Fox News/CNN Sold Us Out & Destroyed The Evidence

WTC site is on southern tip of Manhattan - most the media is located
much further north in Midtown. CNN on 50th St, FOX on 48th (hope
got street right - used to walk right by them on way to job site) NBC
at Rockerfeller Center, again around 50th. CBS is at 57th. Takes time
to get down to southern Manhattan. First reports from area came from
WNYW Channel 5 (FOX station) which was doing interviews about
Democratic election primary for mayor. First images came about
5 minutes after North tower hit. Last 9/11 CNN ran entire days coverage
just like it unfolded on its internet site CNN.Com - must not have been
looking to hard as was heavily advertised in weeks before.

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
Hello themaster1. The CNN footage you linked to is totally bogus. Those aren't even the same news anchors who were there on 9/11.

Who were the anchors then, to the best of your recollection? I have serious doubts as to the details of your memory of the events based on the video records we have. So far all I have seen was widely varying accounts of what was happening before people had any idea what was going on.


I do commend you for sticking to your guns howver. You do realize that their is not much in the way of supporting your viewpoint.

Originally posted by pavil
Who were the anchors then, to the best of your recollection? I have serious doubts as to the details of your memory of the events based on the video records we have. So far all I have seen was widely varying accounts of what was happening before people had any idea what was going on.


I do commend you for sticking to your guns howver. You do realize that their is not much in the way of supporting your viewpoint.

The CNN anchors were Judy Woodruff and another female anchor. 9/11 was her very first day on the job and she buckled under the pressure as if she had no background in television journalism whatsoever. She looked to be about 50 years old. The CNN anchors I am 100% sure about because the new lady looked like a deer in the headlights. Just before the South Tower collapsed a bomb went off at street level. There was a reporter closeby and their mic picked up a massive boom. The new anchor lady actually flinched and ducked her head when this happened.


The FOX anchors IIRC were Shepherd Smith and Brit Hume but not completely sure because they didn't botch it up to the degree of CNN. There were no female anchors at FOX on the morning of 9/11 and they damn sure weren't sitting at a round coffee table. They were at the news desk.

Ultimately you're right about nothing to substantiate these claims in the way of footage. But I conceded that much in the OP. A few ATS'ers vouched for me, which was a pleasant surprise. Maybe more will join me on the crazy train... there are plenty of window seats still available.

Oddities I noticed:

* There was no sense of urgency early on
* The initial reports were of an unconfirmed Cessna
* The camera shot was from a bad angle and out of focus (possibly looped)
* They each took two commercial breaks in the 15 minute span
* They were giving the all clear for both towers of the WTC
* Brokerage employees were being cohersed to go to work
* Street level was not shown until second attack
* No eyewitness accounts until after 9AM
* Terrorism was not seriously considered until the second attack

Originally posted by Project_Silo
This does not change anything at all.Just because they were mistaken and did not have all the facts does not mean anything at all really.

I disagree. It's not what the OP is saying about what he saw, it's the not being able to find the archival footage for the period between 8:47 and 9:00 to proove anything one way or another.

The OP has issued a challenge to you and any debunkers to come up with evidence that refutes his claim.

Good luck finding it!

Infinityoreilly, out

Originally posted by Niall197
www.archive.org...

That site has BBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN & Fox coverage from before the attacks happened all the way through.

That site is gold, to rewatch it live as it happened almost 6 years later knowing that how people were dying and jumping out of windows, and for what, the most evil false flag op ever planned and carried out.
I remember watching the scenes on 9/11 and thinking this doesn't look right, but the government says this is what it is, it must be. What else could it be, and the shock of the whole thing.

Now it makes me so angry and sad at the crimes against humanity that were commited that day.

People need to rewatch this & remember.

One last point for the TV fakery people, how do you discount all those witness's that looked up and SAW and HEARD the plane BEFORE it hit.
After watching this, the TV fakery guys make me just as angry as the false flagging traitors.
These guys are insane apostate truthers or disinfo. masters, either way they damage the movement more than words can say.

It's interesting that you said the initial footage may have been stock footage as the smoke was a thin trail. Every news station has pre-recorded news incase of emergency. One such piece is a news report on "The president has just died." They do that one for every president, that way the real anchor has time to get into the studio or whatever.. they have the news instantly because it's pre recorded. I remember watching a news report on these types on news reports. Anyways I'm sure that a 'small plane has just hit the towers' would be one possible pre-recorded news report. Obviously it would be replaced by the actual footage as soon as possible.

