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.

 

Why was there only ONE live "news" helicopter shot of the SECOND WTC explosion?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Most people in America live in a large metropolitan area and many of those who don't still get their "local news" from broadcasters in one. The "eye in the sky" is a ubiquitous feature in any American newscast, even in smaller media markets. The "News" business is extremely competitive and getting to the scene of breaking news to have the "scoop" is of vital importance in the battle for ratings and of course the #1 determining factor of the salaries of those involved.

No Shot = No Paycheck

These newshounds' lucrative salaries depend on getting the best gory footage of tragedy and of course constantly monitor emergency radio frequencies ready to pounce on any "newsworthy" occurrance. Many times their extremely expensive helicopters with equally expensive state of the art gyro stabilized pod mounted cameras on their bellies are kept aloft during the workday/commute period, and because of this, quite often reach the scene of an emergency call before the rescue workers do.

Every fender bender, house fire or cat stuck in a tree is converged upon by a swarm of these misery vampires to the point that they often collide with eachother while vying for the big gory "money shot". Because of this danger and as a professional courtesy to their collegues, and also of course because of the needs of the actual emergency responders, a protocol is observed wherein the different choppers will hover close to the scene getting closeups and then withdraw to a safer distance allowing others to get their shot and the emergency crews to gain safe access to the scene. While at the farther distance, the crews dont sit idly by and do nothing, they continue to roll the videocameras, zooming out and panning to get wide angle shots of the scene.

The New York City Metropolitan area is the biggest and most competitive media market in America and thus the most lucrative, with some of its local channels provided to viewers all along the east coast and even across the country and globe. The epicenter of this melee of competing newsmen is Manhattan.

On the cool clear morning of September 11, 2001 at 8:46 A.M. the emercency channels crackled with the first calls of an explosion and fire in the biggest tallest buildings in Manhattan, perhaps because of an aircraft collision. This is clearly the biggest story happening that day, probably the biggest story any of these newsmen would ever get the chance to cover in their careers.

Every news helicopter in the city and from the many surrounding ones were instantly converging on the site of this immense tragedy immediately with cameras rolling as they approached the scene of the biggest scoop of their otherwise boring careers filming traffic jams and drug busts.

16 minutes later at 9:02 A.M. while this swarm of bloodthirsty locusts hovered around Manhattan trying to get the best shot of smoke billowing from the gash in the North WTC tower # 1, another explosion erupted from the other WTC tower, the South tower # 2.

By this time there were dozens of news and police helicopters on the scene, with many more heading towards the scene full throttle , their cameras recording the scene as they drew nearer.

With all of this modern high tech equipment and every newsman within a hundred miles worth his salt trying to get a scoop on the biggest news story of their generation, exactly ONE shot of the second explosion was recorded and broadcast "live" from a helicopter. How is this possible?




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
From my perspective, that begs this question.

Why was it no camera actually captured any alleged 767 impact? I have seen no video or photo capturing that on either tower. The cheapest to the most expensive cameras can be capble of seeing visual, on anything, we do not consciously remember seeing, depending on the shutter speed. Our biological shutters are eyelids.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
it is a damn good thing my video camera got stolen a couple months b4 the whole thing happened. i had a kodak point and shoot and it's terrible but i did get all kinds of still photos. that video camera had an incredible zoom on it too. no joke zoom. 400x or something. anyway i was perfectly safe across the water in Jersey city at the time but whoa what a view we had. unobstructed view pretty much. real close. you could hear the buildings fall. it was beyond a shadow of a doubt the best view you could have and be completely safe. man, if i only had my video camera



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
From my perspective, that begs this question.

Why was it no camera actually captured any alleged 767 impact? I have seen no video or photo capturing that on either tower. The cheapest to the most expensive cameras can be capble of seeing visual, on anything, we do not consciously remember seeing, depending on the shutter speed. Our biological shutters are eyelids.


