Title: Anyone Seen This Video
Description: Capturing 9/11
Description: Capturing 9/11
MaGZ - April 7, 2007 09:46 PM (GMT)
Has anyone see this video? It won a NY emmy. The unedited version would show the missile hitting WTC 7 on the 14th floor.
THE 46thANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY AWARDS – 2003 WINNERS Capturing 9/11. September 11, 2001. (WNYW FOX 5). Jack Taliercio, David Corporon, Keith Lane, Photographers.
THE 46thANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY AWARDS – 2003 WINNERS Capturing 9/11. September 11, 2001. (WNYW FOX 5). Jack Taliercio, David Corporon, Keith Lane, Photographers.
chucksheen - April 7, 2007 11:18 PM (GMT)
:huh:
Interesting....I'm curious.
Interesting....I'm curious.
Truthy - April 7, 2007 11:22 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (MaGZ @ Apr 7 2007, 09:46 PM) |
| Has anyone see this video? It won a NY emmy. The unedited version would show the missile hitting WTC 7 on the 14th floor. THE 46thANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY AWARDS – 2003 WINNERS Capturing 9/11. September 11, 2001. (WNYW FOX 5). Jack Taliercio, David Corporon, Keith Lane, Photographers. |
No, I didn't see anything.
Do you have a video or should I look for it under my table?
MaGZ - April 8, 2007 09:36 PM (GMT)
No, I do not have the video. I remember some of the footage was shown after 9/11. I think it was taken by Jack Taliercio of WNYW Fox 5. To the best of my knowledge Taliercio was the first and perhaps the only cameramen to get to the WTC plaza after the first plane crashed into WTC 1.
The Taliercio footage is very dramatic. He is at the base of WTC 1 on the east side aiming his camera upwards. You see the building burning directly above him. Then on his left he catches the crash of Flight 175 into WTC 2 also directly above him. Two or three seconds later there is an explosion on his right sending debris in all directions. Taliercio falls to the ground losing control of the camera’s aim. This explosion was where the missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor. Taliercio later falls back to the cover area of WTC 4 and later miraculously escapes from the collapse of WTC 2.
This footage was distributed internationally. FOX is affiliated with SKY News in Europe. The last time I saw this footage was about two years ago on the anniversary of 9/11 on an Arab news network. This footage still exists. Someone needs to find it an place it on the net.
From
"The Missiles at Ground Zero"
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/
The Taliercio footage is very dramatic. He is at the base of WTC 1 on the east side aiming his camera upwards. You see the building burning directly above him. Then on his left he catches the crash of Flight 175 into WTC 2 also directly above him. Two or three seconds later there is an explosion on his right sending debris in all directions. Taliercio falls to the ground losing control of the camera’s aim. This explosion was where the missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor. Taliercio later falls back to the cover area of WTC 4 and later miraculously escapes from the collapse of WTC 2.
This footage was distributed internationally. FOX is affiliated with SKY News in Europe. The last time I saw this footage was about two years ago on the anniversary of 9/11 on an Arab news network. This footage still exists. Someone needs to find it an place it on the net.
From
"The Missiles at Ground Zero"
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/
| QUOTE |
| Other footage showing the missile explosion was taken by Jack Taliercio, a local Fox News cameraman. Taliercio was positioned in the plaza at the base of the North Tower and focused his camera on the burning building directly above him. In his video recording we see the second plane hitting the South Tower followed a few seconds later by an immense explosion on Taliercio's right near the vicinity of World Trade Center 6. WTC 6 was a seven-story building on the north side of WTC 1. The explosion sent debris flying in all directions. This footage was shown without explanation on news programs in the early days after 9/11, but is rarely seen today. |
Matthew Brown - April 9, 2007 06:18 AM (GMT)
Very interesting read, very interesting.
killian - April 9, 2007 08:32 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Flying supersonically, the F-15s were still 8 min. from Manhattan when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the WTC's south tower. "Huntress," the NEADS weapons control center, had told Duffy his hijacked target was over John F. Kennedy International Airport. He hadn't heard about the United aircraft yet. |
magz i have addressed you with my concerns in this thread, so i wont bore you with redundancy here. but i would like to know what you think about the above timeline? if the fighter jets arrived 8 minutes late, when would they have fired the missile(s)? are you suggesting they would blindly launch missiles at an unknown and unseen target?
in fact, doesnt NEADS (the ones directing the fighters) say they dont have a clue where the plane is? dont they see it on tv like everyone else?
