Search This Blog

Monday, August 16

Makes Ya Go Hmmm

Before you accuse me of being a nutjob... just consider that I suspect the news media of not playing a fair game when all is said and done. When they are winging it during a crisis, stuff gets on tape and stuff is said that later they wish wasn't for a variety of reasons. I absolutely understand that false assumptions are made in haste during a crisis as well and must be retracted... but there are things that still keep you wondering... and you always have the eye witnesses who were there on the spot who tell you what they saw only seconds after an event who literally had no time to make anything up and corroborate it with others. Such was the case with TWA Flight 800 (July 1996) which went down off Long Island. Literally seconds after it happened, hundreds of eyewitnesses came forward telling of a missile attack on the plane. I was watching television at the time it happened here on Long Island. When local programming was interrupted, the first thing the newsman said was that it was shot down by a missile. To this day, hundreds of eye witnesses remain who know what they saw despite the "official" claim made by those who didn't see the disaster. With that said, you may understand why I am a skeptic when it comes to "official stories" of disasters.

Then again sometimes people think they see something but it happens so fast that they really didn't see what they thought they saw. Sometimes we may just never know the exact truth. That's ok too and I can accept that better than I can accept claims by government officials who expect me to believe ridiculous assumptions that defy physics or stories that just sound way too political or white washed.

I may just go through the rest of my life with a question mark, where that story resides, in that part of my brain. Flight 800 has a big '?' and so does AA Flight 587 which crashed off Long Island coincidentally on November 12, 2001. Nothing leaves quite as large a question mark as the flights of 9/11/01. So the following story doesn't surprise me at all. I'm not saying I believe it. I won't discount anything that seems fairly reasonable or may contain some truth. Sure there are people who can do video enhancements to make things appear to be what they are not. I know how to enhance video too. But I wouldn't mind getting a hold of the actual feed from the tv networks myself from 9/11, digitizing it and slowing it down to see what happened for real... but anyway here is an article that makes you go hmmm....
9/11 VIDEO SHOCKS SACRAMENTO CITIZENS
August 13, 2004
Posted 1:010 AM Eastern
NewsWithViews.com

A new 9-11 video was screened last night in Sacramento, California, leaving the audience stunned. '911 in Plane Site' is basically presented in two parts. The first segment is 52 minutes and designed for showing on television with the balance of a one hour time slot reserved for commercials. Part II continues with more film and analysis. This video is digitally mastered making details sharp and clear.

'911 in Plane Site' presents actual film from that fateful day and careful analysis focusing on the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center buildings. By slowing down the actual news feeds that day from networks like CNN, FOX, the BBC and others, what you see is quite different from what most people saw in "real time" that day. Live footage from the Pentagon and what was missed by most because of the smoke and confusion was captured up close by the media. Following the showing, a retired vet remarked, "How did we miss this all this time? I've seen media clips of the front of that building [the Pentagon] many times, but I wasn't really seeing what was there. I feel sick."

One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted - live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased: Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport."

Other footage includes several women who had a very clear view watching the second plane hit were yelling, "That wasn't American Airlines....It wasn't American Airlines going into the building." These interviews were played that morning once on FOX News, never to be replayed again, despite the massive saturation and repetition by the media for many days to come.

Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower, in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?

This video raises extremely disturbing questions about the planes that hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers, but no conclusions or accusations are made by the commentator. To date, only one piece of film has been released by DoD of the front of the Pentagon. The question raised in the video is where is all the other film footage from the Pentagon? The heart beat of America's military and security, with a building and perimeter loaded with cameras, but no film for the public to view of events as they unfolded except from one camera?

According to the producers, the purpose of '911 in Plane Site' is to demonstrate that Americans saw one thing that morning that was so shocking, so horrific and so massive, the finer details weren't really being picked up. The producer reinforces to the viewer that after one broadcast of many very controversial interviews live on the spot, these particular interviews were never broadcast again, i.e. firefighters on the spot talking about the explosions and bombs inside the towers. Since 9-11, it has been reported that "Building Seven" collapsed because of the two World Trade Center towers collapsing. However, the footage on this video tells a different story and raises more questions.

'911 in Plane Site,' distributed by Power Hour Productions (866-773-9469), leaves one with many questions as demonstrated by a very upset senior citizen who requested her last name be withheld. Mary asked, "If these weren't commercial airliners, where are those flights? Where are the passengers? My, God what really happened that day?" Indeed, this seemed to be the biggest question expressed by viewers after the lights came back on, but for which there were no answers. Some viewers were visibly upset, angry and "want damn answers" from the Bush Administration. Others just walked out the door in silence. One upset man commented on the way out of the viewing, "It's time to get this on PBS and every investigative news program on TV. We need answers."

© 2004 NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved


Here is some more stuff to make you go hmmm regarding this movie. oy vey.
Update: This site above may be a bit much though.

UPDATE Aug 18th: Talking about Planes being shot out of the air, I found this link in my bookmarks.


No comments: