Questions about network news cameras locations on 9/11

Does anyone here know where the closest network news camera was in relation to WTC2? If there were network news cameras "on the scene", were they at street level?

can only think they were on tops of the buildings and on helicopters. what is your question getting at?

issues such as exactly how long was the period of time between the explosions at the WTC and when video was first shown of
the alleged plane crashes. Also, the lack of network cameras on the ground raises some questions whose answers might be
valuable as far as understanding eyewitness accounts of the events.

Thanks for your response.

Tens of thousands of people saw the plane hit the second tower live and millions more saw it on multiple videos in real time. For anyone to think that a jetliner didn't hit at least the second tower is preposterous. You can claim that it wasn't the flights in question, but you can not seriously claim that a plane didn't hit the second tower without being completely ignorant or completely nuts.

Are you in some kind of contest where the winner is whoever posts the most messages claiming that a CGI plane is a real plane?

from multiple angles in real time? Tens of thousands of people saw the plane hit the pentagon live, not on tape, from every imaginable angle; how exactly did they create this CGI plane? After you are done answering that question, please tell me how they managed to put the CGI plane into all of the videos that were taken that day from news stations to people on the street?

Personally, I think you're just trying to keep this going so that DUers who aren't aware that 9/11 was an inside job will
be more likely to learn about it if it comes to their attention on a DU forum. If that's what you're trying to do, then
don't let me stop you.

not at all surprising. Explain how an eyewitness would have "seen" a CGI plane.

Prove that there was live TV coverage which shows a real airplane crashing into WTC2. The only thing people saw on TV
was video footage that had been doctored with a cartoon plane inserted.

The cartoon plane images are exceeded only by the "OMG" fake screams by voice actors. Why do you take such nonsense
seriously and why do you think that the majority of people who have been educated about 9/11 now believe it was an
inside job?

:rofl:

You were here then and I'm 100% positive you remember.

how could direct eyewitnesses see a "cartoon plane"? Drawing you out to expose your foolishness is fun.

"Prove that there was live TV coverage which shows a real airplane crashing into WTC2"?? We know the TV coverage is real because there are numerous live witnesses who saw the plane crash into WTC2. If you think that live, direct witnesses could be led to believe a CGI plane was real, I'd love to see that technology. Your claims just get more absurd as time goes on.

"Prove that there was live TV coverage which shows a real airplane crashing into WTC2". You can't, and we both know it.

why you insist that a TV camera recording the same event would somehow "see" something different is truly baffling. I am beginning to conclude that this is either a big spoof on your part or you are in need of some serious psychological help. I'd love to see you go to NYC, locate some of the direct eyewitnesses to the second attack and tell them they didn't see what they saw.

TV images were doctored with a cartoon plane before they were shown on TV. Oh, and remember the BBC commentator talking about
the collapse of WTC7 while it was shown standing tall, right behind her?

You've no doubt been made aware of media matters and I assume you're familiar with their series on how FAKE News Network doctors
videos to give a false impression.

You're also probably familiar with the BBC report which stated that there is no such thing as an organization called al Qaeda.

Why you arrogantly insist on wasting people's time here on things that you (claim) to be uninterested in is strange, but not
as strange as it would be if you truly weren't interested in them.

Just doesn't make any sense...unless you know better.

let us know how you're doing from time-to-time.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

a plane crash into WTC2? The ones in that disinfo site mainly talk about hearing explosions and seeing "a plane" flying low etc.

read them again or are you going to make me embarrass you once more???

Those were discredited years ago. You must still be on the 2nd string team. Keep at it and maybe one day
you'll make the varsity team.

Are you still maintaining there were no direct witnesses to the plane crashing into the tower? Really. Here's a thought. I'm fairly certain the real problem is that you reallt can't debunk this direct evidence, so you just try to wave it off and wind up looking silly in the end.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Do you actually believe what you wrote?"


This is a standard canned response from you when questioned :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

and whatever "millions" might have seen on TV, remember they also saw a reporter say that one
of the buildings had collapsed while it was still standing directly behind her --

Planes do not go thru steel facades like butter --
The architechts of the WTC designed the towers to withstand a jetliner crashing into it-
in fact, they say that it would have withstood any number of jetliners crashing into it.

