9/11 Television Archive

[Ohio Joe]

I did a search and did not see this posted before. It has lots of news clips from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13 for ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX and NBC.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

[victordrazen]

1. Thanks for posting this

I spent hours looking at the footage from the day of and that is when I realized that the "live" footage was really hokey! also how few plane witnesses there really were. Lots of people didn't see one. Most of those who did can be traced to media sources.

[LARED]

2. Are you a no-planer? nt

[Ohio Joe]

3. well....

My mother saw the second plane, she teaches special education... how does that fit in?

[defendandprotect]

5. A lot of people thought they saw a plane hit the Pentagon . . .

but it's doubtful --

[Ohio Joe]

6. Really?

And what did they see? What happened to the actual plane? The people? How were all the people that saw a plane when it was something else convinced to believe it was a plane?

[defendandprotect]

7. Evidently, they saw a plane fly towards Pentagon LOW and fly over while

explosives were set off inside the building ---

Hope you catch up with the websites which cover this -- in fact there was something

done on TV fairly recently on this subject showing the alleged and actual path of the

plane and exposing some falsehoods about its alleged route.

Meanwhile, other websites have a lot of info on what happened INSIDE the Pentagon --

the likelihood of a bunkerbuster type RING having been used to blow the round hole in

the Pentagon wall.

No aluminum plane could have gotten thru that --- the Pentagon walls had just been

newly reinforced with steel.

PLUS, needless to say the Pentagon would have had a anti-missile system which would have

knocked down anything coming into its space . . . and it was supposedly turned off!?

Information from employees inside the Pentagon suggest it was explosives set off inside

the building --- many familiar with explosives have stated this.

It also looks like this plane may have been simply ONE flown from NYC in a number of

directions around the WTC to provide for film/video while explosives were also set off

in the WTC towers simultaneously. Plane then flown down to DC area -- and probably

relanded from wherever it had been taken from originally.

Hole in the ground -- empty.

All illusion ---

[Ohio Joe]

8. What website?

Does it explain why no one saw the plane go over? Does it show any proof that the pentagon had an anti-missile defense system? You say people "suggest it was explosives", has the website followed up with any of them? How many people "suggest" explosives and are any of them coming forward to confirm this?

"It also looks like this plane may have been simply ONE flown from NYC in a number of

directions around the WTC to provide for film/video while explosives were also set off

in the WTC towers simultaneously. Plane then flown down to DC area -- and probably

relanded from wherever it had been taken from originally."

Soooo, this one plane went past the towers while explosives were set off, then flew to the pentagon and did a flyover again with explosives going off and not a single person saw either the flyby/overs? Not a single camera captured it? Do you actually believe this? Will this magical website explain this? Will it explain how not a single person saw simultaneous explosions but their are those that saw both impacts? Does it explain how pretty much everyone in the area saw the first tower burning with the second still intact? Positively the most stupid idea I've heard yet. Does the website explain what happened to the people that were on the planes?


"Hole in the ground -- empty."

Complete nonsense. It amazes me people even come up with crap like this much less anyone would believe it.

"All illusion ---"

ummmm, yeah. I look forward to seeing this magical website.

[defendandprotect]

12. No . . . we probably had a Pentagon too dumb to have an anti-missile defense system . . .!!!

Do you really believe that . . . ????


If you're really interested in the truth of 9/11, I'm sure you're following the info and
new info . . . right? In that case, you'd be aware of what I'm reporting to you.

Again, this is old info and evidently you have no clue about it ---

Also, as I've already said, there was also a recent TV program on the Pentagon "plane"

showing the unlikelihood that a plane actually crashed into the Pentagon.

You've also evidently not aware of that . . . ??!!!






Re this . . .

"It also looks like this plane may have been simply ONE flown from NYC in a number of

directions around the WTC to provide for film/video while explosives were also set off

in the WTC towers simultaneously. Plane then flown down to DC area -- and probably

relanded from wherever it had been taken from originally."

Soooo, this one plane went past the towers while explosives were set off, then flew to the pentagon and did a flyover again with explosives going off and not a single person saw either the flyby/overs? Not a single camera captured it? Do you actually believe this? Will this magical website explain this? Will it explain how not a single person saw simultaneous explosions but their are those that saw both impacts? Does it explain how pretty much everyone in the area saw the first tower burning with the second still intact? Positively the most stupid idea I've heard yet. Does the website explain what happened to the people that were on the planes?

No -- the plane would have been used to suggest a plane/s in the WTC area -- and probaly filmed

coming from both directions. In fact, it appears that a helicopter or two were over the WTC

possibly triggering the explosions. There is also film on that "coincidence."

Evidently, you're also unaware of that information . . . ???!!!

Yeah . . . it's it odd that we have no real film of the Pentagon plane "hitting" . . . !!!

All the cameras in the area seem to have been "coincidently" confiscated by government or

non-working as Pentagon camera seemed to be. Guess we buy cheap cameras for the Pentagon!!!


Meanwhile, you're confirming that you really have no awareness of any of this info . . .

so LOL ---

And if you're here to insult those challenging "coincidence theories" you'll next be on

IGNORE.

[Ohio Joe]

16. sooo, no magical website?

Look, I'm not here to insult anyone but your making outrageous claims and offering nothing to support them. There are a ton of websites and videos for this no plane nonsense and not one of them is even remotely convincing. If you have something that is, please post a link. Otherwise you just don't seem very credible.

[defendandprotect]

18. Again, you've obviously unfamiliar with the subject you're trying to discuss . . .

catching up is up to you -- do your own homework.

LOL

[Ohio Joe]

19. I have

As I said, not a single convincing website found. You claim there is but refuse to share it, I have to wonder why? I don't understand how you expect to get anyone to believe you when you make outrageous claims and refuse to back them up.

[defendandprotect]

20. If you find 9/11 truth "unconvincing" ... the problem is on your end, not theirs . . .

You're now on IGNORE as a time saver ---

[Ohio Joe]

21. Cool

I understand you backing out and refusing to offer anything to prove your outrageous claims. I'm not surprised one bit.

[SDuderstadt]

23. This is D & P's favorite tactic....

she makes absurd claims, then demands that YOU prove her claim. It's really a hoot.

[Ohio Joe]

25. I see that

I also notice that even when an absurd claim is proven to not be true, d&p will simply ignore it and continue making the same claims and STILL refuse to offer anything in the way of evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

26. You've got her number...

she's a typical CT. When you press her hard enough for proof that she doesn't have, she places you on "ignore".

[SDuderstadt]

22. This is simply more of D & P's....

unsubstantiated bullshit. Notice how she never provides any sort of verifiable source for her rather silly claims.

[PatrickSMcNally]

9. "the Pentagon ... had a anti-missile system which would have"

This, I think we can dispose of more quickly. The Pentagon is very near the Ronald Reagan airport. They have planes going very close by all the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35440-2004Jul7?language=printer

-----
Plane That Caused Capitol Evacuation Nearly Shot Down

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2004; Page A01


The top general at the North American Aerospace Defense Command was on the telephone and prepared to order an F-16 fighter to shoot down an unidentified plane that turned out to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to former president Ronald Reagan's funeral last month, according to two federal security officials briefed separately about the incident...

Although many planes have violated restrictions imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the June 9 episode was extraordinary because the aircraft penetrated so deeply into the no-fly zone during a high-security event and remained unidentified to air defense officials for several critical minutes. Current and former homeland security officials said the incident was a significant security breakdown...

Homeland security officials, although aware of limitations, say the system in place is working well and has added layers of protection unavailable on Sept. 11, 2001...

More than 2,000 aircraft "of interest" have been detected over Washington airspace since January 2003, Beardsworth said. The number of aircraft violating the no-fly zone fell from 164 in the six months before Jan. 20, 2003, to 30 after that date through May, 14, 2004...
-----

Judging from these reports coming after 911, it doesn't seem likely that anyone on the day of 911 would have recognized a plane as an attacker fast enough to shoot it down.

[defendandprotect]

13. Odd . . . because Minetta's testimony to 9/11 Commission suggests otherwise . . .

Judging from these reports coming after 911, it doesn't seem likely that anyone on the day of 911 would have recognized a plane as an attacker fast enough to shoot it down.

And, if I recall correctly, it appears in the report as a footnote?

Evidently, Minetta testifies that Cheney was in control and more than once an aide reported

incoming and queried whether there was a change in instructions?

You don't recall that?

Never heard about that?

LOL-

[PatrickSMcNally]

15. "Minetta testifies that ..."

Mineta may have confused Flight 93 with Flight 77 and mixed up a few other things in the process.

[defendandprotect]

17. Minetta didn't confuse anything . . . he was in the control room at the Pentagon with Cheney . . .

and witnessed the exchanges between Cheney and the aide ---

and testified to it to the 9/11 Commission ---

you seem purposefully confused on the issue, however ---

[PatrickSMcNally]

24. "Minetta didn't confuse anything . . ."

Based upon the timelines it does seem likely that Mineta confused several events. There's a round-up of the varying conflicting reports given here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

[SDuderstadt]

10. There is not a single witness who saw....

a plane fly low, then over the Pentagon. If there are, please name them. On the other hand, 106+ people actually saw a jetliner hit the Pentagon. This is more of your silliness, D&P.

[wildbilln864]

27. Can you provide us....

with that list of those 106 people that actually saw the impact? Thanks in advance. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

28. Sure, but first I have a question.....

specifically, why don't you know about this, Bill? In your pursuit of "truth", have you bothered to read both sides? The fact that you seem to think this is somehow "new information" bothers me a great deal. To put it bluntly, I believe the reason you believe we don't really know what happened that day is that you haven't done the proper research (which is apparent because of the multitude of questions you ask that have been repeatedly answered). I'm going to make a constructive suggestion here. Take the time to not only study the list of the 106 people who actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon, but also to study other evidence from the parent website. Hopefully, you'll see just how silly much (not all) of the "9/11 truth movement" actually is. For whatever it's worth, most of what I've seen you post is a rebunking of 9/11 myths that have been roundly and repeatedly debunked over and over. One minor correction...apparently I was wrong about the number being 106...it's actually 104. I think 104 is enough, don't you?

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20070114083601/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/08-23-2004/facts.htm

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.


2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

[greyl]

29. To put it in the kindest way, it's willful ignorance.

He has seen that info in at least one place before, here:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x161557#161594

[HamdenRice]

30. So true

And according to protocol, if a DUer has seen "correct" information at one thread, he or she should not continue to press "incorrect" information in another thread.

Your work on upholding "protocol" is of a level of quality and importance that is difficult to describe!

:hi:

[Realityhack]

4. I second Lared's question. n/t

[RetiredTrotskyite]

11. Interesting, Ohio Joe

Thanks for posting up here.:)

[defendandprotect]

14. Great find . . .!!!

[MinM]

31. Very informative...

It's 'impressive' how early and often the official narrative is established.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bh3o9HTg8go/Ss__QollevI/AAAAAAAAAUA/w2CYIzGnyAI/s400/black1+copy.jpg