism.

Earlier this evening on CNN, former NATO commander General Wesley Clark told Judy Woodruff about the nation's command and control systems and what may have been behind the attack.

You and I talked a little bit earlier today about what's happened.

I know you have sources.

Have you learned any more about either, we've obviously been looking at pictures of the horrific evidence of what happened, but have you learned any more about suspicions, information, about what might have been behind this?

Well, actually, I know that there will be a great deal of effort underway to find out who could have contributed to this.

And there are various groups who could have been part of it.

These groups often change their names.

They have interlocking memberships.

And so it will take time to run this down.

But I think it's clear now with the hindsight of a few hours, that how well-coordinated this attack was, that it was launched from multiple airports, that it picked aircraft that had the largest possible fuel loads to increase their explosive capacity.

That the people who were involved knew how to take over aircraft and fly them into the targets.

And clearly, they had some idea of the symbols of American power that they they wanted to strike.

And so I think we've got to allow some time to for our military to to work through this.

I am reassured in talking to people inside the Pentagon that the command and control system in there is totally intact.

All of the men and women who were part of that command and control system are at their stations and have been throughout this.

And and so it's very smooth and very effective.

I'm thinking about all those people who were in that part of the Pentagon that was struck by the aircraft.

We know there are a number of men and women who served there who aren't accounted for, and presumably there are casualties and fatalities there, but the command and control functions are totally intact.

But, but but, General Clark, what do you say to Americans?

And this is the same version of the question I just put to Senator Nunn, who would say we thought we lived in the safest country on Earth, and now we find out that places that we thought were invulnerable, the Pentagon, of all places, the one of the most secure locations in the in Washington, much less in the country, the Twin Towers of the Trade Center, a building that had already come under terrorist attack and had been under increased security.

To know that these kinds of places and we've been told, at least I'm informed, that Senator Orrin Hatch has said to some of my colleagues at CNN, there was an indication that Camp David may have been a target of the jetliner that crashed in in Pennsylvania.

This is the sort of thing that makes people want to reevaluate everything.

Well, I have heard the same rumor about Camp David, but we know that for all of our unique power in the world today, the United States is also uniquely vulnerable.

We've been targeted for years by a number of these groups, and many people have warned for some time that there's really no ultimate protection against terrorism, and particularly international terrorism.

There's no telling how many of these efforts that are similar or perhaps lesser in scale, have been broken up by the United States or by our allies.

And yet this one has succeeded, and I know there will be some hard questions asked.

But, Judy, one thing that comes through very clearly in this is that in an era where global communications are the way they are, and there's movement of people and ideas and communications, that it's not possible to have only one nation deal with the problem of international terrorism.

Greater international cooperation and coordination is required, and certainly no state should be supporting and sponsoring the presence, inside its borders or the activities out of its borders, of international terrorists.

And that's one very important message that comes from this terrible tragedy.

And I, and I'm sure our government will drive this home very strongly in all of the international fora.

I was just on the phone with people in Europe.

And as you probably know, NATO headquarters has responded by ordering the evacuation.

Of course, by the North Atlantic Charter, an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of NATO.

And how this will play itself out in coordination with our allies remains to be seen.

But here's clearly an area where the United States desperately does need the support of all of our allies, and I'm sure we'll have that support as we deal with the consequences of this tragedy.

Intelligence and terrorism expert Professor Thomas Trout says today's attack is on par with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor nearly 60 years ago.

He cautioned against anyone reacting in anger.

It's an assault on American security that we've never experienced before at this level, in this way.

Even Pearl Harbor, which is the next comfortable, comparable reference point that wasn't on the continental United States, that did not involve what appeared to be the level of casualties that are occurring here.

How does this affect the American psyche?

Well, dramatically, I mean, our psyche will never be the same.

This is a this is a violation of the openness and the character of the United States that will never outlive.

I think this will stick with us forever.

The next step is to find out what happened.

Who, who are these people and how did they get aboard, and what did they do when they got aboard and locate the source, both literally and figuratively.

Find out who's responsible, where they are, what they, what they did, and how they did it.

And then from there, I think, to craft an appropriate response.

Everybody's prime suspect is Bin Laden, the Bin Laden organization.

