9-11 Live On T.v., About those "live" videos... Options

[Obwon]

On usenet, in nyc.politics today, someone in a thread kept insisting that they'd seen 9-11, the air crash live on tv. That's when it occurred to me that many "eyewitnesses" are really, merely "video spectators". So I began thinking, how would one go about confirming, the possibility that what they were seeing on tv "live" was in fact actually live?

Since most programs introduce a 3 to 5 second delay (with some using as much as 10 to 15 second delays), in order to capture and bleep out swear words and such. So, most of what you see on the tube, is not really live at all, but was video taped a few seconds ago, reviewed and then edited if need be and then released to the airwaves for the viewers.

So that led me to another idea. In order to know if you've actually seen a live event, you'd have to know the actual time, to the second, that event occurred, then you'd have to know the time to the second, that your tv, displayed it. Only then could you see if there was a difference in times and therefore if there was a delay.

Thinking about it a little bit further. I hit me, Hey! There were a number of stations displaying the second strike "live". And there are a number of people whose video recorders, recorded and time stamped the video. Now, if all of these channels were actually broadcasting the same event live. Then, although the camera angles would change, all of the time stamps should agree, with the time stamps of those home viewers who made recordings.

After all, the plane itself can only be in one place at any given point in time, no matter what the angle it's shot from. So, from any given angle at any given time, the plane should be in exactly the same position. It can't be at one position in one shot, and further along in another, or behind in yet another, if all cameras are actually recording the exact same event.

Of course, if the videos do not represent an event that actually took place, as if they used an animation etc., then they're all going to display the events differently than one another, most especially times off by seconds as human fingers cue the tapes.

Of course, it is possible to use a computer controlled cue, but even that would only work, if the animation were all exactly the same. Of course that is not possible, because each network uses it's own camera crews, thus there has to be different angles for each camera.
It would also be nice to know, where each station had it's camera crews stationed. That would allow us to confirm that the angle the station showed, was even possible to capture.

Anyway it's something to think about.

[Ricochet]

You can have alook through these.
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

[SanderO]

It's certainly possible to insert video into a live broadcast and make it appear live. To verify what actually hit the towers you'd need to speak with people who actually say the event live. There weer thousands. Many are poor observers, maybe even most of them. But after interviewing hundreds of the people downtown a picture should emerge as to what hit the towers.

Those who believed they say something other than a commercial jet may now be influenced by all the subsequent media coverage and essentially over write their own memories.

I find it odd that there are few witnesses that have come forward to say anything very different about the planes other than what we were told they were - large commercial jets flying at high speed.

My first knowledge of the event was a call in on a radio show in NYC from a woman who lived across the river. She called in just after it happened and said a small plane hit the north tower. I thought this was a pilot who had a heart attack or a plane he couldn't control or some sort of general aviation mishap. Shortly afterward the story changed to a commercial jet and the rest is history.

[paranoia]

my opinion:

fooling people on tv - doable.
fooling people on the streets - 1st wtc crash, doable.
fooling people on the streets - 2nd wtc crash, NOT doable.

i dont live in nyc, so i dont have access to the 1000's of new yorkers who probably did see the 2nd plane crash in to the tower, but my current room mate here in virginia is actually one such witness.

according to her, she was in brooklyn, a substantial distance away, on a rooftop, gathered with many other people watching the tower (singular not plural) burning and smoking away, when suddenly they became aware of a the second plane flying towards and into the tower, seconds before the giant fireball. she is adamant that she saw a plane before the explosion took place. was she fooled? i doubt it. i'll see if she is willing to discuss it or at least describe it on tape and if so i'll share it with you.

[Bruce Sinclair]

I'm pretty sure we have gone over this before, but an airline Captain friend of mine who also happens to be a trained accident investigator and an ex-military pilot watched the second airplane fly into the second tower. He was on the roof of an apartment building in Brooklyn.

So if he tells me that he saw the plane maneuvering around before it hit and watched it fly into the tower, this is good enough for me.

[DoYouEverWonder]

To Paranoia and Bruce - Brooklyn is a big borough. Would it be possible to post exactly where these people were when they saw the 2nd Plane?