| QUOTE |
| Marr capsulized the tense moments: "The NEADS battle managers get the last known location, estimate [Flight AA11's] speed and find a green dot that's not identified. Almost as soon as it's discovered, it disappears. It's 8:46 a.m. A shocked airman rushes from the computer maintenance room saying, 'CNN is reporting that the World Trade Center has been hit by an airliner.' There are no other missing aircraft. As we watch the TV, another airliner shows up on the screen, aimed for the second tower [9:02 a.m.]. The shocking reality becomes apparent. This is no longer 'an accident.' New York City is under attack." |
NEADS asserts they were blind (couldnt see the plane), thus this means that the figter jets couldnt see it either (as they are communicating back forth with NEADS) and NEADS still has NO clue where the plane is. so how would they (fighter jets) know where to shoot the missiles? how would they know to shoot them in the first place if they dont have a target?
i strongly urge you to re-examine your understanding of the physical and choronlogical timeline, and the implications of this missile theory (disinfo). you are being misled. isnt it strange that the video of this "event" is conspicuously absent?
i said it in the other thread, there may very well have been other explosions, including the one this video is supposed to show, but conventional means would have been sufficient if not more efficient in causing these possible blasts.
look at the description of the video's contents:
| QUOTE |
| "Other footage showing the missile explosion was taken by Jack Taliercio, a local Fox News cameraman. Taliercio was positioned in the plaza at the base of the North Tower and focused his camera on the burning building directly above him. In his video recording we see the second plane hitting the South Tower followed a few seconds later by an immense explosion on Taliercio's right near the vicinity of World Trade Center 6. WTC 6 was a seven-story building on the north side of WTC 1. The explosion sent debris flying in all directions." |
its the author that tosses the missile suggestion in there, but he never says the video actually shows a missile, just that it shows an unexplained explosion. then this paragraph immediately follows the above info about Taliercio's footage:
| QUOTE |
| The impact point of the first missile can be determined by examining the frames provided by Matt Drudge and utilizing the data in a government report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This missile appears to have overshot WTC 6 and hit the taller building across Vesey Street: World Trade Center 7. According to the NIST report, a large deep hole with black smoke emanating from it was seen on the south side of WTC 7 on the 14th floor. |
so no futher evidence to support the taliercio footage. yes the author regurgitates that "mystery object" confusion (also could be birds or faked vid - take your pick), but thats all. there is no more mention of taliercio's "missile" footage after that small mention.
then there is the real disinfo and true intent of the article, i pointed it out in the other thread but i guess for context its necessary here as well:
it (this missile into wtc 7 theory) tries to create a fake conspiracy to help subtantiate 2 of the gov.'s claims:
-that they tried to make an intercept, but were too late
-that WTC 7 had damage that would lead to a collapse
if thats not enough to convince you this info is mis/disinfo, look at the author's position on the WTC:
| QUOTE |
| ...And the critics who maintain a government conspiracy are wrong in their analysis when they say the Twin Towers fell due to a controlled demolition... |
| QUOTE |
| Some have claimed the Twin Towers also fell under controlled demolition conditions. However, this is certainly not the case. The collapse of the towers can be explained by the high speed impact of the planes and the resulting fires that weaken the steel trusses. Unlike the collapse of WTC 7, both towers fell with the debris scattered in all directions. The upper portion of the South Tower fell toward the east, destroying most of World Trade Center 4. Adjacent to the Twin Towers on the western edge of the complex was WTC 3: the Marriot Hotel. The collapse of both towers onto the hotel destroyed the entire structure, less four remaining floors. There was no controlled demolition in the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
dont be fooled. its not even that subtle, but this theory is disinfo. it hides behind a few real facts but mostly it is a hit piece working against the truth. sorry magz. like i said (in the other thread) i dont know if you are trying to push this info or if you are simply seeking some other opinions/insights on it. i certainly hope its the latter. but please look at it closely and see if what im saying makes any sense.
thank you.
waterdancer - April 9, 2007 09:36 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (killian @ Apr 9 2007, 08:32 AM) |
| if the fighter jets arrived 8 minutes late, when would they have fired the missile(s)? are you suggesting they would blindly launch missiles at an unknown and unseen target? |
The Otis fighter jets are not the only possibility in terms of a missile. Recall the reports of a missile fired from the roof of the Woolworth building?
The Secret Service- Richard Clarke:
| QUOTE |
| The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington. |
The UN General Assembly was scheduled to open on 9/11. Prior years UNGAs had been designated as National Special Security Events. The Secret Service had 100 extra personell in NYC on 9/11 (Barbara Riggs, former deputy director of the Secret Service) - they had real time views of what the FAA was seeing from some point in the early AM, starting at just what point is unclear (Clarke, Cheney, Riggs). Their little tigerwall antennaed van systems which one can no longer find pictures of on the internet sound like they'd be pretty good for spotting that type of threat.