This has all of the fingerprints of that kind of operation, level of organization, nature of the targets, suicide bombers or not bombers, but suicide missions.

I think the the one concern that we ought to have is the potential for inappropriate response, the potential to begin to label individuals from from a source of what is a fanatical fundamentalist organization, perhaps, and to expand that to, to include those who are not fanatical, who are not terrorists, who may have beliefs that are not like ours, but who are not connected with this.

I think the concern would be to to make sure that we don't respond inappropriately in anger solely.

This will be perceived amongst terrorist organizations in general as a great victory.

They may be wrong about that, by the way, because of the magnitude of the assault.

You know, they may lose more than they gain as a consequence.

It may redouble the efforts of competitive competitor organizations to do something comparable, that it may intensify its, I guess, on a simplistic level, it may generate the, you know, the copycat phenomenon.

So what more can we learn about the terrorist attack against the U.S.?

Joining me by phone tonight, Ron Peimer of the U.S.

Secret Service.

Ron, you were there at the World Trade Center, were you not, at the bombing in 93?

Yes, I was.

Do you see any correlation in today's events at all?

Well, the event that we had in 93 was tiny compared to the destruction today.

What about motivation?

What is it behind terrorists that that motivates them to commit acts like the ones we've witnessed today?

Well, people are dedicated to a cause.

And for some reason, they believe that there's no other way that they can show their displeasure with politics or political act they take in into terrorist acts themselves.

We just heard from Professor Trout, terrorism expert, who said there can be some aftershocks from an event such as this, copycats and the like.

It may incite others to redouble their efforts.

Is there concern, as far as, should we be extra wary that this could be an after effect?

I would rather not comment on that.

That's okay, Ron.

What else can you add tonight in regards to, in general when it comes to terrorists and what's happened today?

Well, today, I don't think there's ever been an event like this before.

It's certainly on the scale a terrorist destruction like this.

And it's going to be weeks and weeks and weeks of work for the people, the investigators on that scene.

As far as work being done to find out who's done this.

From your perspective, can we assume that all efforts are being made tonight and will be made to find out who's responsible?

Well, well, the answer is just as a personal belief, I would say absolutely.

But I can tell you that all the federal agencies are mobilized to make an effort to determine who who committed the act.

Ron Peimer with the U.S.

Secret Service, I want to thank you for joining us tonight on Outlook.

You're welcome.

As the day's events unfolded, people all over the Granite State were trying to make some sense out of the day's catastrophic events.

Doctor Alan Cone with UNH’s Psychology Department joined us earlier to talk about what was on the mind of university students attending her classes.

Today, I taught Psychology and Law in the morning and talked about the difference between legal versus moral reasoning, and how that relates to the events that happened.

In the afternoon, I taught Psychology of Crime and Justice, and in that class, we talked about people's personal theories about the causes of crime and what some of the solutions might be.

When we look at what's happened today, how do perceptions affect what we think should be done?

In other words, what were you hearing from your students today about theories about who might have perpetrated these acts, or what difference it would make once we find out?

Well, one of the things we talked about was the difference between whether the people who perpetrated it, because we really didn't know, were people who were inside the United States, or they were perpetrators from outside.

And we had heard rumors they might be Palestinians.

And I had really mixed reactions from my students.

Some of them felt that if it was somebody internal, they would be more fearful because then you don't know who you can trust.

It could be your next door neighbor.

It could be the person down the street.

Anybody could potentially do such a horrific kind of act.

Other students focused on the fact that, for example, in the Oklahoma bombing situation and also the Unabomber situation, both of those, all three of those people have psychological problems and therefore can kind of the public can handle that and attribute it to really there's something wrong psychotic about those people.

So internally we think it's a psychological blame.

But externally - It becomes much terrorism and internal and externally it's harder to deal with because it's a more organized group.

It's a group of people.

And often they're doing these behaviors for political reasons.

One of the things that came up in my Psychology and Law class is that to them, this is morally right.

We might look at it and think it's not morally right, and obviously it's illegal, but they may look at it that the the means are less important than what the end is for their political purposes, and that's why they perpetrate these actions.

And we actually were shown today pictures of people celebrating in the streets elsewhere in the world in light of what happened today.

I think for people in this country, that was tough to say.

Yes.

