It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RARE VIDEO - Proof TV Blacked Out During Flight 175 Crash.

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

But this video was shot from inside a nearby building wasn't it (IE through the window)? There were many live cameras and it seems only one was affected.

You'd have to be on your best behaviour with all these covert agents watching your every move day & night




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


First, I would never take amateur videos at face value. Not in this day and age of computers. Film is easy to splice and edit without anyone being the wiser. If someone is an expert film editor.

If one networked station is doing the only filming of particular locations at the same site, and if other networks want particular that film feed they do not have, it is up to the one filming a particular location on site, to feed it back to their base station, and the base station feed it out to all networks. Other networks have to pay for the rights to use it. I have no idea what more can be explained on this.

Of course, each network can have people on site filming the same or different locations, but only one has been reported to be filming from the sky - FOX. If the rest of the networks wanted sky feed, they had to get it from the cam in sky - FOX - and pay FOX for the right to use that footage.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
This video must be from a pirate TV station then - it was shot from the ground or a building window using a handheld camera with a zoom lens.

I assume by skycam you mean a helicopter news crew which this is not.

It probably doesn't matter - it's the Australia Day public holiday, weather is perfect, there's charcoal grilled burgers cooking outside and cold drinks in the fridge. Not a covert agent in sight in these parts



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
This video must be from a pirate TV station then.......


Doesn't pirate mean something stolen from someone else? How would that necessarily make something a pirated footage of film, if some amateur took it and even possibly altered it through a computer?

Please stay on the topic of high possibility of hoax film fed to the general public instead of live feed. If anyone would have cooperated at the top executive level, it would be FOX network. They made that self-evident with the yellow journalism, particularly since the Bush administration has been in power. Nothing would be done by unsuspecting workers doing their normal routine ordinary jobs.

If you do not think covert CIA agents are planted in regular jobs, then I highly recommend you study more instensely on validated documentation, concerning the CIA and covert agents. How do some people think they live undetected in the same neighborhoods, with the rest of us ordinary people doing various jobs in various industries? Or do some people think they have a special enclave they live separated from the rest of us ordinary people?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
Actually the term 'pirate' in the broadcasting business implies illegal in terms of not having a license or permit to broadcast on the frequency band being used.

Are you now claiming that this video is not what it's purported to be?
IE a recording of the event as broadcast live to air in real time on 9/11 showing evidence of some audio interference as noticed by some viewers.

If this is, as I believe, in fact a live recording of actual TV transmission at the time claimed do you think the CIA Covert Coverup Video Production Lab had it prepared in advance for transmission at the time of impact on WTC2?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by OrionStars
Actually the term 'pirate' in the broadcasting business implies illegal in terms of not having a license or permit to broadcast on the frequency band being used.


Stolen copyright and theft of someone else's intellectual property is what it actually means.

What I am saying is, I am not buying anything at face value because someone claims to hold copyright on intellectual property. I am not buying at face value any unproved claim of authenticity. It has to be proved to me. If others do not require proof, that is entirely up to them.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What I am saying is, I am not buying anything at face value because someone claims to hold copyright on intellectual property. I am not buying at face value any unproved claim of authenticity. It has to be proved to me. If others do not require proof, that is entirely up to them.

So you're not buying the claim that this video is evidence of a 'blackout' to cover up anything due to lack of any proof of such or, indeed, proof of authenticity.

I agree and that was exactly my original impression of it. Although, I feel it is most likely a genuine recording but I see no sign of any attempt to defraud the viewing public.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

So you're not buying the claim that this video is evidence of a 'blackout' to cover up anything due to lack of any proof of such or, indeed, proof of authenticity.


Since I never made or implied that claim, there is nothing to consider concerning buying or not buying what I never stated or implied.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I had to go back and look at some of the video and look at some maps of the flight path of flight 175.
What I remember seeing "live" on the morning of 9-11-01 did not match what I see, now, on the internet.
It apparently flew across the bay, then made a turn, to the left, to be able to hit the center of the south facing side of the building.
It was also apparently in a dive, just before it hit.

What I saw "live" was a plane flying perfetly level, and coming from the south west.
The plane was following the water, up from the outer bay, up to the inner bay. It had to take a right turn to hit the building.
My conclusion is that what I saw as "live" tv, was completety fake, and was recorded to show what would have seemed to be the easiest way that someone would have gone, if they were trying to hit the south tower.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Do you know of any unmarked PD helicopter being used by the City of New York? If so, would you sustantiate that? It is rather impossible for anyone to use an undercover helicopter. I see no markings on that helicopter to state to whom or what that helicopter shape belongs.

Besides, if you do not agree it is a helicopter, that is your perogative. No other discussion need be done on it. It was only my observation and comment on same, and nothing more need be written about it. Unless someone else has something to write about it.

A flashback to the past but in this pic you'll see the 'helicopters' on the roof are actually most likely winches for window washers or something like that. They certainly don't look capable of flight





posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum




That is not the same photo originally discussed by me. Highly suspicious all that grey and white smoke, plus, orange flame and no carbon black smoke to be seen as in other videos and photos across the Internet. From whom and where did the above photo originate? It is quite different than others across the Internet.

The following is a photo of the twin towers as they once looked. Exactly where in these photos are those two forefront corner objects appearing in your photo?

en.wikipedia.org...:Wtc_arial_march2001.jpg



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
My foremost question, concerning the "official" reports, is this. Why weren't peers, from all professions, including artistic and entertainment professions, allowed to examine the film or any other physical evidence involved in 9/11? There was no valid criminal investigation which should have taken place. Rationalizing, in order to personally accept the "official" reports, is not justifiable nor defensible IMHO.

The professional people, of reference at the following link, have never been allowed to investigate anything, in the way of evaluating the same physical evidence the Bush administration insists was truth, without proving any truth. Truth only comes with peer validation. The following people were by far not the only peers not allowed access, to the same physical evidence the Bush administration touts was located but never proved.

www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
That pic is about 4 seconds after AA11 hit WTC1. It clearly shows the automatic window washer winches on each building and they ran on a rail around the perimeter of the rooftop so they're probably parked on the far corner in the pic you linked. Checked some stats on those washers and they were claimed to be able to wash and dry 7 floors of windows per minute. The washer apparatus ran in those stainless steel tracks in the centre of the anodised aluminium column covers.



[edit on 7/2/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by OrionStars

That pic is about 4 seconds after AA11 hit WTC1. It clearly shows the automatic window washer winches on each building and they ran on a rail around the perimeter of the rooftop so they're probably parked on the far corner in the pic you linked. Checked some stats on those washers and they were claimed to be able to wash and dry 7 floors of windows per minute. The washer apparatus ran in those stainless steel tracks in the centre of the anodised aluminium column covers.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Pilgrum]


And you have authentication of "4 seconds after AA11 hit WTC1"?

As I stated before, it was not the same photo to which I referred. Nothing was sitting on the corners of any roof ledges. Isn't it odd both those objects are in exactly the same location on both roof ledges?

The object I saw, in the other photo, was separate from the building and very distinctly an unmarked helicopter shape. It did not look like those objects.

The following has a clear shot photo of the roofs of both twin towers. There is no such object on WTC 1 in that photo. WTC 2 had a heliport:

www.nycop.com...

The above website has an excellent photo of the inside of WTC 1 when it was bombed 1993. No structural damage was done at that time from that bombing at the base.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join