Carol Lin broke the news on CNN at 8:48AM EDT.

The first thing that happens in a major story is called the 'snap'.

The snap is when the first line flashes across a news wire and is likely only to be one sentence long as someone has probably written it from their blackberry or cell phone.

In this case it would be something like

ALERT: PLANE CRASH UNCONFIRMED WORLD TRADE CENTRE. BLDG ON FIRE. CASUALTIES UNK.

Now, most agencies stick with the initial report because they are the safe option. Everyone is reading the same flash so they're all giving the same info.

Also, when you're talking about a plane crash you ALWAYS say 'small plane' because if it turns out to be a gas leak or something you can always say that the damage is consistent with a small plane crash. Sources have been known to just make stuff up on the spot so its a way of covering your back.

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
The CNN anchors were Judy Woodruff and another female anchor. 9/11 was her very first day on the job and she buckled under the pressure as if she had no background in television journalism whatsoever. She looked to be about 50 years old. The CNN anchors I am 100% sure about because the new lady looked like a deer in the headlights. Just before the South Tower collapsed a bomb went off at street level. There was a reporter closeby and their mic picked up a massive boom. The new anchor lady actually flinched and ducked her head when this happened.

Hmmm. CNN transcipts of the pre 9:00 hour show something different than your recollection:

transcripts.cnn.com...

Aaron Brown joins sometime after 9:30.

Your contention is that they have totally replaced the intial broadcast with the ones we current see and have records of?

Sorry I am not convinced.

The FOX anchors IIRC were Shepherd Smith and Brit Hume but not completely sure because they didn't botch it up to the degree of CNN. There were no female anchors at FOX on the morning of 9/11 and they damn sure weren't sitting at a round coffee table. They were at the news desk.

Fox and Friends, their early morning GMA, is never held at a desk and usually is in the chair and table format we see in the video evidence. Breaking news would eventuallly go to a desk/anchor setup. Still looking for Fox's Cable news coverage of the event.

Oddities I noticed:

* There was no sense of urgency early on
* The initial reports were of an unconfirmed Cessna
* The camera shot was from a bad angle and out of focus (possibly looped)
* They each took two commercial breaks in the 15 minute span
* They were giving the all clear for both towers of the WTC
* Brokerage employees were being cohersed to go to work
* Street level was not shown until second attack
* No eyewitness accounts until after 9AM
* Terrorism was not seriously considered until the second attack

Umm what I have seen, which I fully understand is not your recollection of the event is.

* Yes there was confusion about what struck.
* First report we hear on CNN refers to a large 2 engine jet like a 737. Other later eyewitness reports do include a small prop plane.
*I will have to look at the CNN again there is a break just before they start reporting the WTC event.
*I see no "all Clear"
* I see no asking people to come to work
*Sure street level wasn't there prior to 1st plane. Travel time in NY is not instant either.
*I would have to look at the time stamp but there are phone interviews, one happening as the second plane hits.
*Yes I would agree. The CNN male anchor babbles on and on about "maybe it's a navigational error" nonsense. Shortly after the second one they start calling it a terror act.

Some one else can search the CNN transcript to see when Judy W. comes on it is at least after 10:00 from my start of a seach.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by Project_Silo
This does not change anything at all.Just because they were mistaken and did not have all the facts does not mean anything at all really.

I disagree. It's not what the OP is saying about what he saw, it's the not being able to find the archival footage for the period between 8:47 and 9:00 to prove anything one way or another.

The OP has issued a challenge to you and any debunkers to come up with evidence that refutes his claim.

Good luck finding it!

Infinityoreilly, out

Doesn't the OP need to come up with evidence to support his claim!?!??!

Someone can always say " The TV footage we see now is fake", prove me wrong... that makes no sense. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, not the other way around...

I am at the archive site looking at footage from 8:48am on right now. Other media footage is available there from as early as 8:31am...

OH WAIT, IT'S ALL FAKED...