What about laws and you deal with law in your classes?

Do we see any potential change in laws in light of what's happened today?

Well, I think any kind of crisis situation that happens often will lead to a change in laws, whether it be something like this, a terrorist bombing or other kinds of incidents.

I think people who the legislators are affected by these kinds of things to change the laws.

And I think one kind of law that might change might be how easy it is for people from other countries to come into this country, how easy it is for us to go to other countries.

There may be laws that limit our ability to do that, or put more restrictions on the requirements of doing that, if indeed it turns out that there's a there is a group outside the country that perpetrated this.

There'll be laws about security and flying, I think that might happen as a result of this.

I noticed in the building today, and I think you mentioned this too.

I'd like you to talk about it.

People were telling the personal stories that connected them to these events today.

What were you hearing?

I was hearing people talking about connections to all different kinds of ways.

For example, one of my students talked about how four of her friends had fathers that worked in the World Trade Center.

Another student talked about a friend whose parent was a flight attendant who was supposed to be on one of the planes, and instead had her best friend fly on that plane instead.

A third student talked about how somebody, a friend of a boyfriend, had called from the World Trade Center just before it collapsed on their cell phone to talk about it.

What do you think it is about us making connections to these events, if that's what we want to call it, it does increase the impact when we hear these stories or what's that about, do you think?

I think it serves two functions.

I think one is it makes us more connected to the event, which could make us more fearful.

But I think it also helps us to understand the event and to see how horrific it sort of maybe brings it to life and makes it more in our world and not just something that happens to people over there.

And so we can be more sensitive and more empathic about the events that happened.

I mean, we live in New Hampshire, we don't live in New York City, we don't live in Washington, D.C.

but all of us have different kinds of connections to those locations and the people there.

And I think that does connect us.

And what about trying to make those connections, at least as far as community, I know there are services all over the state tonight, churches getting together, various organizations.

How important do you think that is?

Oh, I think that's really critical.

The whole area of social support, I think is important in terms of helping people cope, whether it be a crisis like this or other kinds of crises.

People show that the more social support you have, the better people will cope.

And I think this has just made people feel real fearful when people feel like our country is pretty safe.

Nothing like this has ever happened before.

Maybe with the exception of Pearl Harbor.

But tell me how that may seem similar in the way that we react here to Pearl Harbor.

How is it similar, do you think?

Well, I think it's similar because up until now, even though Americans have been attacked, American property has been attacked.

It's always been in other countries.

And so we could always say, well, we're safe because we're here.

We're not in those countries.

But now that it's happened on American soil.

I know that was one of the big things with Pearl Harbor.

It makes people question their own sense of safety.

It also, I think, might lead to a more strong response from the government, because, I'm not saying that we're going to go to war, but with Pearl Harbor, there was a there was a immediate response from the government, and I would think there'll be some kind of media response from our government as well.

How do you feel people view retaliation in light of something like this?

I mean, well, I've heard some of my students will say they don't believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

They don't think that we should escalate the situation even more.

Some of them have suggested maybe we go to solutions like the UN, tightening our security.

They don't necessarily see that retaliation is the answer in these situations.

Do you think there's a danger of people perceiving that this is done by a particular group, so people will be at risk in this country of maybe some heightened prejudice?

Well, people have suggested that.

One of my students talked about his mother working with a woman who is from Iraq, and she was scared to go home alone.

She was afraid something would happen to her.

So I think one of the dangers, just like Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese were targeted and put in these internment camps, is that I think I would worry that people would overreact and generalize.

And just because people are members of a group don't necessarily mean that they're terrorists.

Do you think, final thought from you, I guess as far as what you think you're going to be dealing with it on campus in the next couple of days, or how this may end up being woven into the classroom?

Well, I think that there's no way that it won't be part of the classroom.

One of the things I talk about in my Psychology of Crime and Justice course is we talk about different kinds of crimes.

We've spent a lot of time talking about serial killers, but we also talk about mass murderers.

And we can put this in the category of mass murderers.

And we also spend a lot of time talking about theories about what causes crime, some of the psychological kind of theories about it.

And so I'm sure we'll talk about that in my Psychology and Law course.

We talk a lot about how the legal system works.

We talk about sentencing, whether there should be a death penalty or not.

