• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

Tied in with the position of the cameras is the question of why the North Tower was hit first.

Judging by the number of times the impact videos were broadcast on TV on 9/11 and during the following days, we can assume that acquiring footage of the plane crashes for the networks was a crucial part of the plan. Since the first crash was 15 minutes before the second, the TV cameras filming from the studios north of the WTC would be guaranteed to be pointing at the towers at time of the second crash. But the way it turned out, the TV cameras were all on the wrong side of the WTC and the impact videos were fluked by freelancers and amateurs. They risked not having any footage at all of the crash itself because the impacted wall was on the blind side of the TV cameras.

It would have made much more sense for the perps to hit the South Tower first, so that the cameras filming from the TV studios would be in place to capture the second plane as it crashed into the north face of the North Tower. The only logical reason for them not to do it that way would be if there was something about the impact of the second plane that needed to be hidden.

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers, but planehugging truthers should give it some thought.
 
Tied in with the position of the cameras is the question of why the North Tower was hit first.

Judging by the number of times the impact videos were broadcast on TV on 9/11 and during the following days, we can assume that acquiring footage of the plane crashes for the networks was a crucial part of the plan. Since the first crash was 15 minutes before the second, the TV cameras filming from the studios north of the WTC would be guaranteed to be pointing at the towers at time of the second crash. But the way it turned out, the TV cameras were all on the wrong side of the WTC and the impact videos were fluked by freelancers and amateurs. They risked not having any footage at all of the crash itself because the impacted wall was on the blind side of the TV cameras.

It would have made much more sense for the perps to hit the South Tower first, so that the cameras filming from the TV studios would be in place to capture the second plane as it crashed into the north face of the North Tower. The only logical reason for them not to do it that way would be if there was something about the impact of the second plane that needed to be hidden.

Jesus, you seriously don't have a clue what you are talking about. WAY too many people witnessed the event for you to be trying to conjecture your way out of a paper bag.

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers, but planehugging truthers should give it some thought.

There's a reason even truthers think you're nuts.
 
I'll ask my question again.Bardamu,please help an ignorant European.Could you please state in a coherent manner your explanation of the events that took place on 9/11?
 
Since the first crash was 15 minutes before the second, the TV cameras filming from the studios north of the WTC would be guaranteed to be pointing at the towers at time of the second crash.

Damn! That's profound! I mean who'd think that television cameras in the television capital of the States would be pointed on the general direction of an airplane crash? I mean that's just....just......just......just......obvious! :boggled:

But the way it turned out, the TV cameras were all on the wrong side of the WTC and the impact videos were fluked by freelancers and amateurs. They risked not having any footage at all of the crash itself because the impacted wall was on the blind side of the TV cameras.

Because we all know that the major networks decommissioned their Hudson River WTC-24/7 cameras a week before 9/11. That would really come back to haunt them with the happy news story that was US Airways flight 1549.

News is a female dog.

It would have made much more sense for the perps to hit the South Tower first, so that the cameras filming from the TV studios would be in place to capture the second plane as it crashed into the north face of the North Tower.

Because everyone with a firing neuron just KNOWS that ABC is controlled by Al Quaeda, right? I heard they have put options on CBS, General Electric (owner of NBC) and CNN too. So Osama Bin Laden controlled camera placement in NYC.

Wow! Is there no limit to depth of the conspiracy? :jaw-dropp

The only logical reason for them not to do it that way would be if there was something about the impact of the second plane that needed to be hidden.

I mean perish the thought that there was nuthin' to frackin' see from Jersey, eh? Frackin' wow!

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers, but planehugging truthers should give it some thought.

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the people on the face of the Earth who count firing neurons within the skull, but no-plane-hugging whackjobs who believe that everyone who actually saw a plane on the day are either deluded or 'in on it'.

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
Tied in with the position of the cameras is the question of why the North Tower was hit first.

Judging by the number of times the impact videos were broadcast on TV on 9/11 and during the following days, we can assume that acquiring footage of the plane crashes for the networks was a crucial part of the plan. Since the first crash was 15 minutes before the second, the TV cameras filming from the studios north of the WTC would be guaranteed to be pointing at the towers at time of the second crash. But the way it turned out, the TV cameras were all on the wrong side of the WTC and the impact videos were fluked by freelancers and amateurs. They risked not having any footage at all of the crash itself because the impacted wall was on the blind side of the TV cameras.