This is my first post and may be a little off topic but I swear I saw footage of an actual passenger plane
coming in and hitting the Pentagon. Now I only saw this footage once and only once. It was maybe directly
after the attacks or a couple of days after. Now after seeing loose change a year or so ago I remember
thinking whats all the fuss over whether a plane hit the pentagon or not, I saw the footage on the news.
Now obviously there is no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon but I swear I saw what i saw.
Now I live in Australia and i can't remember what news channel it was and I have cable also so it could have been
any one of six or so channels.
I've only been thinking about it after I saw loose change and then I thought ahh well I must have been seeing
things or dreaming. (although I knew I wasn't) and now this post has got me thinking again......
Now let's say I saw what I saw.
Was it a computer simulation showing the viewers what happened? If it was I was unaware it was because
it was as realistic as real it didn't even enter my thoughts that I was watching a "simulation"
The more I think of it the more bewildering it is that I only saw it the once.
Maybe it was a computer simulation meant to be shown as real footage but maybe showing the plane hitting
at a different point on the pentagon wall???? And to be honest I don't recall the area of the impact because I was
just watching the news showing the plane that hit the pentagon right???????? No reason to analize it, it's the news.

Anyway I hope someone else out there can back me up here or I may have to get myself committed!!!

cheers....

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by Project_Silo
This does not change anything at all.Just because they were mistaken and did not have all the facts does not mean anything at all really.

I disagree. It's not what the OP is saying about what he saw, it's the not being able to find the archival footage for the period between 8:47 and 9:00 to proove anything one way or another.

The OP has issued a challenge to you and any debunkers to come up with evidence that refutes his claim.

Good luck finding it!

Infinityoreilly, out

haha there is nothing to debunk.Hes not claiming anything other than they hid footage of them making a mistake about what kinda plane it was in the heat of the moment.....

It was a chevy o wait a ford.Ohh booooy who cares?

www.archive.org...

At 38 minutes Karim Arraki Says that he saw the first plane go in and that it was a plane he never saw before...same as the second. So how can those be normal airliners. You will see them every day.

I think that is a strange comment. Seeing an "airliner" and noting that it something you never saw before. Hm, military plane then?

Presidents always know more information about what is going on before the news media.......

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself

Originally posted by rezial666
We need ot see footage of the news reports so the discussion can be furthered. I am surprised that the evidence is was not obtained before this thread was implemented.

There is no doubt in my mind that some of the witnesses were planted, but that guy on the phone with ABC sounds genuine. He also says the damage to the South Tower was significantly less than the damage to the North Tower.

Planted witnesses......as in pre-staged, okay this makes no sense at all. If you saw a small plane, then two large planes and buildings did not fall the way they are suppose to and reporters are hiding something from everyone even among themselves...it does not add up. It was a random act with all players accounted for. it was complete confussion and disbelief for everyone at the time. Speculation was everywhere....still is. always will be.

Originally posted by Nerdling
Carol Lin broke the news on CNN at 8:48AM EDT.

The first thing that happens in a major story is called the 'snap'.

The snap is when the first line flashes across a news wire and is likely only to be one sentence long as someone has probably written it from their blackberry or cell phone.

In this case it would be something like

ALERT: PLANE CRASH UNCONFIRMED WORLD TRADE CENTRE. BLDG ON FIRE. CASUALTIES UNK.

Now, most agencies stick with the initial report because they are the safe option. Everyone is reading the same flash so they're all giving the same info.

Also, when you're talking about a plane crash you ALWAYS say 'small plane' because if it turns out to be a gas leak or something you can always say that the damage is consistent with a small plane crash. Sources have been known to just make stuff up on the spot so its a way of covering your back.

Nerding you hit the nail on the head. Carol Lin was the poor lady who was given the task of breaking the story. The look in her eyes was one of sheer terror and it made me uneasy.

Also, when GWB addressed the nation that day I recall that he seemed to be in a hypnotic trance almost. His eyes looked like frisbees and I hate to use the same phrase, but a constipated 'deer in the headlights' would be a good description.

Originally posted by amicrazy
This is my first post and may be a little off topic but I swear I saw footage of an actual passenger plane coming in and hitting the Pentagon...
...Anyway I hope someone else out there can back me up here or I may have to get myself committed!!!

I believe if there was footage of an actual passenger plane hitting the pentagoon then we would have all seen it long ago, and we wouldn't be here still debating it. But I could be wrong, there has to be lots of other footage that hasn't been released for some reason...

Anyway the cuckoos nest awaits you, or are we all already there? Cheers!...

