Fox 5 Nose out footage is back

[Postal44]

Apparently Fox 5 has brought back the original footage of their coverage, atleast some of it. It has the nose out footage at the end, but the video stops soon after. It can be found here http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/sept_11 ... th_Attacks if you want to see it.

They haven't reupdated the Internet Archives yet. Still has the wierdly edited version where the sound track (from the original broadcast) is overlayed on the video that doesn't make sense with what's being said.

[Brutal Metal]

At 2:05-2:30 why does the tower keep getting washed out in that bright reflection?
Anything in particular causing that? haha!! :P
I also find it interesting when Dick Oliver says "the Sky is crystal clear blue"
Also I was very impressed with the actress Rosa at 8:20 an expert on small Piper Cub aircrafts... Laughable!

[brianv]

Horribly skewed chroma-key insert and UV mapping, they got the height, angle, perspective of the tower all wrong! That's gotta be the tallest apartment block in the world to which the tower is attached!

[SimonJCP]

Horribly skewed chroma-key insert and UV mapping, they got the height, angle, perspective of the tower all wrong! That's gotta be the tallest apartment block in the world to which the tower is attached!

Ugh -- it's so.. bad.



CAN SOMEONE FIX THIS PICTURE SO THAT THERE IS NO LINE RUNNING OFF THE BUILDING? :P

[SimonJCP]

EDIT -- analyzing this "footage"

[SimonJCP]

This footage contains some valuable eyewitness accounts. Stuff to show to those assuming individuals who assert that "thousands of witnesses" saw large jets fly into the Towers:

=============

Oliver first states that there was no clue as to what it was, and only mentions hearing a "tremendous boom" (big explosion).

00:15-00:18

Dick Oliver:
"We have no idea what it was... it was a tremendous BOOM!"

A minute later, he adjusts his story and adds a crucial detail that one wouldn't miss when telling the story for the first time -- "we" heard "something like an aircraft" before the explosion:

1:07-1:15

Dick Oliver:
"But we did hear what sounded like an AIRCRAFT and then a tremendous 'boom'"

And I put "we" in quotation marks because those around him, as we are about to see, do not remember an airplane noise. What they do remember, however, is an explosion:

=============

1:18-1:27

The following features Dick Oliver trying to gain details about the North-Tower event from others around him. Oliver himself is unsure, and all his cameraman remembers is "an incredible explosion". There is a woman nearby, but all she can recall is an event that "sounded like a bomb".

At this point, it would appear that Oliver

Dick Oliver
"David, what did you hear? What'd.. What would you say you heard? This is our cameraman, Dave Stalek (?)"

David Stalek:
"An incredible explosion...very, very loud. "

Dick Oliver:
"How about you, hun?" (Referring to another witness not in the camera's view)

Woman:
"Sounded like a bomb."

5:44-5:55

Oliver interviews a young boy. He believes that a "bomb" caused the damage.

Oliver:
"Excuse me sir, did you see anything?"

Boy:
"Yeah, I saw something like BOMB and.. (shrugs)"

Oliver:
"Did you see anything hit the building or did it come from the building?"

Boy:
"Yeah! (To "Did you see anything hit the building"?) That's the bomb, I think so.."

Oliver:
"Something hit the building?"

Boy:
"Yeah."

6:08-6:25

Oliver finds another witness, who had only heard a "huge explosion" and states that the hole is blown-out:

Oliver:
"What happened?"

Woman:
"Well, I was in the PATH train and there was this huge explosion sound. Everyone came out. A large section of the building is blown out around, like, the 80th floor."

Oliver:
"Was it hit by something or was it inside?"

Woman:
"It was inside. It was inside. Everything was coming out. All the windows were coming out, all the papers are coming out.."

======================

After a parade of inconvenient witnesses, Oliver is cut off by "technical problems" connected to the WTC antenna. :)

After Oliver's feed is cut, a phone-in witness is produced who completely contradicts every witness Oliver found and claims that a passenger jet flew into the World Trade Center.

A bit later, we get Jim "Grade 9, Chopper 5. Anybody on?" Friedl, a FOX-team spook posing as an ordinary eyewitness. He bolsters the other phone-in witness.

_______________

1) Oliver interviews a number of on-the-street witnesses, all of whom only heard a big explosion or saw "a bomb". One even states that the "plane hole" is "blown out", and she is positive that it was created by an internal explosion.