And so I can't imagine that, given the nature of this, that won't be a part of both of my courses.

Well, Professor, I want to thank you for joining us tonight on Outlook.

Thank you.

If you are just joining us at our regularly scheduled time for New Hampshire Outlook, we want to let you know this is a special edition.

We are in the midst of our coverage of terrorists targeting America today.

We want to also let you know, President Bush will be speaking at 9:00 tonight, and we will carry his address to the nation here on New Hampshire Public Television.

Again, that's at 9:00 Eastern Time.

Students in classrooms all over the state were learning today and reacting to news in different ways.

We spoke with the principal at Beech Street Elementary School in Manchester to hear how they're beginning to deal with the situation.

This morning, the administrators were meeting with the superintendent when word came down of what had happened.

All the administrators were sent back to their schools to make sure that everything was fine in the schools and to reassure the staff and the students.

Parents have been dismissing their children, and but we have tried to have as normal a day in the elementary level as possible.

A lot of the middle schools and high schools have been watching it on television, from the reports that we have gotten.

At the elementary level, we decided not to do that, and that was consistent throughout the district.

If students have been coming back from doctor's appointments that have been telling people and we have been discussing it when students have brought it up, but at this level, most of the students are just going on with the normal school day.

It's different here because some of our students have been victims of war and terrorism.

So we will have a plan tomorrow in effect, because some of the ESL teachers are concerned about how their students will be reacting tomorrow.

It can be difficult, certainly, understanding and dealing with a tragedy of this magnitude, and it can be especially frightening and confusing for children.

For advice on how to discuss the issue with school-aged family members, we turn to Doctor Michael Kalinowski, an Associate Professor of Family Studies at the University of New Hampshire.

Doctor, as parents and teachers, how should we help our children deal with the tragedy such as this?

Well, I think all children are different.

I mean, not just different ages, but they handle things differently.

And so parents are probably in the best position to know from their gut what to do with individual children.

Generally, we would handle it based upon their age and their abilities, but I think it has to be an individual response because every child is going to have a different response or a slightly different fear.

And those some, some of those will be manifest immediately.

Some of them we may not hear about for a week or two.

Are there instances where we should let where we should bring it up, or we should let it come up on its own?

I think in that regard, it probably depends upon the age of the children.

I think for the youngest children, we really want to make them feel safe, and we make them feel safe, primarily by being around and by telling them that they're okay and that we're okay and that we're safe to the degree that we can.

For somewhat older children, elementary school children who are beginning to understand the difference between fantasy and reality, who who we can help understand that this is not a cartoon.

This is not a movie.

This really happened.

And and within reason, this is what it means.

I think we can play a role there in helping them understand what happened and what makes this real.

What's the difference between a real event and imagined one?

What concepts do children understand at different ages to help that will help parents explain, parents and teachers explain this to their children.

I think the younger child is, the more concrete their world is, and so we have to actually show them things rather than talking about them.

One example let's say we have a relative or a friend who is away, maybe took a trip, maybe was on an airplane, maybe even was in New York or Washington.

For us to tell our child that that friend or relative is okay isn't the same as that child seeing the friend or relative, or even talking to them for a moment on the phone.

Their ability to understand the world is based on what they see or what they perceive.

And so having them be able to talk to someone or see somebody is much more powerful for them.

It's hard for them to understand abstract concepts.

They may think, because they're used sometimes to seeing things where everything turns out all right at the end, that somehow there was some miracle or event that occurred that made it all fine at the end.

So with the youngest children, the concept that's important is to make them feel safe and to understand that they really need to see things.

We talked about really young children and how to protect them.

We began to talk a little bit about, say, elementary school children, whom we want to help understand what happened while at the same time, telling them that they're safe.

And I think the thing that we should think about with even older children, let's say middle school high school students, is to ask them, what can we do now to help those people that were affected?

How can we help those people who were injured or hurt or maybe economically disadvantaged over the events of today?

And how can we work as a family or a school or a church group or a community to show that, you know, in the United States, when we have terrible events, we pull together and move on from those the best way we can.

I think there are long term consequences to this that we won't really begin to understand for a couple of weeks.

I think most adults, and certainly children, will be afraid to get on planes.