In other words, even if one believes the official accounts of the Otis fighters, to think that they would be the only possibility in terms of missiles really misses the point- 9/11 was a highly unusual day. Don't be afraid to think outside the box.
killian - April 9, 2007 11:01 AM (GMT)
wd, being somewhat familiar with your work, posts, and research, i have the utmost respect for you and have no questions about your loyalties, so understand im not being accusatory towards you here, nor do i want to challenge you, cuz we are on the same side as far as im concerned. please check the other thread for a more complete understanding of my pov., where i address why i dont think a missile make sense.
from the link you provided, i went to the very first quote and source, and this what the intended context of that information is:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html
from the link you provided, i went to the very first quote and source, and this what the intended context of that information is:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html
| QUOTE |
| Innuendo, Erroneous Reports Abound In WTC Transcripts NEW YORK -- The caller's story was outrageous: Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building. Terrorists in a plane watching the attack then plowed into the south tower. Amid the real-life horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, the 2,000 pages of transcripts of emergency communications that day also revealed a flood of terrifying rumors and misinformation: A possible bomb on the George Washington Bridge, a third hijacked plane winging toward Manhattan. None of it was true, but nothing seemed unimaginable as both 110-story towers were attacked in lower Manhattan. The terrorist assault killed 2,792 people. With confusing reports flooding into the Port Authority that day, the transcripts demonstrate how workers "showed a tremendous degree of professionalism under extremely chaotic circumstances," spokesman Harry Spector said. The Woolworth Building, itself once the tallest in the world, was cited as a possible source of the attack. "Can you send somebody over to the Woolworth Building to check the roof?" a Port Authority police officer asked. "There's a possible ... they said it was ... we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building." "The Woolworth Building?" replied a police operator. "`Yeah, on ... on Broadway," the officer said. Transcripts created from tapes of Port Authority emergency calls and radio transmissions illustrate the utter disorientation caused by the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. "It's a fire bomb," one caller told authorities. "A helicopter crash," said a second man calling the Port Authority police. "Possible aircraft explosion," offered a PA police officer in another phone call. The transcripts were released Thursday evening by the Port Authority, which owned the trade center, just two weeks before the second anniversary of the attack. The New York Times went to court to win their release. Already reeling from the twin attacks, authorities were soon hit with another threat. "We have a report over the radio from New York City that there is a third plane on the way," said Port Authority police Officer Tommy Cashin, speaking to the PA police in Newark. "Yeah, we heard that too," said a sergeant answering the call. "Military is aware of that, they're the ones that told us." Another Port Authority officer, speaking by phone with his mother, presented an even grimmer picture. "Don't even go out," he told her. "I mean, they got planes on the radar. They think they are going to start crashing all over Manhattan." Another officer told his wife, "It looks like we're going to be at war. They're attacking all over the country." In upper Manhattan, the George Washington Bridge -- the main artery for getting in and out of the city after the attacks -- was targeted with a bomb threat, one of hundreds that plagued New York immediately after Sept. 11. An FBI agent called New Jersey state police, asking if the bridge was open for emergency vehicles. "FBI, this is Port Authority," said a PA officer. "Be advised we have a bomb threat on the George Washington Bridge at this time. (inaudible) get off." Another Port Authority officer expressed concerns that officials had about other potential terrorist targets, like the Lincoln Tunnel or the Brooklyn Bridge. "There's various reports, all terrorist, uh, vehicles on the crossings," he says, referring to the area's bridges and tunnels. There was only one thing for certain, as the transcripts showed -- words uttered over and over and over. "Yeah, well," said Cashin, "we don't know exactly what's going on." |
the above suggests (to me) that all these many diferent scenarios in each of these "hoax" calls were coming in to confuse and slow down the response, and later history. not a very surprising or unusual tactic actually, so thats not really that far out of the box. but would you agree that the perps would work to confuse, divert, and distract the response and resources?
and if the calls came in, then obviously police were dispatched and must have checked out the location, and so far no reports confirm this woolworth claim.
and with cameras all zoomed in on the first wtc building burning, how could someone miss the missile going by? dont answer that, i can see it heading in the NPT direction, based on the logic that we never saw live footage, so if a missile was fired, we would never have seen it. but i will contemplate that line of logic further (for that scenario does indeed require some out of the box thinking), and because it is perhaps the only way there could be some validity to people witnessing such a thing as the woolworth rooftop fired missile, but it not existing in the public domain of visual footage. but lets put aside for a moment the "witness" angle of it, and examine it from a why standpoint.