2) Oliver's feed is cut due to "technical difficulties".

3) Two phone-in witnesses contradict everything Oliver's street witnesses said. One of them is a FOX/Newsmedia spook posing as an ordinary guy.

4) We see the "second plane" hit the South Tower, and the "bomb" evidence collected by Dick Oliver on the streets of New York is completely forgotten.

[hoi.polloi]

I am pretty convinced all the witnesses are meant to give credible testimony to the planned octopus of layered conspiracy theories.

Probably, none of them are actual live eye-witnesses.

[SimonJCP]

I am pretty convinced all the witnesses are meant to give credible testimony to the planned octopus of layered conspiracy theories.

Probably, none of them are actual live eye-witnesses.

I've always agreed that there are fake conspiracy witnesses. However, I've always found them to point people towards "state-sponsored conspiracy theories" and away from the truth.

Two examples of this are:
1) Mark Birnbach (Saw a big plane that "had no windows", Promoted by "truth leaders")
2) Steven Gerard (Saw a "small plane" crash into the Pentagon, Promoted by "truth leaders")

The first was a newsmedia witness from FOX and the second was a Justice Department spook. The accounts of both were promoted by the "truth leaders" as authentic clues.

These FOX5 witnesses, however, seem to simply point someone away from the idea that an airplane hit the World Trade Center. They are in a fake New York, so I suppose they have to be studio plants (or simulations).

However, it has me a tad confused -- what do you think the purpose of planting "NPT witnesses" in New York would be? The perpetrators have made such an effort to cover up NPT in their subsidiary, the 9/11 truth movement, so the planting of NPT witnesses is a move that seems counter-productive.

Could it be to reinforce, along with other strange reports (Car bombs going off in NY, Car bomb exploding outside the State Department, Fire at the White House), the idea of a "fog-of-war" that would conveniently explain away any genuine slip-ups/muck-ups?

[fred]

I am pretty convinced all the witnesses are meant to give credible testimony to the planned octopus of layered conspiracy theories.

Probably, none of them are actual live eye-witnesses.

I've always agreed that there are fake conspiracy witnesses. However, I've always found them to point people away from the truth:

Two examples of this are:
1) Mark Birnbach (Saw a big plane that "had no windows", Promoted by "truth leaders")
2) Steven Gerard (Saw a "small plane" crash into the Pentagon)

The first was a newsmedia witness from FOX and the second was a Justice Department spook. The accounts of both were promoted by the "truth leaders" as authentic clues.

These FOX5 witnesses, however, seem to simply point someone away from the idea that an airplane hit the World Trade Center. They are in a fake New York, so I suppose they have to be plants (or simulations).

However, it has me a tad confused -- what do you think the purpose of planting "NPT witnesses" in New York would be? The perpetrators have made such an effort to cover up NPT in their subsidiary, the 9/11 truth movement, so the planting of NPT witnesses is a move that seems counter-productive.

Could it be to reinforce, along with other strange reports (Car bombs going off in NY, Car bomb exploding outside the State Department, Fire at the White House), a "fog-of-war"?

This always gets deleted wherever I post it, but there was an entire unused 9/11 plotline with a "Plan B."

Plan B had Arabs installing bombs in the building while upgrading the sprinkler system. Bombs were a big part of this unneeded plot element.

The murdered (if real) Virginia DMV lady who was scheduled to testify had some information about that.

Suppose the public didn't react well to the "hijacking being enough to take the building down". Suppose some famous and well-respected architects and engineers and military guys insisted that a plane crash wouldn't work all by itself. Suppose everybody was taking the "truther" position from day one.

They had a bunch of alternate scenarios laid out in advance to deal with a skeptical public.

The "bombs in the building" would have become part of the OCT instead of the foundation for the so-called "truth movement". Instead of 19 hijackers there would have been bombs, bombs, bomb, from Saddam and Bin Laden, no doubt.

The FBI would have certified that there was thermite planted everywhere. Arab thermite.

Flight 93, feared hijacked, would have safely landed in Cleveland.

The Port Authority would have admitted to letting suspicious cargo ships full of Arab bombs into ports because they didn't communicate with the CIA and NYPD and Coast Guard and Mi6 and the Mossad.

They wisely decided not to make things more complicated, and didn't show the Pentagon videos, didn't discover any bombs or bombers, etc.

Then, to keep things interesting, they had the Anthrax hoax and a big plane crash a little while later.