There were alleged videos of 767 impacts taken- 5 of them shown on "live" television. They were of course really bad fakes.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by ItsHumanNature]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


On that, we can certainly concur. That was a very bad splice job. I have seen some bad ones in my days. That was one of the worst. Of course, I could see subliminals, and never understood how others did not. Which tells me my visual receptors must work differently than others.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
actually, that is a good point! after the first impact, would there not be news and emergency helicopters buzzing around the it? would they not have been in a better position to see an incoming airliner and film it? pilots have to keep an eye on what is flying around them. and why didn't laguardia air traffic pick up and track an unresponsive plane heading in and reporting it to any one flying around at the time? damn good post!



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
did ya ever think that at first it was thought of as an accident and not a terrorist attack?

This thread appears to be another big waste of space in the growing absurdity that is the 9/11 thread on this site.....

Even after explantions are given and proof provided regarding the video cameras, some of you still insist that it was all CGI (and crappy
CGI at that)....yet for the hundreds-of-millions, if not billions of dollars required to pull off such a feat, the government was unable to add Speilgberg like effects........




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
Quite right


Until UA175 hit the second tower the first tower impact looked like a tragic accident and was treated as such in terms of emergency response.

There were plenty of cameras aimed at the buildings from all angles when the second plane struck. Which network had the camera footage of the second strike that was used as a basis for the Purdue animation study?

It was the video shown in this part of the world and I saw the plane enter the building (I didn't blink).



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Please note the use of the words "mathematical model". Which means the professor made up his own numbers when he did that simulation. No qualified scientist does that, unless he or she lacks the pertinent information necessary for accuracy and truth.

It is just a hypothesis and nothing more. I certainly would not depend on it for any of my points of argument. However, others are free to do as they wish in that respect:

news.bbc.co.uk...


Lengthy process

Professor Sozen first created a mathematical model of the reinforced concrete columns which supported the Pentagon building.

This was turned into a simulation, representing the plane as thousands of small squares containing specific physical characteristics.


Even the simulated models of the buildings are all wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Then there is the Purdue Institute of Homeland Security. That looks to be a blatant conflict of interest at taxpayers' and citizens' high expense in more than personal economics and finance:

www.nims.go.jp...

www.purdue.edu...

Please note whose website space is sponsoring the second website.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Professionals used proper scientific process and mathematics to achieve duplication of the part of the incident that was documented in order to get an indication of what probably happened out of sight inside the building. I don't see a problem with that approach unless professionals had time to actually inspect the damage inside and in that case, a modelled incident would have been redundant. The video evidence is about all there is for what their study was intended to determine.

If you can't trust a government funded study then who will do these analyses, who's going to pay for it and what evidence other than the video will it be based on?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I recalled one news helicopter had to fly upward to avoid Flight 175 crashing into WTC 2. Was this the one with the footage?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It may be the case they did correct math. However, without actual facts being used, such as velocity speed, atmospheric conditions, etc, on 9/11/2001, what do those figures actually tell us for accuracy and truth? Building simulation is incorrect in Purdue's model. What else is incorrect for mathematical statistics?

It is the same as playing with statistics. People can make up any numbers they please. Or use actual numbers, which please them, and omit the ones they do not, in order to deliberately sway the final results. It is done all the time, particularly in commerical advertisements to consumers.

The methodology may be considered correct to arrive at final numbers. However, when people do not include all pertinent positive and negative actual facts, what can be accurate and true according to actual circumstances and events?

I fail to see any accuracy or truth, when people deliberately guess at the numbers and also design incorrect models for animated simulation purposes. That is deliberately deceived. The people at Purdue having done it know better than to present such unscientific gobblygook aka pseudo-science.

Yet, it is fully understandable, considering the Purdue Institute of Homeland Security was involved in making up that animated simulation.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hector
 


The ONE helicopter shot was FOX, commonly known as the "nose out footage" which shows a perfectly intact "nose" of the "aircraft" exiting the opposite side of the building. I havn't heard of the avoidance of 175 before. Probably because there wasn't anything to avoid....



