911 conspiracies

[SteveGrenard]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/new-footage/index.htm

 

[Rolfe]

And your point is?

I gather the Nova thing is the same as the Horizon broadcast (the transcript I linked to above, and on which I base my opinions of the causes of the collapse). I assumed it was a BBC production, or it may have been a joint effort.

Anyway, what was the point of that link?

Rolfe.

 

[Euromutt]

Rolfe, Nova and Horizon are the same program(me), yes. It's jointly produced by the BBC and WGBS, a PBS affiliate in Boston.

 

[SteveGrenard]

And your point is?

I gather the Nova thing is the same as the Horizon broadcast (the transcript I linked to above, and on which I base my opinions of the causes of the collapse). I assumed it was a BBC production, or it may have been a joint effort.

Anyway, what was the point of that link?

Rolfe.

Wasn't sure. A BBC production? Well the video in the link at least was taken from the Brooklyn side of the East River. I doubt the BBC were over there just videotaping the towers when this happened. Maybe they acquired this video for something they did. I didn't see the NOVA show, and of course never saw Horizon or BBC coverage.

Given the fact they are the same entity it doesn't make any difference ....

 

[Rolfe]

No, I just wondered what point you were making by posting that link. I recognised the footage from the Horizon programme, and of course it says that in the accompanying text. Other than that, it doesn't say much that seems to me to be to any point.

That programme, and others, draws on footage of the collapse taken by many observers. I don't know who took that particular film. I just want to know what point you wanted to make.

Rolfe.

 

[JPK]

I have my own 9/11 theory. There's this guy, see? And he leads a cult and manages to get tons of followers. He convinces them that America (more specifically the U.S.) is evil and is the source of all evil in the world so he talks his followers into doing bad things to anything U.S. related.
snip.....

Yeah, but when did the Globolists plant the bombs in the WCT buildings that really brought them down? Until you state that your theory doesn't hold water.
JPK

 

[SteveGrenard]

No, I just wondered what point you were making by posting that link. I recognised the footage from the Horizon programme, and of course it says that in the accompanying text. Other than that, it doesn't say much that seems to me to be to any point.

That programme, and others, draws on footage of the collapse taken by many observers. I don't know who took that particular film. I just want to know what point you wanted to make.

Rolfe.

I was wondering what folks here, having studied this subject extensively, thought about the accompanying text/questions/???

 

[Stellafane]

My answer to one question

"How could the FBI and NBC News not have known that this footage already appeared in a documentary from PBS?"

Easy -- they don't watch PBS, and don't know anyone who does. And let's not be too hard on NBC News. After all, how could they possibly know anything about what a real broadcaster of reliable, intelligent, researched, and balanced information does?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I was wondering what folks here, having studied this subject extensively, thought about the accompanying text/questions/???

From the link...

As reader NT pointed out, this leads to a very different disturbing question: How could the FBI and NBC News not have known that this footage already appeared in a documentary from PBS? Considering that they have virtually unlimited resources and that it's their job to know these things, how did both of them come to the conclusion that this is previously unseen footage? [15 Dec 2003]

Having virtually unlimited resources does not mean that you know everything.

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't see any particular point in the accompanying text to have any opinion about, so unless Steve will enlighten me further, I think we'll have to move on.

Rolfe.

 

[dissonance]

I don't understand what's supposed to be so interesting about that footage. The title of the page is "9/11 survivor describes multiple explosions", but nothing on the page seems relevant or particularly interesting.

 

[Scottie99]

The eyewitness accounts are the most infuriating.

Being in DC a few blocks from the Whitehouse on 9/11 the chaos of what was being reported/heard/saw/etc was insane. I can only imagine it to be 10 fold in NYC.

As we were huddled around the radio trying to get a handle of what was happening reports of the national mall being on fire, car bombs exploding in front of embassies, planes being spotted flying a direct path down 95 straight towards dc (yes reports were on the bridges trying to spot these phantom planes).