It was set up from the very beginning to allow "bombs" to be a central theme. Instead they went with "they tried bombs below in 1993, and in 2001 they tried again with planes from above."

Just my 2 cents.

They would have had trouble explaining how everyone survived if the bombs had gone off at the same times as the planes. The planes on the high floors explain how everyone you know who worked at the WTC managed to survive, and you didn't know any of the people who were killed because they were all IT guys at Cantor's do-nothing E-speed and insurance bores at Marsh.

So there would have been some plot element that the bombs and planes should have gone off simultaneously and killed thirty-three thousand people, but instead they had trouble getting them off in time or some fight broke out when a hero janitor firefighter uniformed subway driver NYPD guy kept Abdul from pushing the big red button.

Something like that. It was designed to give them some options in case something unexpeted really prevented plan A from being accepted by the public. Then they would have discovered parts from a stolen missile and the smuggled backpack nukes that Saddam helped Bin Laden buy...

Show video one, observe reaction, show witness two, observe reaction, launch expert commentary 3a, observe reaction.... check checklist, announce Pentagon strike, demolish tower, observe reaction, ...

If they screwed up and had a bunch of credible people contradicting their Plan A, they would have expanded the OCT or modified it to fit. Maybe bin Laden bought some hologram-cloaked cruise missiles. Maybe United and AA didn't lose any airplane. Maybe Mohammed Atta got caught at the airport and announced the whole plan using stolen missiles. Maybe the anti-terrorist task force overheard bin laden's men telling him the stealth camoflaged missile hit. Maybe NIST would confirm that a remote-controlled plane with a pod fired a missile at the WTC, and the captured hijackers, under torture at GitMo, reveal that bin Laden purchased a modified gulfstream jet with his billionaire baby trust fund, and outfitted it with a fancy remote that he could control from his cave. Aaron brown would show you the pod and the flash again and again on CNN.

You get the idea. There was no clear shot of the "airplane" until midnight, with the "oh now we can see it better" Hezarkhani shot.

They could edit the archives later and change the banter later in the day to downplay the commercial airline angle if it turned out to be a total dud. They could blame the airplane myth on confusion from a hijacking simulation that was scheduled for the same time.


---

There's probably also some psychological warfare benefit from making people confused and frustrated at the beginning. After hearing a bunch of conflicting reports and so many things that don't make any sense, they're thrilled to finally be offered a simple explanation.

At the very beginning people didn't know if Russia was attacking the USA or what was going on. Oh my God, the Pentagon just blew up! Turn on your TV! Are you watching this? Somebody's attacking us.

Then when all the experts say it's bin Laden and crazy Muslims in Afghanistan, it's a huge sigh of relief. Oh, so that's what this is all about. OK, now how do we get these guys back?

Create some tension, then relieve the tension.

[SimonJCP]

I am pretty convinced all the witnesses are meant to give credible testimony to the planned octopus of layered conspiracy theories.

Probably, none of them are actual live eye-witnesses.

I've always agreed that there are fake conspiracy witnesses. However, I've always found them to point people away from the truth:

Two examples of this are:
1) Mark Birnbach (Saw a big plane that "had no windows", Promoted by "truth leaders")
2) Steven Gerard (Saw a "small plane" crash into the Pentagon)

The first was a newsmedia witness from FOX and the second was a Justice Department spook. The accounts of both were promoted by the "truth leaders" as authentic clues.

These FOX5 witnesses, however, seem to simply point someone away from the idea that an airplane hit the World Trade Center. They are in a fake New York, so I suppose they have to be plants (or simulations).

However, it has me a tad confused -- what do you think the purpose of planting "NPT witnesses" in New York would be? The perpetrators have made such an effort to cover up NPT in their subsidiary, the 9/11 truth movement, so the planting of NPT witnesses is a move that seems counter-productive.

Could it be to reinforce, along with other strange reports (Car bombs going off in NY, Car bomb exploding outside the State Department, Fire at the White House), a "fog-of-war"?

This always gets deleted wherever I post it, but there was an entire unused 9/11 plotline with a "Plan B."

Plan B had Arabs installing bombs in the building while upgrading the sprinkler system. Bombs were a big part of this unneeded plot element.

The murdered (if real) Virginia DMV lady who was scheduled to testify had some information about that.