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Is there a list of “no planers” somewhere on this forum? Is this the prevailing opinion here?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hector
 


You want a LIST of "No Planers" ?!? Hmm... Do you wear a dark suit with a skinny tie with some dark Aviator sunglasses and an earpiece ?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Professionals used proper scientific process and mathematics to achieve duplication of the part of the incident that was documented in order to get an indication of what probably happened out of sight inside the building.


I'm not a no-planer, but I'm also not dismissing the hypothesis either because I think there are a lot of anomalies in the footage that hasn't been explained to my satisfaction.

You can make any hypothesis work if the maths you use makes a lot of wild assumptions that can not be verified, and leave out what doesn't fit the result they were looking for. Basically they started with an answer, plane impacts and fire globally collapsed 3 buildings, and made their results fit that answer. Once you realise this, which is easy to do if you know how to read these hypothesis they're putting out, you'll see their hypothesis fall apart.
I know a lot of de-bunkers don't even understand what it is they're arguing for, even Cpt.Obvious admits he didn't understand all of the NIST report. How can you argue for something you don't understand? Shouldn't you be questioning if you don't understand, not supporting? I don't get it.

So having said that you're right in normal scientific processes everything is tested in the lab, and before it becomes a theory the testing has to be repeatable. So you can put down as much maths as you want, until it is testable and repeatable in the lab it is only a hypothesis and a weak one at that. No one has rested the NIST hypothesis and I can guarantee you it would not be repeatable because it wouldn't work in the first place. You can prove me wrong, or right, by a simple physical test. Build something simular to the towers inner core with anything you want and see if you can get it to globally collapse. You are free to do anything you want to it, make holes in it, set it on fire, add weight to the top. You might learn something that words and proof of physical laws doesn't seem to do.

I'll await your findings...



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hector
Is there a list of “no planers” somewhere on this forum? Is this the prevailing opinion here?


No but there is a lot of "no brainers"...


No it's not the prevailing opinion here, and what if it is? The last time I looked opinions were not illegal, not yet.

I believe there were planes but "no towers". The towers were the holograms, set up in the sixties to fool the world that NY was the financial center of the universe. The terrorists plan was to show the world this illusion by flying planes through them and sticking the finger up at us when they came out the other side yelling 'up yours American capitalist pigs'. But georgie boy got a wind of this and got his dicky boy to replaced the holograms with real towers using his Blackwater demolition team in reverse (yes the gov has 'reverse technology') because their illusion couldn't be found out. The only problem was they didn't have time to weld or bolt anything together before the planes hit and 'raging' fires took hold. That's why they fell with no sign of resistance...
So how's my hypothesis?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


This post and the hypothesis within make exactly as much sense as the Ofiicial Conspiracy Theory that hundreds of millions of people still believe.

The more I learn about what people will accept I think maybe I am in the wrong business. The convincing people of the truth is really hard, convincing them of complete baloney looks easier every day.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   


The ONE helicopter shot was FOX, commonly known as the "nose out footage" which shows a perfectly intact "nose" of the "aircraft" exiting the opposite side of the building. I havn't heard of the avoidance of 175 before. Probably because there wasn't anything to avoid....


Your "nose" was actually one of the planes engines. Flight 175 struck
at oblique angle unlike Flight 11 which hit North Tower dead center . It
struck the south corner of the building, the starboard engine punched all
the way through the building to land several blocks away.




Jet engines are heavy and built of high strength/high temperature metals like titanium which can survive the impact.

For your information one the engines of the B25 which struck Empire
State Building in July 1945 also punched its way through the building to
land on roof on adjacent building. This was from a impact at 1/3 the
speed and 1/10 the weight of a 767.




At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith, Jr., who was flying in a thick fog, accidentally crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and another plummeted down an elevator shaft




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join