Why so long before coverage "from the scene"

Okay, I have read darn near everything about 9/11. The official story and all the conspiracies. One thing struck me last night as I was watcihng a video of the raw footage from that day. The "as it happened" footage. You know when there is a wreck on the highway, there are news crews there to capture it within minutes. When there is a fire there are news crews there......."live from the scene". Why on September 11th didn't we have any ground level from the scene footage until well after the first building collapsed. I mean, in the weeks and years to come we have seen amatuer footage from the scene at ground level. But nothing from the major news stations. Why is that.

Here's my take on it, since I believe that it was in fact a controlled demolision they didn't want any news footage being broadcast live when the bombs were going off. Later in the day I have heard some reporters reporting from the scene stating that fire fighters heard the bombs, but in the very beginning of the day, right after the first plane hit, all the way up until the first building collapsed there were NO ground crews reporting live.

Maybe they were concerned for their reporters safety, but in the first 20 minutes nobody KNEW it was a terrorist attack and that those buildings were giong to come down. I just find it hard to believe that it would take so long for news crews to set up for such a serious story.

Just struck me as odd. What do you all think?

[edit on 1-8-2007 by Cowgirlstraitup7]

nevermind.... you wanted video....

sorry

[edit on 1-8-2007 by elevatedone]

I watched LIVE on NBC as the second plane hit the South Tower.

It was at that point I turned to my partner and said-- "This is an attack, not an accident!"

How could I have done that had their not been news crews there?

We all had seen how the first plane had hit WTC 1 .. but we all thought it was just an accident (the President included).. It wasn't until the second plane hit that we knew....It_was_no_accident.

I said GROUND crews, all the coverage from the major stations were only doing STUDIO coverage with views from helicopters. No ground crews "on the scene". Please don't get sarcastic with me until you read my post thoroughly. Thank you in advance.

Ps. you can youtube all the "as it happened" coverage unedited and without commercial interruption and see that there were no GROUND CREWS until much later.

For such a major breaking story it just seemed odd to me.

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7


I have never seen proof this was a demoition. By the way I did try to answer your questions on the other thread. I mysteriously could not log on and then when I could the thread was closed. Hmmm.

Thanks cowgirl for pointing this aspect out. Had not heard or thought about this phenomenon.(spell?) Will do some checking.

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
Okay, I have read darn near everything about 9/11. The official story and all the conspiracies.

IF this were true you wouldn't have said this

Here's my take on it, since I believe that it was in fact a controlled demolision they didn't want any news footage being broadcast live when the bombs were going off.

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7Later in the day I have heard some reporters reporting from the scene stating that fire fighters heard the bombs,

No you didn't, there were not any reports of "bombs" The term explosions were used. The FBI reported possible Van bombs....or secondary device. These are called fogs of war. Hey...i could be wrong...can you direct me to the video where firefighters are saying "bombs?"

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7Maybe they were concerned for their reporters safety,

Yes!!

The question is also why did the FBI only spend 5 days on the crime scene at the Pentagon after stating it would take 30 days ?

Also they did not officially take over the scene for 10 days.

Wouldn''t a crash site at the Pentagon be under military jurisdiction before the FBI?

Did someone say there was no ground coverage until way after the collapse?

ABC News was there.

Reporter N.J. Burkett: "as close as we can get......a huge explosion...better get out of the way"

YouTube..

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Ingolstadt]

not sure why you think its odd there were no ground crews in the first 20 minutes, in the first 20 minutes all the action was 80 floors up.

www.archive.org...

you can watch all the national broadcasts there for starters.

The other reason for no ground crews was probably due to the severity of the emergency. The Fire Dept and the WTC had evacuation plans in place since the initial bombing of the WTC. Having 200 news crews there would have created a problem getting people out of the towers. They were probably told not to station themselves at the base of the towers so as to ease the evacuation.

PBS had a documentary with the people who shot the footage of the first plane striking then following the Fire team they were filming into the WTC. As far as I know, that is the only footage of the inside lobby. It's scary as you hear thuds hitting the roof of the atrium, which are people jumping from the top floors . You can see the look in the fireman's eyes as they look at eachother when the thuds hit, and it's one of worry and fear. But they still went about doing their job.

what blows my mind is all the interviews the news won't replay. I saw 2 from news producers that were saying the official line "Fire melted the steel" minutes after the collapse.



Someone in the know tipped them off with the official story to diseminate. This makes me think some of the top news people might have been in the know and kept reporters away from filming the towers blown up.



[edit on 21-9-2007 by Redge777]

Well the first coverage I saw that day was from the ground, just after the first tower had been hit. The reason not all stations were covering it from th ground was because the traffic came to a standstill and emergency services would have had priority on all routes.

Plus, with all the high rise buildings and the severity of the gridlock, I imagine it was difficult to get a good shot from the ground.

Plus Plus, If theyve got choppers, it would make more sense to use them no?

Originally posted by psyexplorer
Wouldn''t a crash site at the Pentagon be under military jurisdiction before the FBI?

By law whenever an aircraft crash is considered a crime the FBI becomes the main invatigating agency with technical help from the NTSB.

www.defenselink.mil...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2001 -- The FBI assumed crime-scene jurisdiction at the Pentagon terrorist attack site Sept. 21 from the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department, officials said.

FBI officials estimate the crime scene investigation would last about a month, Arlington Fire Chief Edward P. Plaugher said. He said he expects "additional remains will be discovered during the course of the FBI investigation" and mortuary specialists will remain on site to process them.



WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2001 -- The FBI handed over Pentagon crash site management to the Army Military District of Washington at 7 a.m. today.

The transfer of responsibility marks the end of the FBI's crime scene investigation following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the Pentagon. MDW will oversee ongoing security operations around the damaged area of the building. FBI investigators will move their operations to the Pentagon's north parking lot and continue to sift through debris for more evidence.

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
I said GROUND crews, all the coverage from the major stations were only doing STUDIO coverage with views from helicopters. No ground crews "on the scene". Please don't get sarcastic with me until you read my post thoroughly. Thank you in advance.

As someone has said, for the first 20 minutes all the action was 80 floors vertically upwards, in the forest of skyscrapers that is Manhattan. A helicopters the best way to see it. And it would be hard to get to a good vantage point on the ground anyway, particularly in rush hour traffic.

Originally posted by apex
As someone has said, for the first 20 minutes all the action was 80 floors vertically upwards, in the forest of skyscrapers that is Manhattan. A helicopters the best way to see it. And it would be hard to get to a good vantage point on the ground anyway, particularly in rush hour traffic.

Why did it take so long to see any coverage of the Pentagon, and then it at a distance ?

We saw very little coverage of the flight 93 crash and debris sites.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

There was alot action at street level, you know the heros showing up to do their job. This would have been a great story to cover in my book.

Also how about eyewitness accounts, wouldn't those be something newshounds would be pushing each other out of the way to get?

says it all ^. Ground Zero itself was totally out of bounds for investigation, only a select few of handpicked investigators were allowed into the site to take pictures and such, most of which i believe are withheld (particularly pictures of the molten flow).

Why is it people think they should be allowed to take pictures of anything they want? The signs were meant to keep regular folks out.