There are 1000's of stories of people who claim to have seen the second plane, but so far most of those stories fall apart when they are examined closely.

The M$M did a good job creating the impression that 1000's of people saw the 2nd plane, but if you understand the geography of lower Manhattan very few people were on the south side of the complex that morning. Most people were to the north and if they had a view of the Towers were watching the fire and smoke coming out of the north side of the north Tower. To the south is mostly open water and the people there watching the north Tower burn had their backs to the incoming plane and wouldn't have noticed it until it already passed. There are a few locations in Brooklyn and in NJ that would have had good views to both the south and north but even the ATC guys in Newark didn't see anything until they were alerted to look for an incoming plane over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and these guys should have seen this thing coming in on the radar way before they had any visuals of it.

[Obwon]

To Paranoia and Bruce - Brooklyn is a big borough. Would it be possible to post exactly where these people were when they saw the 2nd Plane?

There are 1000's of stories of people who claim to have seen the second plane, but so far most of those stories fall apart when they are examined closely.

The M$M did a good job creating the impression that 1000's of people saw the 2nd plane, but if you understand the geography of lower Manhattan very few people were on the south side of the complex that morning. Most people were to the north and if they had a view of the Towers were watching the fire and smoke coming out of the north side of the north Tower. To the south is mostly open water and the people there watching the north Tower burn had their backs to the incoming plane and wouldn't have noticed it until it already passed. There are a few locations in Brooklyn and in NJ that would have had good views to both the south and north but even the ATC guys in Newark didn't see anything until they were alerted to look for an incoming plane over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and these guys should have seen this thing coming in on the radar way before they had any visuals of it.

Exactly the points that almost never seem to get made. People on Church street for instance would have to be craning their necks looking up, a tiring stance to hold for 18 minutes. But, if you don't, because the skyscrapers on all sides, leave very limited patches of sky to be viewed from the ground, you're more likely than not to miss the second jet, unless you
hear it's incoming sound. That's a hard one as well, since the canyons down there do terrible things to sounds.

Then there's the matter of people leaving the buildings in haste, even with 9-11 operations, police and fire authorities telling everyone to stay. People were getting out of the south tower as soon as the north tower was hit. My guess is, if they'd been hearing explosions, coming from different places, they could not be told or made to stay at all. The pagers seem to say there were just too many unexplained sounds for people to remain calm about.

Then there's the matter of people claiming to have seen planes, and the video, taken at the exact time of the sightings, does not record any events that anyone could have actually seen.
So, why should the two accounts be so different? Why don't the verbal accounts agree with the video recordings? Hmmm... Oh yeah, since what the video recorded isn't possible, there's no way that verbal testimony could agree with it.

[Obwon]

To Paranoia and Bruce - Brooklyn is a big borough. Would it be possible to post exactly where these people were when they saw the 2nd Plane?

There are 1000's of stories of people who claim to have seen the second plane, but so far most of those stories fall apart when they are examined closely.

The M$M did a good job creating the impression that 1000's of people saw the 2nd plane, but if you understand the geography of lower Manhattan very few people were on the south side of the complex that morning. Most people were to the north and if they had a view of the Towers were watching the fire and smoke coming out of the north side of the north Tower. To the south is mostly open water and the people there watching the north Tower burn had their backs to the incoming plane and wouldn't have noticed it until it already passed. There are a few locations in Brooklyn and in NJ that would have had good views to both the south and north but even the ATC guys in Newark didn't see anything until they were alerted to look for an incoming plane over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and these guys should have seen this thing coming in on the radar way before they had any visuals of it.

Let's see. On the south side, from liberty street down to the water... There's about a quarter mile of tall (40, 50, 60) story buildings, many without windows on their north faces, probably as a result of adjacent buildings having been torn down over the last century. The last two or three centuries saw lots of land filling in lower Manhattan. You can't see either tower from most of Broadway to the east, You can't see the south tower while on Church south of Liberty street, until you almost about to cross Liberty, because the tower is set back from Church and therefore blocked by the building line almost until you round the corner.