It would have made much more sense for the perps to hit the South Tower first, so that the cameras filming from the TV studios would be in place to capture the second plane as it crashed into the north face of the North Tower. The only logical reason for them not to do it that way would be if there was something about the impact of the second plane that needed to be hidden.

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers, but planehugging truthers should give it some thought.

Just suppose for a moment that flight 93 had nosedived into the roof of WTC7. How would the cameras have been fixed for that assuming that it would also have been a giant fireball ?
 
Last edited:
Quote bardamu
Any thoughts on whether there are two pieces of fuselage here next to each other here?

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/a...trf20-full.jpg

One piece of debris. Two pieces of skin still connected by a section of former.

3.jpg


The red outline shows this debris in it's original location.

6.jpg


You can see the lower right hand corner of the 2 in this photo, right where it's suppose to be.

2.jpg
 
Just suppose for a moment that flight 93 had nosedived into the roof of WTC7. How would the cameras have been fixed for that assuming that it would also have been a giant fireball ?

Silly Bill.

How would the hijackers of Flight 93 know that WTC7 was the object of news cameras? In and case, the hijackers of Flight 93 would have already crashed the plane into something that morning. Cameras weren't on WTC7 that early.
 
I was assuming that you were referring to this same video going to multiple destinations. I realize now that you might be referring to two different feeds that both experienced a momentary black. If two feeds experienced a momentary black out at the exact seme time that would narrow down the possible causes IF the cause in each case were assumed to be the same.
If it is a problem of RF interference with a wireless feed then yes it certainly could affect two wireless feeds at the exact same time, especially if both stations are using identical equipment or even equipment from the same manufacturer (i.e. Panasonic).
If the times ae different then we go back to the fact that this was a live event, an unscripted event that would have adrenaline pumping and emotions running high in the people (read, 'humans') involved in putting it to air

You can see it archived here (WABC 2nd segment):

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_various.html

It seems to happen slightly before the FOX one, before the nose would have come out.

The same feed doesn't go black on ABC's main channel and it was broadcast all over the world without the glitch, but it does happen as CNN are linking it.

There's a good-quality copy on this page (CNN 2nd segment):

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_1st_reports.html


I have to admit I laughed and laughed and laughed at that comment.

the cameras that could be most quickly deployed would be ones on the roofs of the network's own buildings and the ones in traffic helicopters. Getting cameras on the streets would take time since by then traffic is at a standstill and the crew would pretty much have to walk.

There was at least one TV crew near the WTC interviewing people in the street before the second plane hit. One woman said the first explosion definitely came from inside the building.


Oh silly me! The resident no-planers have implied that they've seen the first-generation footage and deemed it 'fixed'.

Silly you. The Chopper 5 footage is only a tiny part of the evidence and it's not even the best. Maybe that's why debunkers like to spend so much time arguing over it.


Did the Air Traffic Control not track this plane until it collided with the World Trade Center?

They certainly tracked a radar blip.


Bardamu,please help an ignorant European.Could you please state in a coherent manner your explanation of the events that took place on 9/11?

Sorry, that wouldn't be an efficient use of my time.
 
Just suppose for a moment that flight 93 had nosedived into the roof of WTC7. How would the cameras have been fixed for that assuming that it would also have been a giant fireball ?

Bill. I am still waiting for you to address how PSA 1771 crashed with no apparent wreckage in a small hole in the ground.

was it planted too?
 
Damn! That's profound! I mean who'd think that television cameras in the television capital of the States would be pointed on the general direction of an airplane crash? I mean that's just....just......just......just......obvious! :boggled:

Who would think the six big networks in the television capital of the States would cover an inferno at the WTC with their cameras arranged in a semi circle? Did they imagine it was a theatre performance? Oops, there may be some truth in that.


Because we all know that the major networks decommissioned their Hudson River WTC-24/7 cameras a week before 9/11. That would really come back to haunt them with the happy news story that was US Airways flight 1549.