Suppose the public didn't react well to the "hijacking being enough to take the building down". Suppose some famous and well-respected architects and engineers and military guys insisted that a plane crash wouldn't work all by itself. Suppose everybody was taking the "truther" position from day one.

They had a bunch of alternate scenarios laid out in advance to deal with a skeptical public.

The "bombs in the building" would have become part of the OCT instead of the foundation for the so-called "truth movement". Instead of 19 hijackers there would have been bombs, bombs, bomb, from Saddam and Bin Laden, no doubt.

The FBI would have certified that there was thermite planted everywhere. Arab thermite.

Flight 93, feared hijacked, would have safely landed in Cleveland.

The Port Authority would have admitted to letting suspicious cargo ships full of Arab bombs into ports because they didn't communicate with the CIA and NYPD and Coast Guard and Mi6 and the Mossad.

They wisely decided not to make things more complicated, and didn't show the Pentagon videos, didn't discover any bombs or bombers, etc.

Then, to keep things interesting, they had the Anthrax hoax and a big plane crash a little while later.

It was set up from the very beginning to allow "bombs" to be a central theme. Instead they went with "they tried bombs below in 1993, and in 2001 they tried again with planes from above."

Just my 2 cents.

They would have had trouble explaining how everyone survived if the bombs had gone off at the same times as the planes. The planes on the high floors explain how everyone you know who worked at the WTC managed to survive, and you didn't know any of the people who were killed because they were all IT guys at Cantor's do-nothing E-speed and insurance bores at Marsh.

So there would have been some plot element that the bombs and planes should have gone off simultaneously and killed thirty-three thousand people, but instead they had trouble getting them off in time or some fight broke out when a hero janitor firefighter uniformed subway driver NYPD guy kept Abdul from pushing the big red button.

Something like that. It was designed to give them some options in case something unexpeted really prevented plan A from being accepted by the public. Then they would have discovered parts from a stolen missile and the smuggled backpack nukes that Saddam helped Bin Laden buy...

Show video one, observe reaction, show witness two, observe reaction, launch expert commentary 3a, observe reaction.... check checklist, announce Pentagon strike, demolish tower, observe reaction, ...

If they screwed up and had a bunch of credible people contradicting their Plan A, they would have expanded the OCT or modified it to fit. Maybe bin Laden bought some hologram-cloaked cruise missiles. Maybe United and AA didn't lose any airplane. Maybe Mohammed Atta got caught at the airport and announced the whole plan using stolen missiles. Maybe the anti-terrorist task force overheard bin laden's men telling him the stealth camoflaged missile hit. Maybe NIST would confirm that a remote-controlled plane with a pod fired a missile at the WTC, and the captured hijackers, under torture at GitMo, reveal that bin Laden purchased a modified gulfstream jet with his billionaire baby trust fund, and outfitted it with a fancy remote that he could control from his cave. Aaron brown would show you the pod and the flash again and again on CNN.

You get the idea. There was no clear shot of the "airplane" until midnight, with the "oh now we can see it better" Hezarkhani shot.

They could edit the archives later and change the banter later in the day to downplay the commercial airline angle if it turned out to be a total dud. They could blame the airplane myth on confusion from a hijacking simulation that was scheduled for the same time.


---

There's probably also some psychological warfare benefit from making people confused and frustrated at the beginning. After hearing a bunch of conflicting reports and so many things that don't make any sense, they're thrilled to finally be offered a simple explanation.

At the very beginning people didn't know if Russia was attacking the USA or what was going on. Oh my God, the Pentagon just blew up! Turn on your TV! Are you watching this? Somebody's attacking us.

Then when all the experts say it's bin Laden and crazy Muslims in Afghanistan, it's a huge sigh of relief. Oh, so that's what this is all about. OK, now how do we get these guys back?

Create some tension, then relieve the tension.

I think you nailed it, Fred. This makes complete sense. Thanks for posting that here.

And I suppose these topics are "safe" for the 9/11 perpetrators' front sites, as the official-version could always be "adjusted" if people begin to realize how ludicrous the official version is. They could burn a few fall guys at the stake and declare a "new investigation" that would incorporate some of these "Plan B theories" into the Official Version 2.0. It could even be declared that the attacks were an "Arab Inside-Job", with the conclusion that Al Qaeda sympathizers and USA-haters had infiltrated the US government.

All of this, of course, would be endorsed/promoted by 911blogger.com, 911truther.org, Loose Change, and other groups. They might even declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" once the "new investigation" is completed.