I think many adults and a lot of children will be very afraid to go into a tall building.

I think today in some ways may feel, as one of my students said to me, like a Tom Clancy novel, but but it isn't.

And it really does change what we do.

But it doesn't mean that we have to walk down the street terrified, or that we have to tell our children that life as we know it is is over.

This will have dramatic effects on what happens in the United States.

And we don't know what all those effects will be, but we still have to be strong for our children.

We still have to be strong if we're directors or administrators of early childhood programs.

And we still have to remember that there will be a lot of adults who won't be able to deal with this easily.

And we're really not necessarily prepared for this kind of national emergency.

How do we find out what adults and what families need attention?

We normally assume that people will go to doctors to get help on their own.

We may need to be more aggressive as a community in going out and finding people who need therapy, attention, someone to hold their hands, someone to be with.

And in that regard, at least, older children may be as effective as adults are in helping us reach out to the community and help others who have been affected by this.

In the aftermath of such horrific events, sometimes it takes months or years for the effect of living through such a traumatic event to take hold.

Here to talk about the importance of early intervention for survivors of such events, we have Doctor Roger Pitman here from Harvard Medical School, and also joining us to talk about how families can deal with their children, George Samuels.

George is the director of Family, Child and Family Services in New Hampshire.

Thanks to you both for coming in.

Appreciate it.

George, I'm going to follow up on the discussion or the comments that we just heard about dealing with children.

Is it important because all of these events are playing over and over again on TV to watch how much of it is playing at home when we have our kids with us?

Yeah, I think it is important, certainly with younger children, if this is all they're seeing, they really are going to see that as being a great deal of their world, and that really is going to make it harder for them to to put it into some sort of perspective.

It doesn't mean that they won't see any of it.

It doesn't mean they won't be exposed to it, but just limiting it.

And I think that a lot of parents are going to tend to want to hear everything they can, and they may need to sort of act against that impulse and just turn off the TV, not have it on continually, not have the radio going continually, you know, just so that there's other life that's going on as well.

And this is a piece of what's going on, but it's not everything.

What do you say to someone if their child is at home or come home and says, what happened?

How lengthy of a response do you give?

A what happened question should have a brief response.

I mean, generally, a safe rule of thumb is trying to make answers to children's questions no longer and no deeper than their questions.

If parents can manage some of their own anxiety and realize that there may be lots of conversations with their children about this, that they don't have to get everything into one conversation and really just answer what the child is asking.

And that means, again, managing their own anxiety enough to be able to hear what the child is asking.

Can I give you a suppose?

Suppose it's a five year old that says, what happened, mom or dad?

What do you say?

Probably nothing more than that, that a plane crashed into a number of buildings or a number of planes did and a lot of people were hurt.

But you're going to be okay.

And again, providing that reassurance because again, most of the questions that younger children are going to be asking are really questions about are they going to be okay?

Are their parents going to be okay?

Are the people around them going to be okay and just giving them that assurance.

Doctor Pitman, I know you've done quite a bit of research with post-traumatic stress disorder, otherwise known as PTSD.

We're going to have a lot of people that were in the area today that are going to be dealing with trauma, whether it's delayed or not, down the road.

Early intervention, you’ve found that that's really the key, isn't it?

Well, of course, the real key to dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder is to try to prevent traumatic events and hopefully in the future, we’ll learn from this and be able to do that.

At present, now that the terrible thing has happened, the recent literature suggests that the most important thing at this point is support from family and friends.

There used to be a wide practice of something called critical incident debriefing, where there was an attempt to engage everybody who was the victim of a traumatic event into a kind of exploratory psychotherapy and have them relive the traumatic event right after it happened.

Unfortunately, the recent studies have not supported critical incident debriefing as being effective.

In fact, in some cases it can even be harmful.

So trying to be too pushy about having people relive the event right after it happened is probably not a good idea.

I mean, who would want to go through it again, real or imagined?

I would think it would be kind of difficult.

For sure.

So what is what do you think is being done now with with people that have managed to make it through this today?

What do you think is being done?

Well.

At the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, there were a lot of therapists who came in from all over the country to try to help people who were involved in that.

And I'm sure a lot of that was critical incident debriefing, which hopefully is not being done on a mass scale presently.