They had three choppers between them and crews on the ground. These networks gather news all over the globe and they missed the biggest event in TV news history which happened 20 blocks down the road. At the time of the second plane crash, ABC's chopper was zooming in from the north west while the cameras at the studio were filming from the north. When the chopper was on the south side, 90 seconds before the plane appeared, why didn't the producer say to the crew: "Hey guys, stay over that side. None of the other networks are covering that angle. We have an exclusive here"? If he did, the crew might have answered: "Sorry boss, we have to get back to the other side so we can satisfy the nine necessary conditions for live video compositing."


One piece of debris. Two pieces of skin still connected by a section of former.

The red outline shows this debris in it's original location.

You can see the lower right hand corner of the 2 in this photo, right where it's suppose to be.

I saw these images on ATS and that's what got me wondering. The piece of fuselage is from near the back of the plane, behind the fuel tanks, yet it was thrown forward and across the plaza in the explosion. Now, if they were going to plant wreckage on the roof of WTC 5, why would they choose a piece from near the back of the plane? Well, conveniently, it had the registration number on it.


Just suppose for a moment that flight 93 had nosedived into the roof of WTC7. How would the cameras have been fixed for that assuming that it would also have been a giant fireball ?

I think the speculation that flight 93 was destined for WTC 7 is disinfo, designed to reinforce the belief that planes actually crashed that day. Don't forget the building was wired to be demolished from the bottom.


Because everyone with a firing neuron just KNOWS that ABC is controlled by Al Quaeda, right? I heard they have put options on CBS, General Electric (owner of NBC) and CNN too. So Osama Bin Laden controlled camera placement in NYC.

You believe in Al Qaeda?
 
bardamu said:
Bardamu,please help an ignorant European.Could you please state in a coherent manner your explanation of the events that took place on 9/11?

Sorry, that wouldn't be an efficient use of my time.

That's the classic problem with the entire truth movement. You just can't be bothered to try to formulate a coherent hypothesis. You claim to be looking for the truth, yet somehow you have better things to do than to try and get any actual results. It's cowardly and unscientific, and it's also what makes it clearest to anyone with any critical thinking ability that your conjectures have nothing behind them. If you honestly believed that there was a genuine conspiracy, you'd be happy to suggest hypotheses, look at the criticisms of them, and use the results to formulate more robust hypotheses. The fact that you don't even think it's worth your time to try to do so, just makes it painfully obvious how intellectually bankrupt your entire movement is.

Dave
 
How many people are "in on it" according to the insane morons known as the no planers? It seems as though it's pretty much everybody except for them.
 
That's the classic problem with the entire truth movement. You just can't be bothered to try to formulate a coherent hypothesis. You claim to be looking for the truth, yet somehow you have better things to do than to try and get any actual results. It's cowardly and unscientific, and it's also what makes it clearest to anyone with any critical thinking ability that your conjectures have nothing behind them. If you honestly believed that there was a genuine conspiracy, you'd be happy to suggest hypotheses, look at the criticisms of them, and use the results to formulate more robust hypotheses. The fact that you don't even think it's worth your time to try to do so, just makes it painfully obvious how intellectually bankrupt your entire movement is.

Dave

I second that,bardamu has no explanation.A coherent resume of the events that day from bill smith would be welcolme too,but i won't be holding my breath.
 
Who would think the six big networks in the television capital of the States would cover an inferno at the WTC with their cameras arranged in a semi circle? Did they imagine it was a theatre performance? Oops, there may be some truth in that.




They had three choppers between them and crews on the ground. These networks gather news all over the globe and they missed the biggest event in TV news history which happened 20 blocks down the road. At the time of the second plane crash, ABC's chopper was zooming in from the north west while the cameras at the studio were filming from the north. When the chopper was on the south side, 90 seconds before the plane appeared, why didn't the producer say to the crew: "Hey guys, stay over that side. None of the other networks are covering that angle. We have an exclusive here"? If he did, the crew might have answered: "Sorry boss, we have to get back to the other side so we can satisfy the nine necessary conditions for live video compositing."