Originally posted by Project_Silo

haha there is nothing to debunk.Hes not claiming anything other than they hid footage of them making a mistake about what kinda plane it was in the heat of the moment.....

It was a chevy o wait a ford.Ohh booooy who cares?

I think it's possible that some of the original broadcasts that morning have been removed from the archive, can I proove this? No. Is it important? I'm not sure. 911 is more mystery than proovable fact as show here on ATS. The media is at the center of the storm because we all rely on it for the information that helps us form are opinion of the world and the events that shape our veiw of not only ourselves but others.

Do you trust the media to give you the staight story?

Thats the bottom line idea the OP is getting at.

How do the archives work? Is it split into sections automatically during the day? Could a new section go from something 4AM-9AM and then 9AM-1PM for example? So perhaps the 9-1 archive is readily available but the 4-9 was removed?

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
When the biggest story of the century initially broke, the reports were sketchy at best. The consensus was that a Cessna type plane had somehow hit the WTC North Tower and the situation was being portrayed as non-threatening.

Here`s a good site to find what you are looking for. I also recommend getting in touch with the owner of www.911blogger.com... to help you in your search. If anyone can find it, it`ll be him.

Bridas.

8:55 a.m.-8:57 a.m. September 11, 2001: Confusion at NEADS over Identity of Plane That Hit WTC

Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley.Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley. [Source: ABC News]Rumors have started circulating through the civilian air traffic system that the plane that hit the WTC was a small Cessna.

Link to Co-operative Research

Originally posted by Pavil

Hmmm. CNN transcipts of the pre 9:00 hour show something different than your recollection:

transcripts.cnn.com...

Aaron Brown joins sometime after 9:30.

Your contention is that they have totally replaced the intial broadcast with the ones we current see and have records of?

Sorry I am not convinced.

There is only one thing I wish to bring to this discussion, and that regards that there is at least "reasonable doubt" that the Official Story is true; whether completely or in part.

Media Transcripts, for both organizational and legal reasons, cannot be automatically considered as accurate, even when such is stated. The same is true of media footage as transmitted. ALL of it has been edited, and some of that editing is done with assistance from outside the Media itself.

The only time this factor doesn't play a role in Broadcasting is when the camera and commentary are "hot". There is a "edit window" on a hot link of between 5 and 16 seconds, depending on whether the link is local/direct of via up-link to a bird. Sometimes, and particularly in the case of an event like 9/11, when ALL of the media are focused on a single point, 5 - 16 seconds is NOT enough time. This fact was both repeated and reiterated in the Katrina Disaster, by a NO TV station, who, despite the collapse of their own transmitting tower, remained on the "air" via live-streaming video on the Internet, for more than 10 days WITHOUT the knowledge of FEMA, The military, or any other federal agency. This is how we ALL found out what a complete FUBAR that "recovery operation" was.

What I am saying is, don't trust "History", or "Washington Truth", (the story told at the end of the day). Understand what you are seeing, what you are reading, and consider the sources and the lapses in time between the event and the publication. Above all else, Listen to, and consider, the eye-witness reports viewed in real time-- the footage you see or witnessed by honest others in real-time, shot live, and broadcast live.

I am going to stick my neck out a little further, and for the good it has the possibility of bringing to this entire 9/11 discussion; et al. I am a professionally trained observer, and spent a LOT of years being paid to do that by________. By virtue of this, I can also spot a DIA in less time than it takes to say the initials. I'll tell you a secret--a real one. If you listen to any person or group long enough, a pattern emerges--and within that pattern is a complete dossier on an individual or group, inclusive of it's true intent. In other words, talk to me or someone who has had the same training and jobs, and you will inadvertently and quite unconsciously tell me your entire life story, including what you do NOT want known. In Investigations like 9/11, I use the same techniques.

Just remember this--wherever and whenever Truth is being purposefully withheld and lies are being told, there will always be contradictions and 'slip-up" statements. The science of it is to catch these--repeatedly--and that is what I, personally, have found to ne the case regarding 9/11. This whole discussion isn't about "supporting a point of view", it is about getting at the Truth regardless of what that is or which way it turns out. We deserve no less as a people than a valid an truthful explanation of this Event and any other of national magnitude. We should strive for, and accept, no less.

I'm done.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by Ed Littlefox]