Certainly, though, allowing people to talk to the degree that they want to without pushing them is a good idea.

And as I said, probably the most effective thing that we know about at present is a lot of support from family and friends.

At the Massachusett General Hospital, we've been working on research into drugs that might be given to somebody right after the occurrence of a traumatic event, to try to block the effect of the intense emotional arousal on the brain, because we know now that that PTSD involves changes induced by strong emotion, especially fear, in the emotional parts of the brain.

We have had good luck in an initial trial with an anti adrenaline drug called propranolol, but we really can't conclude at this point that it's definitely effective.

It's something which needs to be done in further research, so that hopefully in a few years we may have a firm answer as to whether this drug is effective or, if not, whether there are other drugs that are effective that could be given to victims very shortly thereafter to try to interrupt the changes that can go on in the brain after an intensely horrifying or terrifying experience.

George, I know you deal with family counseling, and having heard what Doctor Pitman says, I know you're a nonprofit organization, your organization.

Do you have any kind of standard operating procedure if a family goes through a traumatic event?

No.

I think it's really important not to have a standard operating procedure.

I think what doctor was saying is really important.

A lot of parents will call us and will want something very prescriptive or will have been told something, you know, they'll be told, well, your child has to talk about it.

They have to get it out, you know, as somehow if there were some sort of cleansing that was going to sort of occur, and they then will push for it.

And it's much more important, and something that we talk about more, is providing a safe environment, having parents open to what it is their children want to talk about, but not pushing for something.

Children are going to do it at very different speeds.

Some may need to talk about everything and to tell about it regularly.

Others may not want to talk about it particularly.

Others may want to talk about it in bits and pieces.

Some may want to say a little bit and then not say anything else for a few days, and just really tuning into a parent's own sense of their child and not be caught up with what they should be doing, or what they should be saying, or how they should be dealing with it, but allowing them to deal with it in ways that are comfortable for them and comfortable with the family.

And again, providing that support.

So it's not a blanket approach as you were mentioning.

What I'm curious about, though, is do children and adults, I'd like both of your opinions, react differently to trauma, or do we see the same end results in most cases?

Who wants to take that one?

I think that probably the reactions are more similar than they are different, and they may involve, in the unfortunate case of post-traumatic stress disorder, a tendency to re-experience how unwanted memories or nightmares of the traumatic event.

Children tend to express it differently, for example, when they're playing, as opposed to adults who tend to talk more about it.

But probably similar brain mechanisms are involved.

I'd like to say, however, that I don't think we should panic and think that every child who was watching television today is going to get post-traumatic stress disorder.

Even in people who were very closely involved in this incident, who happened to have actually been there and seen it or been in the building.

Fortunately, even the majority of them probably will not develop the full disorder we call post-traumatic stress disorder.

People tend to have their own innate protective factors that are operative, which we can reinforce by emotional support.

But for the minority, the significant minority who do wind up developing PTSD, then we have to think about about treatment.

I wonder, George, what do you say to a parent that may get up tomorrow morning and their child's going to come down the stairs or wake them up tonight and say, I've had a nightmare.

How do we deal with that?

Again, I think it winds up being how has that parent dealt with nightmares before?

Again, in your question about children and adults, what we see a great deal of is parents have experienced trauma then trying to deal with their children's experience of it, and they really are in a more difficult position in trying to again manage their own reactions.

We'd like that parent to be able to be pretty calm, to be able to support that child, to be able to sit with that child, you know, when they go back to bed to do it and to not overreact or under react.

And one of the things that we often see is parents who have not dealt with trauma will have difficulty doing that, have difficulty getting to just that kind of middle sort of response.

It's got to be tough.

It's got to be tough, Ii you've gone through something yourself and had that experience and know what it feels like to try to, I don't want to say remain objective, but deal with it in the same fashion as someone that maybe hasn't gone through.

Because again, the child needs safety and the child needs a world that's fairly predictable.

And again, if the parent is having difficulty holding on to that idea, it makes it harder for them to establish it for their child.

I want to quickly have you both.

Take a listen to someone we spoke with earlier tonight and get your reaction.

The thought being that if some people are already under a state of stress or they're depressed, today's tragedy could actually be more detrimental to them than someone else.