I saw these images on ATS and that's what got me wondering. The piece of fuselage is from near the back of the plane, behind the fuel tanks, yet it was thrown forward and across the plaza in the explosion. Now, if they were going to plant wreckage on the roof of WTC 5, why would they choose a piece from near the back of the plane? Well, conveniently, it had the registration number on it.




I think the speculation that flight 93 was destined for WTC 7 is disinfo, designed to reinforce the belief that planes actually crashed that day. Don't forget the building was wired to be demolished from the bottom.








You believe in Al Qaeda?

The fact does remain that three buildings were wired for demoliton yet only two were hit by planes. They cannot have planned to demolish WTC7 in the way that they finally did. It looks just ike a forced error as does the flight 93 fiasco. Maybe connected forced errors. 93 was held up on the runway and had it's takeoff delayed for an hour by a fire.

Just as a matter of interest, have a look at the attached layout. Would the cameras have been well positioned to take in a giant fireball from WTC7 at around the same time as the strike on WTC2 ?

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/flash.htm
 
Last edited:
I second that,bardamu has no explanation.A coherent resume of the events that day from bill smith would be welcolme too,but i won't be holding my breath.

Oh, Bill is good at making stuff up to fill gaps, but little of it if any is coherent or rational.
 
You believe in Al Qaeda?

Yes. here's a small bit evidence as to why;

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09

http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography
Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg
9/11 Comission Report Ch. 6.3
The Commission - The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation by Shenon, Philip
Messages to the world; The statements of Osama bin Laden translated by Bruce Lawrence
Congressional Report for Congress; Al Qaede: Statements and Evolving Ideology
The Power of Nightmares VIDEO (3 parts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 by Bamford
PBS Nova Spy Factory
Ghost Wars by Cole
The Looming Tower - Wright
The bin Ladens by Cole
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Ladem
[14] KSM's indictment document


[1] -------------------------------------
NEWS: Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/13/news/mn-53626
Bin Laden Is Said to Be at Center of Loose Web
By John-Thor Dahlburg
January 13, 2000 in print edition A-1
...
U.S. and European authorities say that at the center of
this web, which has been loosely spun from the Philippines
to North America, is Saudi militant Osama bin Laden. A
former Afghan moujahedeen, or holy warrior, the 43-year-old
Bin Laden is on the FBI's 10-most-wanted list for allegedly
sponsoring the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania that killed 224 people.
In a development indicative of Bin Laden's esteem among his
brothers in arms, after the United States succeeded in obtaining a

U.N. Security Council resolution in October demanding
bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan, GIA leader Antar Zouabri
issued a letter that condemned the West for persecuting
Islamic militants and that vowed reprisals.

French officials said Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian national arrested
Dec. 14 in Washington state on suspicion of plotting a bombing in
the United States, received his military training at one of Bin Laden's
camps in eastern Afghanistan.

According to the French, the 33-year-old North African belonged to
the "Roubaix gang," a band of armed robbers of Algerian, Bosnian and
French origin who trained in Islamic camps in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
carried out a series of holdups in Belgium and northern France in
early 1996.

Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, one of France's top anti-terrorism
investigators, says a flexible, diffuse and worldwide structure
makes Muslim extremism a growing problem that demands more
intense cross-border cooperation.
In the space of one month, the French judge's investigations took
him as far afield as Canada and Australia.

"The Islamic extremist threat is the Internet of terrorism," Bruguiere said.
[2] ---------------------------------------------------------------
June, 2001: ObL Tells London reporter "attacks are coming.
June 21st, 2001: Bakr Atyani, a reporter for Saudi
Arabian owned broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting
Corp. meets with Osama bin Laden and his aides
in a desert area of Afghanistan. According
to Atyani, "Bin Laden seemed happy with the talks
of his aides who said that the coming weeks will
hold important surprises that will target American
and Israeli interests in the world."

June 22nd, 2001: The US State Department
issued a "Worldwide Caution" regarding the risk of a
terrorist attack by extremist groups. It specifically
mentioned groups with links to Bin Laden and his
Al Queda organization as possible sources for the threat.

June 22nd, 2001: US military forces throughout the
Persian Gulf were put on a heightened state of alert.