Did any of these things reported by eyewitness actual happen? No it was in the panic when some smelled smoke the reported the close landmark on fire. When the heard a popping sound it was obviously an explosion, when they caught something out of the corner of their eye it was a plane heading to the white house....

 

[Rolfe]

The events of 22nd July in London last year presented a perfect example of the unreliability of the "eyewitness account". A man who had been very close indeed to Jean Charles de Menezes whan he was shot was interviewed on TV soon afterwards. He described plain clothes policemen chasing the victim down, with the victim "looking like hunted fox", tripping as he entered the tube carriage and going down with policemen on top of him.

Later sifting of all the evidence revealed that while Jean Charles had run the last few yards into the train (which was already in the station with its doors open), he then calmly sat down and started to read his newspaper, before he was jumped by the cops and shot.

The eyewitness was reportedly embarrassed, and declined to give a further interview.

That's a particularly bad one, but it does illustrate the point.

This was the link Steve posted, when he asked what people thought of the questions posed in it. Although the title bar reads "Survivor describes multiple explosions", that isn't what the text is about - it's about a rather cool section of film of the second plane hitting the south tower, which looks as if it's taken from the title sequence to Cagney and Lacey. I couldn't see any pertinent or interesting questions, but having re-read it I can only surmise that the author is trying to imply that the footage was taken by someone who knew that the second plane was going to turn up, and that they had some connection to Al Qaeda.

No, I can't see any such implication. The north tower was a spectacular sight. Many video cameras were trained on it for just that reason at the time the second plane came in. By the very geometry of the city, it was inevitable that some of these were in a very good position to catch very good angles on that happening. And many people with such equipment do know how to use it to produce "well-produced footage". The fact that this guy did a better pan in than Jules Naudet did with his accidental catch of the first plane coming in is hardly surprising.

The footage was shown as part of the Horizon documentary about the collapse of the towers, only six months later. I taped that, and I'm sure lots of other people did too. So its appearance on an Al Qaeda web site in late 2003 doesn't seem to me to be in the slightest degree strange.

What was your point again, Steve?

Rolfe.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The events of 22nd July in London last year presented a perfect example of the unreliability of the "eyewitness account". A man who had been very close indeed to Jean Charles de Menezes whan he was shot was interviewed on TV soon afterwards. He described plain clothes policemen chasing the victim down, with the victim "looking like hunted fox", tripping as he entered the tube carriage and going down with policemen on top of him.

Later sifting of all the evidence revealed that while Jean Charles had run the last few yards into the train (which was already in the station with its doors open), he then calmly sat down and started to read his newspaper, before he was jumped by the cops and shot.

The eyewitness was reportedly embarrassed, and declined to give a further interview.

That's a particularly bad one, but it does illustrate the point.

This was the link Steve posted, when he asked what people thought of the questions posed in it. Although the title bar reads "Survivor describes multiple explosions", that isn't what the text is about - it's about a rather cool section of film of the second plane hitting the south tower, which looks as if it's taken from the title sequence to Cagney and Lacey. I couldn't see any pertinent or interesting questions, but having re-read it I can only surmise that the author is trying to imply that the footage was taken by someone who knew that the second plane was going to turn up, and that they had some connection to Al Qaeda.

No, I can't see any such implication. The north tower was a spectacular sight. Many video cameras were trained on it for just that reason at the time the second plane came in. By the very geometry of the city, it was inevitable that some of these were in a very good position to catch very good angles on that happening. And many people with such equipment do know how to use it to produce "well-produced footage". The fact that this guy did a better pan in than Jules Naudet did with his accidental catch of the first plane coming in is hardly surprising.

The footage was shown as part of the Horizon documentary about the collapse of the towers, only six months later. I taped that, and I'm sure lots of other people did too. So its appearance on an Al Qaeda web site in late 2003 doesn't seem to me to be in the slightest degree strange.

What was your point again, Steve?

Rolfe.

My point again was to ask others what they thought the point of the accompanying questions was to these stills and accompanying video.
Thanks for the responses so far.