Greenwich street is another animal. It should transect the WTC complex, but they decided it shouldn't, so it ends at Vessey street and starts again at Liberty. It's a narrow corridor with tall buildings on both sides, so the view you get of the towers from Greenwich, is just a narrow strip like view of the south tower, all the way to the top.

Washington street, south of the WTC, also yields a narrow strip like view of the north towers south side. There's not much of a view of the towers from Battery Park City, and below Battery Place is Battery Park, mostly empty at this time of day. The old South Ferry Terminal had a pretty good view of the towers, but there would be little reason to be looking that way for more than a few seconds, with ferries sending crushing crowds out every few minutes, and the angles being such that there would have been little to see. Of course, with the new South Ferry, such sight seeing is out of the question with those new ramps Giuliani installed.
They're sloped all the way to the ground, so there's not a comfortable place to stand on them.

Most people who could have seen the second jet strike, would have had to be at least a mile or two away. At that time of day, the financial district, which doesn't have many good views of the towers, would be pretty nearly empty. Most commuters, after exiting the towers, would be out of sight of the towers in half a block walking east to broadway and wall street, or south to rector/bowling green. The towers are more visible from the north, but most people there would be walking up to Canal or over to Centre, Worth, Foley Square for courts municipal offices etc.,

The sight lines of the towers aren't good from lower Manhattan, too many buildings. In some places, they only have to be a story or two tall to completely block them out. As you walk (or bike) around lower Manhattan you get to snatch glimpses of the towers here an there. I used to get a good view from B 36th Street Far Rockaway and Long Island City has good sight lines.
But not Jackson Heights. By "good sight lines" I mean where the towers would stay insight while you moved a few blocks or more.

[DoYouEverWonder]

There are so many people who believe that 1000's of people saw the 2nd plane, but have never even been to NYC. I grew up there. I use to walk all over the place. Even fewer have ever been in the WTC. I've even ridden the freight elevators, while still inside my bf's delivery van.


Most people in NYC didn't even know anything was going on until the 2nd plane hit. I know I didn't hear about the attack until the 2nd plane hit and when I called my family in NYC, they didn't know anything was going on yet either.

There was no 'live' video of the first hit. The 2nd hit was only 15 minutes later. It took me until 10:00 AM to get to a place where I could see what was going happening on the TV. I don't have TV or cable where I work. The Internet was jammed. It wasn't until I got to my kid's school and the Towers were falling that I got to see a TV.

I'm curious how many people even here saw the 2nd hit 'live' on TV? I didn't get to see it until after the Towers started falling and at that point I was so shock and awed I was willing to believe that Muslim working for Osama bin Forgotten had hijacked passenger jets and flew them into buildings. You could have told me Osama himself was flying the first plane and I would have believed it. A lot of people still do.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jul 20 2010, 03:27 PM

[elreb]

If someone has the ability to explore this:



http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929


Between film markers 08:35 to 08:56 you can see what appears to be a small black jet fly at about 12:00 in front of the smoke.

I wonder what it was? It came from the same direction as the future second plane which shows up at 14:56 but lower.

[DoYouEverWonder]

If someone has the ability to explore this:



http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929


Between film markers 08:35 to 08:56 you can see what appears to be a small black jet fly at about 12:00 in front of the smoke.

I wonder what it was? It came from the same direction as the future second plane which shows up at 14:56 but lower.

A helicopter.

Even on a normal day in lower Manhattan, there are dozens of helicopters flying around.

[Obwon]

There are so many people who believe that 1000's of people saw the 2nd plane, but have never even been to NYC. I grew up there. I use to walk all over the place. Even fewer have ever been in the WTC. I've even ridden the freight elevators, while still inside my bf's delivery van.

[snips]

I'm curious how many people even here saw the 2nd hit 'live' on TV? I didn't get to see it until after the Towers started falling and at that point I was so shock and awed I was willing to believe that Muslim working for Osama bin Forgotten had hijacked passenger jets and flew them into buildings. You could have told me Osama himself was flying the first plane and I would have believed it. A lot of people still do.

I had left the house early to vote, when I returned home, I was told that a plane had just crashed into the WTC, no mention of which tower, but, listening to 1010 wins, said it was a small or private (single or twin, engine?) aircraft. We listened to the radio for clarification, didn't think there'd be much more to the story, than that it was a terrible accident, or perhaps yet another disgruntled nutcase gone completely wacko.