I suppose this is why TV Fakery, the VicSim research, and the use of exotic weaponry are all "forbidden topics" in the state-sponsored 9/11 truth communities.

No matter which way you look at it, Al Qaeda couldn't fake the 9/11 TV footage.
No matter which way you look at it, Al Qaeda wouldn't have high-tech beam weapons.

And no matter which way you look at it, Al Qaeda wouldn't have the ability to fake a database of photos/names/backstories supported by phony actors and have the mainstream-media/corporations/government promote the scam.

[fred]

I suppose this is why TV Fakery, the VicSim research, and the use of exotic weaponry are all "forbidden topics" in the state-sponsored 9/11 truth communities.

No matter which way you look at it, Al Qaeda couldn't fake the 9/11 TV footage.
No matter which way you look at it, Al Qaeda wouldn't have high-tech beam weapons.

And no matter which way you look at it, Al Qaeda wouldn't have the ability to fake a database of photos/names/backstories supported by phony actors and have the mainstream-media/corporations/government promote the scam.

Exactly. They want to limit the discussion to things that are well-within Bin Laden's published capabilities. Planting bombs, recruiting bombers, blowing up buildings, buying rockets and missiles (to shoot from the Woolworth building or anywhere else)... these are all in his supposed bag of tricks.

Despite what Alex Jones tells people, the news media and Hollywood aren't run by the Arabs, and nobody will buy that he was able to broadcast simulation footage on all the networks and hire Aaron Brown to do his dirty work on CNN.

With the "new investigation" they can blame and pardon some Bush administration insiders for covering up the fact that there were 13 operating teams of Al Qaida bombers, many of whom were secretly neutralized by the secret agencies, and this knowledge was withheld to keep from paralyzing the American public with fear.

The state-sponsored truth-movement position morphs into "Secret Government Hit Squad Thwarts Attack 20 Times Worse than 9/11" with a lot of Amy Goodman hand-wringing over whether or not the radical Muslim terrorists' rights were violated when they were forced to divulge their sinister plans.

[hoi.polloi]

This discussion is so refreshing and thoughtful I almost suspect I am being tricked.

But perhaps it's just the lure of hearing a captivating intelligent discussion.

Gosh I am cynical. ::slaps self::

[omaxsteve]

Montreal gazette today had an article (from Reuters) stating that an investigation was just complted into the ANTHRAX attacks and has shown ZERO evidence linking DR Bruce Ivins to the Anthrax Attacks. Story was buried on page 16. I wonder if any US media outlets are going to run the story?

Too bad, that Dr Ivins, an expert in bioogical weapons who committed suicide by overdosing on TYLENOL, is not here to defend himself.

[til]

Its nice to see that nose cone video actually on the official website. Can any one enlighten me into what they think the reasons they have not taken it off and fixed it are?

[brianv]

Its nice to see that nose cone video actually on the official website. Can any one enlighten me into what they think the reasons they have not taken it off and fixed it are?

Til, Have you seen this? BBC Sept. 11, 2001 8:34 am - 9:16 am

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109110834-0916

Watch what happens when the "second" "plane" arrives!!

"Reviewer: ryans92 - 1.00 out of 5 stars - July 2, 2010
Subject: TERRIBLE broadcast!
This is fucking terrible! You report an explosion at the WTC, then cut to a report about FOOTBALL?! WHAT...THE...FUCK! First of all, NO ONE IN BRITAIN FUCKING CARES ABOUT AMERICAN FOOTBALL! Second of all, THERE'S AN EXPLOSION AT THE FUCKING WORLD FUCKING TRADE FUCKING CEN FUCKING TER! Are you Brits seriously that self-absorbed that you just don't give a fuck about what happens to us?

And then when the second plane hits RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FUCKING EYES no one reacts. There's no gasps, no "Oh my God's", nothing. They aren't even aware of a second plane hitting until an eyewitness tells them even though happened RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM!

Then, when the towers collapsed, nobody even noticed until over a MINUTE afterwards. A MINUTE! For BOTH of them! Are these people fucking stoned? Can they not tell what is happening right in front of their fucking eyes? Everyone else could! If anyone had to watch the BBC on this day, I pity you because this is just fucking terrible!"

What ryans92 doesn't realise is - that they could'nt see any "airplane". It takes them nearly 10 minutes to kop on that "there's been another crash"!!