Nor is it possible to deny that explosions/bombs were set off in the towers --
and including Thermite which is used by the military -- and perhaps more experimental
methods.

The idea that four commercial jetliners could be simultaneously hijacked is presposterous.
Additionally, American Airlines has corrected the records to say that Flight 77 and Flight 11
were not scheduled for 9/11.

The idea that the alleged hijackers wouldn't have understood that NORAD would have responded
immediately is also preposterous . . .
except that NORAD didn't respond immediately which is even more preposterous!!

Just as some of the alleged hijackers have been found alive and well --
at least one of the "hijacked" planes has been identified as still flying!

number of 9/11 myths contained within?

why yes....yes they can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS2bIaFGWO0

please take your "CGI planes" somewhere else. it is blatant disinfo and a real detriment to those who have legitimate questions about the events surrounding 9/11.

That's about as far as I got before I started laughing. Sorry to have to point this out, but the WTC towers were not made out of wood, cinder blocks, car doors, fiberboard, or any other material discussed in this ridiculous video.

It didn't penetrate the car door; it just knocked it out of the frame it was in.

the video refers to the alleged 2 X 4 as a "missile".

Is Texas Tech part of the conspiracy?

Is it a computer generated 2 X 4?

Do the laws of physics function differently in Texas versus New York? (It might explain a few things.)

Inquiring minds want to know.

Save this for a time when we have hijacked planes made from wood and not

from aluminum . . . !!!

if this forum is being used as a teaching facility for used car salesmen.

In reality, it's hard to manifest mutual respect in the face of such thoroughgoing disagreement. If you were interested in trying, ditching the "Untruther" epithet would be a reasonable start.

The label ("truthers") used to show disrespect to those who disagree with the Official 9/11 story evolved from an even
earlier epithet, "conspiracy theorist".

Is your side prepared to now begin to show the respect that everyone here deserves?

It is easy to establish that (as I think AZCat noted recently in another thread) some adherents of the 9/11 truth movement self-identify as "truthers." Yesterday I poked around 911truth.org and found an article arguing that Robert Fisk is a truther, another one arguing that Barack Obama is a truther... then I got bored. So the notion that the term "truthers" inherently connotes disrespect is, umm, inoperative. (By way of contrast, I don't know of anyone who self-identifies as an Untruther.)

Second problem: collective guilt. Who gave you the authority to divide the board into two sides and decide which one is mine? Even if we do that, do you really think you can establish that my side started "it"?

Third problem: credibility. If you think that everyone here deserves respect, why not behave as if you believe it?

Sounds like you want the world to believe that whenever you and your side use the terms "conspiracy theorist" and "truther" that
readers are supposed to assume that those are terms of endearment.

You must think people here are stupid. They aren't. They may be more polite than your group, but they aren't stupid and they
can see through the tactics used to get posts deleted and users banned.

OK, actually I didn't expect one, but I hoped.

Your "response" consists of the bare assertion that my "attempt to prove (my) claim is a failure" and some reckless gestures toward mind-reading.


It may sound that way if you choose not to listen, certainly.

You haven't cited a single example of my referring to "conspiracy theorist(s)"; that's another instance of flying goalposts. Actually, you haven't cited a single example of my referring to "truther(s)," either. I rarely use the word because I don't find it very useful.

"Terms of endearment" is yet another example of flying goalposts. You've argued that the term "truther" is derogatory; I've pointed out that some people self-identify as "truthers." Saying that "truther" is derogatory (and whispering under one's breath "but only when critics use it") is like saying that "Democrat" is derogatory. Saying that the term "evolved" from "conspiracy theorist" facially makes no sense. Do critics of the movement frequently denigrate adherents? certainly. Do adherents frequently denigrate critics? but of course.


Well, if martyrdom is your highest aspiration, so be it. If you'd rather be serious, the door is open at any time.