 

[Rolfe]

My point again was to ask others what they thought the point of the accompanying questions was to these stills and accompanying video.
Thanks for the responses so far.

You're still making us guess what you mean by "the accompanying question". The text is far from clear. Was I anywhere close to what you meant?

Anyway, the answer (that the film was shot by a bystander and has been in the public domain for a long time) is right there in the text too.

So what was your point? That the existence of the film might indeed imply some nefarious undercover mojo?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

it's about a rather cool section of film of the second plane hitting the south tower, which looks as if it's taken from the title sequence to Cagney and Lacey.

I just shoved a DVD of Cagney and Lacey into my machine, and just look at the very first shot of the titles! It's extraordinarily similar. The angle isn't exactly the same, but then it couldn't have been. This is because in the Cagney and Lacey titles, the tops of the twin towers are hidden behind the bridge. An identical shot would have been pointless, because it would only have shown a load of black smoke coming from somewhere behind the bridge.

I really do wonder of some clever-clogs was actually trying to recreate the well-known footage of the start of a famous cop show, but with the burning north tower, when he got a lot more than he bargained for.

If you have a tape of DVD of a Cagney and Lacey episode (the one I looked at was an early one, and it was right at the start of the titles), have a look for yourself.

(I think I noticed this because I bought that Cagney and Lacey DVD some time after I saw the Horizon documentary containing the footage in question. I just remember looking at the titles and thinking "oh my God!" In fact, I didn't even have a clue what the World Trade Center was before the attacks, and I'd never really registered the towers when I was watching Cagney and Lacey live.)

Rolfe.

 

[Manny]

I really do wonder of some clever-clogs was actually trying to recreate the well-known footage of the start of a famous cop show, but with the burning north tower, when he got a lot more than he bargained for.

Doubtful. That shot is taken from a public park under the Brooklyn Bridge (here's a shot of it). It's a natural place for someone to go if they wanted an unobstructed of the towers from that part of town.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, it's such a neato shot that they used it for the start of C&L, anyway. To a furriner like me, that's what makes it famous.

Maybe it's just obvious, as you say, but the framing, including the angle of the bridge crossing the frame, is well-nigh identical. If it had been me taking it, as a rank amateur, I'd probably have tried for an unobstructed shot of the towers without the bridge "getting in the way" - which I presume wouldn't be hard if you just moved a few yards to the left. I suspect that only a relatively skilled photographer would easily recognise what the inclusion of the bridge does for the shot - unless they were already familiar with it as an iconic image.

Rolfe.

PS. I just put the DVD in my computer's drive (rather than the player) and I've paused it as close as I can to the matching shot with the 11th September video so that both pictures are on-screen side by side. It's creeping me out, by the way. I wish I knew some way to do a screen capture of it and post it. The 11th September photographer is standing very slightly further to the left and the shot is pulled back quite a bit in comparison - as would have been necessary to get the tops of the towers to come into view under the bridge. The aspect ratio makes a little bit of difference too - Cagney and Lacey was shot in 4x3.

Unless it's impossible to move even further to the left at that spot, I'm puzzled as to why someone trying specifically for a good view of the towers would do this, rather than just move left and get a clear shot without the bridge getting in the way. In any case, by doing what they did, they've virtually recreated the opening shot of the Cagney and Lacey title credits, with the burning north tower.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The moon hoaxers are afraid Buzz Aldrin will smack them around if they get too rowdy.

I found a 9/11-Moon Hoaxers connection yesterday. The 9/11 CTists are just as dumb as the moon hoaxers in that they don't know when they've been figuratively punched in the face.

Rolls Royce produces the RB211-535 engines for American Airlines 757-200 aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis.

However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc, Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. “You are the only person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon,” Johnson said. “The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is beyond your wildest dreams,” Johnson said and hung up the phone.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_swirling.html

CTists are mad as rabid dogs. They were barking up the right tree, but they'd lifted their leg on it beforehand.