Then we decided to turn on the tv, to see the size of the smoking hole. We saw the size of the hole, we thought that couldn't be a private plane. Not with a height of nearly three stories or a width of over a 100 feet or more. Then a voice says there's another jet, we see a blur, then a fire ball emerge from the east side of the south tower. But boy did it all seem like it was live. Of course, I later realized it could not have been, we had been listening to the radio for almost an hour and had heard about the second plane before we switched to the tube. But they didn't have a very accurate description of the jet and didn't make it very notable, so we just kinda forgot about it. So, when we turned on the tv. we were watching the smoking hole for several minutes, before they said another plane was coming. Then they showed the second jet hit. I didn't see the jet, but I did watch the fireball carefully, they
played it over several times.

I expected to see jet and building/furniture debris falling through the fireball. Instead, while I could see strings of burning liquid fuel descending, I could find nothing solid at all, that had been pushed out of the building, after the fireball had emerged. I never even gave the "vaporization" claims any thought, since vaporization can only take place a temperatures above liquifaction. The temperatures generated by a mere mechanical plane crash and fuel burn, don't even come close to the gassification of lead, no less aluminum, so there should have been lots of solid debris to see. That it was absent was very disquieting, but I didn't give it much thought at the time, there was too much else going on in the media, with the mayor and president moving around, waiting to hear from Washington and the Pentagon hit.

I doubt, sincerely that there were many thousands of people on the streets near the towers, with a good view of the second strike. The streets looked pretty clear of people, and there aren't that many areas down there, with good lines of sight, so they'd have been very crowded indeed, if even a thousand people packed into them. If you know the area, try to imagine 1,000 people on Liberty street east of Church and about half way up to B'way. Sure there's that park, but in there, while the lines of sight are limited to the south and east face of the South tower, who would think to go into that area that early in the day? It looks like a private park anyway, it hardly gives the feeling of being a public place, and at the begining of the work day it's completely and off-puttingly empty. People don't even shortcut through it, they all walk around it.

One lady was engulfed by burning fuel descending from above, it hit her as she was exiting the building, probably headed for Courtlandt or dey street. She had probably exited the south east escalators only moments before, then turned and took a north east tact towards either courtlandt or dey streets, walking away from the building, and the cover the lower section provided, as she made her way towards crossing Church. That put her directly under the descending fireball. My guess is that if there were many people looking, they'd have yelled for her, and anyone else, to get out of the way. She needed only to have taken a few quick steps back up against the building to get under a parapet and out of the way. So that tells me there just wasn't a whole lot of people watching things from the streets down there.

[Obwon]

Okay, here's some quick 'n' dirty research on flt 175 crash time:

Seismic: 9:02:54
NIST: 9:02:59
911ComR: 9:03:11

What these time disagreements actually mean, is that you had three opportunities
to witness the exact same event live. We know this can't be the case, so which
time is true? Because, unless we can pick the true time of the event, we can't know
at what time it was even possible to broadcast it live.

There can be only one live broadcast of an event. But, if the event occurred at say
9:03:11 as the 911 comish rpt says, but it was broadcast live at 9:02:54 which the
seismic record says was the real event, then what was being broadcast? The same event
could not have happened three times, so it could not have been broadcast live at three different times. Yet, they're telling us that millions of people saw it live, when obviously no one can know who did see it live from who didn't. Everyone is left in a position to wonder, guess, surmise that "other people saw it live, if I didn't". Of course, the other possibility that's also left open is that nobody saw anything live. And if that is true, under the given conditions, then it must be true because there was actually nothing to see. This postulate must hold, as long as we can't be given a single time for the event we know happened only once.

Two of the three times must be made up. Therefore, two of the times are there to conceal the true time. But, if the true time must be concealed, there is no need to issue false times to do it. Simply issuing a false time will conceal the true time. Therefore all three times must be false. If all three times are false, then the reason they had to be falsified is, because there was nothing to be seen or shown live. That's the taughtological reasoning. Put simpler: Have you ever heard or seen a murder investigation, where they gave three different times of death for the victim?