:) :evilgrin: :rofl:

So do you think that tens of thousands of people were not looking at the second tower when the second plane hit the tower? By that I mean do you doubt that tens of thousands of people were looking at the tower when the official time line says a plane hit the second tower.

that "tens of thousands of people" were looking at the second tower as an alleged plane hit --

Seven Million People live in New York City which does not include all the people who work in the city but live someplace else nor the people who live and or work in New Jersey. I don't think it is an exageration to think that close to a million people between the buildings in lower Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City, & Hoboken, had the potential to be looking out their windows or up from the street to see the towers hit. The fact that the second explosion came 20 minutes after the first would create enough interest that I would guess that over 100,000 people actually witnessed the event. I know of two people who saw the planes hit the tower; one of my Aunts and my Brother in Law.

Consider that there is only one video of the supposed second plane -
yes, there are a handful or less of other non-professional videos, but they look doctored.

And, still -- like the Pentagon -- an approaching plane and simultaneous explosions can be
confusing for anyone watching. That's the intention.

Remember that other bystanders in the area said NO PLANE hit the second tower BECAUSE THEY
WERE WATCHING!

If you've seen any of the street interviews and corporate-press interviews they are oddly
among people connected one way or another with corporate-news.

He lives in NYC and when I was up there a few years back I spoke with him about the whole thing at a local watering hole. He and several others from his apartment went up on the roof and were watching the first one on fire and saw a plane hit.

How he could see a cgi plane made for tv I have no idea. Many other people saw it, just look for postings on the net from back in the day.

I love a good conspiracy theory, problem is this one is not good.

be prepared to be called an ''untruther', accused of supporting '.bushco'' and trying to ''suppress the truth''. facts are like kryptonite to ''truthers''.

Why do so many Untruthers believe in the impossible?

you're on the other side and you have little, if any, credibility, especially since you've been thrashing about claiming that no planes crashed on 9/11.

I see you still have not been able to refute the direct eyewitness testimony of those who actually saw the planes. Hmmm.

:)

Why is it preposterous that 4 airplanes were hijacked at relatively the same time? The plane hijacking plans were pretty simple and straight forward, which means they have a greater chance of succeeding. The fact that the four groups were able to successfully hijack the planes is not surprising to me.

I don't know where you're "coming from", so for now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't realize
that many people here don't accept the premises upon which you base your points.

Prove there were terrorists who boarded and hijacked planes (including the ones that weren't even scheduled to fly on 9/11!).

claim has been repeatedly debunked. this goofy claim results from ''truthers'' ignorantly believing that the bts is a schedule.

Your attempts to defend Bushco lies are pathetically amateurish. You need a new manual.

only a "truther" would contend that the BTS (which is a record of on-time departures and arrivals) is, in any sense, a "schedule". I'm not wasting any more time with you. If you can't see the difference between the BTS and a schedule, you're beyond hope.

Only an Untruther would be arrogant enough to think they can get away with trying to fool intelligent DUers.

how is the BTS a "schedule"? Is it created BEFORE the fact? Hint: no. It's a lagging record (noted after the fact) of on-time departures and arrivals. Why would AA report either for a plane that was hijacked then crashed? You need to understand the difference between SABRE and BTS. Then and only then might you stop making such stupid claims.

Why is it preposterous that four planes were hijacked at relatively the same time, using the same basic methods? Are you suggesting that a plane couldn't be hijacked by four men with box cutters or that four men with box cutters could hijack a plane, but the fact that it was done four times at the same time in four different airplanes makes it preposterous?

because one plane being "hijacked" would have been a sensation ---

FOUR being hijacked should have been a national emergency -- !!!

Where was NORAD????


Method . . . ? You sound like it's a fool proof method for baking a cake!!

Agreed one plane being hijacked is a sensation.
Agreed four planes being hijacked was a national emergency.

Defend "Where was Norad?" Has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the plane hijackings were preposterous.

Again why were the hijackings preposterous?

NORAD is there to protect us from any incoming ---

The Russians, the Chinese -- whatever . . . that's what it's there for.

Now . . . if you were going to hijack a plane, you're saying you wouldn't be worried

about NORAD????

not the hijackings were preposterous. Your providing evidence on why the hijackers wouldn't have been able to fly the planes into the buildings, you are not providing evidence that the hijackings themselves were preposterous.

I don't recall a recent period of successful hijackings . . .
and airplanes can now be remotely controlled to combat such attempts --

PLUS . . . NORAD would respond immediately --


And, what you are saying is we had four hijacked planes in the sky and no NORAD????