We spoke to Health Psychologist Kathleen Kendall-Tackett.

She joined me earlier and had some thoughts on coping with the stress.

I think a lot of people are going to be very stressed.

This is obviously a horrible event that's taken place, you know, and people were saying it's one of the worst disasters that we've had in this country ever.

You know, in terms of being on our soil and everything.

So I think a certain amount of stress is normal.

I have concern for people who maybe have had previous episodes of depression, or maybe have had traumatic events in their past, or have been in situations where they've lost, have have had significant losses in their life.

I think that people in those situations are going to be more likely, I think, to feel this more keenly and, and become overly stressed by what's been going on in the world.

So what do you recommend, then, if someone feels that they're a little bit vulnerable or in those places that you mentioned?

Well, I think there's probably a couple of things that you can do.

And I think this is probably just good general advice.

But I think particularly for people who are more sensitive to this type of information, I was thinking today about a study that came out of Israel looking at Holocaust survivors and how they fared in sort of midlife and old age.

And one of the things that they were talking about is these people who had experienced these early traumas had significantly worse reactions in terms of stress reactions to the bombings and the the Gulf War.

And so all the things that, you know, the the nightly things of needing to put on the gas mask and, you know, the Scud missiles, that their reactions were much worse.

So I think there are people that become more sensitive to this if they've had prior events.

So I'd say there's a couple of things to do.

First is to limit the amount of time that you spend dwelling on this stuff during the day.

I think we all have a tendency to have the TV on all day, to have the radio on all day.

For people who are particularly vulnerable.

It's probably a good idea to limit that.

So a couple of hours a day, you know, try to just sort of corral it.

So it's not an all day thing.

Also to, you know, when you find yourself during the day, dwelling on it to sort of relegate that to a certain time during the day, you know, this is to not say to, you know, to just say, oh, we're just going to think happy thoughts here, but to try to kind of limit it so it's not the thing that becomes the focus of the whole day.

I think another thing that would be very helpful is to take some positive steps, you know, can you think about ways to get involved?

You know, there are a number of communities offering prayer vigils.

You know, that's a way to kind of like come together with other people and do something sort of positive and, you know, connect with other people.

You know, call the Red Cross and find out what they need, you know, perhaps, you know, gather money from your coworkers or your neighbors, collect, take up a collection.

There's a lot of different steps and stuff that even individuals can do that can make a big difference.

And they they have the benefit of not only really helping, but also leaving, taking care of that sort of powerless feeling that people have in the wake of this kind of event.

Kathy, thanks so much.

You're welcome.

Doctor Pitman, I'd like to ask you, do you find that people you've treated with post-traumatic stress disorder who've gone through a trauma that when something like this happens, the impact is, is great or greater than, say, someone else?

Certainly, certainly, some people are at greater risk than others.

People who have had past post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, as was mentioned, certainly are at greater risk and bear closer watching.

But I do want to emphasize that people have innate abilities to deal with terrible things and to adapt.

And although you can have bad psychiatric outcomes and do have bad psychiatric outcomes of events like this, they are the minority.

And I think a positive attitude, expecting that people will be able to handle things that happen to them is an overall good approach.

For those who aren't so fortunate, though, to to escape without being severely affected, we, we’re working on interventions to see if we can reduce the chances that they will get sick with PTSD, and then if they if they do anyway, then there are treatments that have been been found to be effective, not completely, but at least partially effective that are available.

You know, I haven't asked you what are the symptoms?

If you can give us a quick rundown, what are they if you have PTSD?

Well, the most typical symptoms are re-experiencing symptoms.

Reliving the event, as I said, either in unwanted recollections during the daytime or nightmares, or sometimes in the extreme case, flashbacks where people feel that the event is actually happening to them again.

So those are what we call the re-experiencing symptoms.

There also are, because re-experiencing the event like that is very upsetting, people tend to try to push it out of their minds or not think about it, or to try to avoid things that might remind them of it.

You mentioned may not, someone might not want to go into a tall building, or someone mentioned that, that would be an example of a kind of avoidance symptom.

And then the third category of symptoms are what we call the over-arousal symptoms, in which people are overly nervous and overly anxious.

And it appears that people who have had an intense fear reaction to something terrible like this may be more likely to have those kinds of reactions to, to to events in the future.