June 22nd, 2001: A U.S. Marine Corps
contingent in Jordan cut short its training session and
returned to its ships.
June 22nd, 2001:
U.S. 5th Fleet sent its ships out of port in Bahrain.
June 23rd, 2001: Middle East Broadcasting Corp reported
that followers of Bin Laden were planning an attack
on American and Israeli interests within the next few
weeks. Bakr Atyani's interview with Bin Laden is a
featured report.
June 24th: Taliban officials responde
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7743
Described in Bamford [9] Starting on p.16

[3] ---------------------------------------------------------------
"al Queda" was first mentioned in the NY Times on
August 28, 1998 and an estimated 89 times prior to
9/11/2001. A computer at any library can be used
to find all the stories by searching the NYT archives.

[4] -------- bin Laden quotes-----------------------------------
http://iraqwar.org/binladenquotes.htm
[5] ---------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Research Service
Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
Updated July 9, 2007
Christopher M. Blanchard, Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32759.pdf
...The third and "ultimate objective," according to
Al Adl, (*) "was to prompt [the United States] to come
out of its hole." Al Adl claims that Al Qaeda wanted
to provoke the United States into attacking areas
of the Islamic world associated with the
organization and its affiliates. In doing so, Al Adl
claims, Al Qaeda hoped to make it easier to attack
elements of U.S. power and to build its "credibility
in front of [the Islamic] nation and the
beleaguered people of the world." Al Adl and others have conceded that the attacks
on New York and Washington were not totally
successful, while arguing that the September 11
attack "was enough to prompt the Americans to carry
out the anticipated response" - namely direct military action
within the Islamic world. ...In December 2004, Bin Laden identified the conflict
in Iraq as "a golden and unique opportunity" for
jihadists to engage and defeat the United States,
and he characterized the insurgency in Iraq as the
central battle in a "Third World War, which the
Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic
nation." 24 (*) Al-Qa'ida Leader Sayf al-Adl OSC Report -
GMP2005060637100, May 21, 2005
[6] ----------------------------------------------------
1966: bin Laden declares war on America http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm
[7] -----------------------------
ObL Early attacks and aid for attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Militant_activity
[8] ----------------------------------------
Specific attack warnings
http://www.historycommons.org/timel...te_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.
Apr 2001, MASSOUD Tells us bin Laden and AQ will attach us "Through Northern Alliance intelligence efforts,
the late commander Massoud gained limited knowledge
regarding the intentions of the Saudi millionaire,
Usama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, al-Qaida,
to perform a terrorist act against the U.S.,
on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/06/massoud.cable/index.html

[9] ------------ Bibliography --------------

Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg Lots of good ObL quotes
9/11 Comission Report Ch. 6.3
The Commission - The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation by Shenon, Philip
Messages to the world; The statements of Osama bin Laden translated by Bruce Lawrence
Congressional Report for Congress; Al Qaede: Statements and Evolving Ideology
The Power of Nightmares VIDEO (3 parts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 by Bamford
PBS Nova Spy Factory
Ghost Wars by Cole
The Looming Tower - Wright
The bin Ladens by Cole
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.
[10] ------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Fatwa calling for war abainst the US
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022298fatwaexpands&scale=0#a022298fatwaexpands
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

[11] --------------------------------
Complete 9/11 timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
[12] ---------------------------------------
Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
November 6, 2001 the Bush administration handed
such prosecutions over to the DoD and said this
circumvented the 5th ammedment requirement for
indictments
www.usdoj.gov/olc/2001/pub-millcommfinal.pdf
www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1113-07.htm
[13] -----------------------------------------------
http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/bin_ladin.html
Usama Bin Ladin is wanted in connection with the
11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon and for the 7 August 1998 bombings
of the US Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and
Nairobi, Kenya. The embassy bombings killed 224 civilians and
wounded more than 5,000 others. Usama Bin Ladin and
other terrorists—specifically Ayman al-Zawahiri, Fazul Abdullah
Mohammed, Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam, Sheikh Ahmed Salim
Swedan, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Saif al-Adel, Anas al-Liby,
Ahmed Mohamed Hamed Ali, and others already in custody—
are members of al-Qa‘ida, the international terrorist network
headed by Bin Ladin.


[14] KSM's indictment evidence

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080509Mohammed.pdf
 

Back
Top Bottom