Lucky, hijackers, I'd say--!!!

The plane hijacking plans were pretty simple and straight forward, which means they have a greater chance of succeeding.

You think it is "simple" to get box cutters thru inspection . . . when people with knee
replacements are closely inspected?

You think that it is simple to hijack a plane with a box cutter?

Do you think that the passengers wouldn't react or are you saying that they were put to
sleep first?

Notice also that the pilots never pushed an alarm button -- on any flight --
and that black boxes which are supposed to add to our information are, similar to the
Pentagon video of the plane, oddly distorted and useless?

Also that flights #77 and #11 according to American Airlines were NOT scheduled to fly
on 9/11 -- evidently that would have overly confused the "plan" . . . ????

The fact that the four groups were able to successfully hijack the planes is not surprising to me.

And, how about NORAD's non-response . . . ?
Are you also "not surprised" by that -- !!!???

Defend "How many planes were "hijacked" in recent times before this . . .?" Irrelevant.
Defend "and airplanes can now be remotely controlled to combat such attempts" Technology exists to remotely control planes, but the planes in question were not equipped with this anti hijacking device.
Defend "PLUS . . . NORAD would respond immediately --" Irrelevant.
Defend "And, what you are saying is we had four hijacked planes in the sky and no NORAD????" Irrelevant
Defend "Lucky, hijackers, I'd say--!!!" It doesn't hurt to be lucky
Defend "You think it is "simple" to get box cutters thru inspection . . . when people with knee
replacements are closely inspected?" Yes I do; Pre 9/11 I carried a box cutter on a plane more than once. Pre 9/11 I used to carry a zippo lighter on planes, post 9/11 I carried a zippo on airplanes a half dozen times and never got caught. A box cutter and a metal knee are not comparable.
Defend "Do you think that the passengers wouldn't react or are you saying that they were put to
sleep first?" The reacted in one instance and pre 9/11 I would think that the passengers would not react.

in humorous comment --

Prepare to be "irrelevant" . . .

bye --

:eyes:

she feigns some sort of problem with everyone who asks her hard questions she cannot answer, then places them on ignore so she can revel in her lack of knowledge.

I tried to break down the argument into simple questions which we could address individually and have a reasonable discussion about each issue on it's own merits and then bring the questions into the bigger picture; obviously you are incapable of this simple form of discussion.

none of them were big enough or strong enough to hurl even a barf bag at those big, mean Arabs. I know. I know what you're thinking.
Why didn't any of the pilots send the hijack signal. But you have to remember that TV news lies -- the pilots and crew were ALSO
elderly "little people", afraid of box cutters. Those mean Arabs know how to chop fingers off and maybe the crew freaked out
at the thought that it might cost 'em a finger or two if they dared try to send that four digit hijack code.

I bet now all the airlines train the stewards in advanced pillow-throwing techniques and how to turn a laminated safety info
sheet into a lethal weapon against Arab hijackers. Arab hijackers MUST be stopped, even if you have to rough 'em up a little bit in the process.

and only on days when NORAD is busy in Canada --

and military running 4 fake hijacking simulations --



LOVED THIS . . .


Maybe the passengers & crew were elderly "little people" and...
none of them were big enough or strong enough to hurl even a barf bag at those big, mean Arabs. I know. I know what you're thinking.
Why didn't any of the pilots send the hijack signal. But you have to remember that TV news lies -- the pilots and crew were ALSO
elderly "little people", afraid of box cutters. Those mean Arabs know how to chop fingers off and maybe the crew freaked out
at the thought that it might cost 'em a finger or two if they dared try to send that four digit hijack code.

I bet now all the airlines train the stewards in advanced pillow-throwing techniques and how to turn a laminated safety info
sheet into a lethal weapon against Arab hijackers. Arab hijackers MUST be stopped, even if you have to rough 'em up a little bit in the process.


:evilgrin:

some of the family members of the crews of those flights. i'm sure they'd appreciate your biting wit as you defile the memories of their loved ones. i've said it before and i'll say it again. many (not all ) ''truthers'' are an embarrassment to liberals everywhere.