I'm curious too.

You mentioned possibly drug intervention with things like this.

As horrible as this thought is, I'm having it.

When something like this happens, do we actually have a research group that will go in and treat people in that fashion to see if it'll work, or how will we ever know if it would work?

Well, at the Massachusetts General Hospital, we have a study going on where if someone comes to the emergency room after a traumatic event, such as a motor vehicle accident or an industrial accident or an assault, we have a protocol that whereby we can enroll them and try them on the drug or on a placebo for comparison, and see whether the drug is effective or not.

One of the problems with trying to intervene very quickly in a situation like this, first of all, is that there are other priorities which have to take precedence, that is the physical care of the burned and wounded people.

That's certainly is the the number one consideration.

The second consideration is that in order to do research, you have to have approval from a institutional review board that has considered the ethics of the study you want to do, and the risks versus the benefits of a drug, for example, you want to try and it's very hard to have that kind of approval in effect right at the time that there's going to be a tragedy like this happen.

So if we can get if we can make enough progress to get to the point where we have good data from research studies that show that a given drug would be effective, then it becomes practical to use it on a large scale after something a mass casualty like this.

George Samuels, you get the last word tonight, and I guess I'll ask you for a final thought to parents out there, to people out there.

We're going to be getting ready for a new day tomorrow.

What might be your final comment?

I guess parents just trying to slow down and just listen to their children and provide a secure environment for them and not feel like they have to make anything happen tomorrow.

Well, I want to thank you, George Samuels.

I want to thank you, Doctor Roger Pitman, for joining us on Outlook tonight.

I want to also let folks know that the Red Cross Greater Manchester Center has activated their disaster team to assist the relief effort in New York.

They've dispatched an emergency response vehicle to New York City.

That vehicle is staffed by volunteers from the Greater White Mountain Chapter.

Phone lines at the Red Cross chapters around the country have been flooded with calls from people wanting to give blood in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The Red Cross is preparing to send 80,000 units of blood to New York City.

However, they will need donors to help replenish that supply.

So if you would like to donate, you can find out more about the blood drives in your area by calling this number.

It's 1-800-GIVE-LIFE.

That's 1-800-448-5433.

Several New Hampshire chapters have also schedules on the World Wide Web, if you'd like to know about them and those blood drives.

you can find the sites through www.redcross.org.

Or you can call your local Red Cross chapter.

They'll take your name and number, and they will contact you as more drives are organized over the next few years.

Few days rather.

The airlines whose planes were involved in today's attacks have set up several phone numbers for people concerned about family members that they believe may have been on those hijacked planes.

Concerned family members can inquire about American Airlines flights at 1-800-245-0999.

You can call with questions about passengers on United Airlines flights at 1-847-700-5538.

Two of those hijacked flights took off from Logan Airport.

We have a family assistance number for Massport.

That number is 1-617-568-3100.

Around the state, sporting events and other recreational plans were canceled today.

The University of New Hampshire placed its flag at half staff.

The university community was invited to gather at the center of campus.

President Leitzel told the students that she wanted to bring them together for a sense of community and a sense of support.

Today, we need a different kind of agenda.

Today, we need to remember that our nation has been attacked by terrorist groups, and that we don't know what the next few hours or days will mean.

But we do know that we're in a community that we value very much.

And so we have decided that what we want to do is to be together.

Tomorrow on New Hampshire Outlook, it will be a time for healing.

As the investigation continues into the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon we’ll look at how a nation begins to heal itself.

Then from 8 to 9:00, we'll have a special live edition here on New Hampshire Public Television tomorrow night, where counselors and others will take your phone calls, your questions, and your concerns.

That's it for this edition of New Hampshire Outlook.

We want to remind you again that President Bush will be addressing the nation tonight at 9:00.

We will carry that address here on New Hampshire Public Television.

Thank you for watching.

Stay tuned for continuing coverage of the terrorist attacks on America.

We'll be back tomorrow night at 7:30.

Thanks to our founding sponsors, who provided major funding for the production of New Hampshire Outlook: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Public Service of New Hampshire, Alice J. Reen Charitable Trust, Putnam Foundation, Stratford Foundation.

Theme Music (silence)