help me understand if you would please the logic in actually using a rooftop launched missile at or towards the wtc buildings? i understand its value in the way of causing confusion on that day, as i understand the way its been/being manipulated currently into (possible) mis/disinformation. but i dont see how from a practical or logistical or operational level a missile would be used. i just dont get it. why do that? its clear the buildings (1,2,7) have been rigged to demolish, so whats gained by firing missiles?
if u check the other thread, i explain in detail why shooting a plane down via missile in front of all manhattan and the world makes little practical or political sense. im all for open-mindedness, but im not down for gullability or subversive manipulation of something that is more than likely intentional disinfo from the get-go. what im referrencing is that those initial reports of such things as missiles being fired from rooftops (woolworth in particular), those very initial calls themselves were all most valuable at that moment in the way of causing confusion. now that the we have the ability to look back, miinus the chaos, its pretty obvious that missiles make no sense. so the most plausible explanation is that these reports were either someone who was very confused and very wrong, or someone who was intentionally screwing things up for the rescuers and response teams.
keep in mind a huge part of this missile-to-wtc7 theory resides on the NIST corner damage pic of the wtc7, which has been under scrutiny and for the most part proven to be fake. so yet again this theory attempts to substantiate the gov.'s evidence and the gov.'s version of wtc7's (LACK OF) structural integrity/stability.
***
you want a bonafide mystery? figure out what caused this damage:
flight paths (note the damage im asking about was not in the trajectory path of the planes' nor the subsequent flying debris) :
check all the aerial photos (especially the HUGE hi-res ones), and you will see this is the ONLY building showing this weird smoke damage. the smoke seems to have been exhausted from the buidlings ventilation/heating system. and there is no trace of a fire on the rooftop. so somehwere in that building, a fairly substantial fire was burning, possibly in a boiler room or heating/cooling ducts, and to this day it has never been made public.
now if you were to say that maybe a missile hit this building, i would be more inclined to give it validity, since this building wasnt being scrutinized and filmed at the time in question, nor since.
still, i think missile possibilty even here, is a minimal one, and even less of a probability. BUT i am quite curious to know what building that is and if there has ever been a fire or news report filed mentioning and/or explaining whatever caused the soot on the rooftop.
so i assure you wd, i never stop thinking outside the box, never. but i need at least something plausible in the way of a reason, if im to believe this wtc7 missile theory. not just promises of a video and website which openly does NOT support the WTC 1 & 2 controlled/assisted/demolition collapse theories.
MaGZ - April 10, 2007 12:14 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (waterdancer @ Apr 9 2007, 09:36 AM) | ||||
The Otis fighter jets are not the only possibility in terms of a missile. Recall the reports of a missile fired from the roof of the Woolworth building? The Secret Service- Richard Clarke:
The UN General Assembly was scheduled to open on 9/11. Prior years UNGAs had been designated as National Special Security Events. The Secret Service had 100 extra personell in NYC on 9/11 (Barbara Riggs, former deputy director of the Secret Service) - they had real time views of what the FAA was seeing from some point in the early AM, starting at just what point is unclear (Clarke, Cheney, Riggs). Their little tigerwall antennaed van systems which one can no longer find pictures of on the internet sound like they'd be pretty good for spotting that type of threat. In other words, even if one believes the official accounts of the Otis fighters, to think that they would be the only possibility in terms of missiles really misses the point- 9/11 was a highly unusual day. Don't be afraid to think outside the box. |
I think the Woolworth Building calls to the emergency 911 number stating there were missiles being fired from that building is a bit confusing. Eyewitnesses saw missiles fly at 9:03, some just assumed the missiles came from the Woolworth Building because the fighters came from that direction. The fighters flew in from the east.
gavenjenno - April 10, 2007 12:49 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (killian @ Apr 9 2007, 03:32 AM) | ||||||||||||
| a link from the blog posting: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/d...w_jumpstart.htm
magz i have addressed you with my concerns in this thread, so i wont bore you with redundancy here. but i would like to know what you think about the above timeline? if the fighter jets arrived 8 minutes late, when would they have fired the missile(s)? are you suggesting they would blindly launch missiles at an unknown and unseen target? in fact, doesnt NEADS (the ones directing the fighters) say they dont have a clue where the plane is? dont they see it on tv like everyone else?
NEADS asserts they were blind (couldnt see the plane), thus this means that the figter jets couldnt see it either (as they are communicating back forth with NEADS) and NEADS still has NO clue where the plane is. so how would they (fighter jets) know where to shoot the missiles? how would they know to shoot them in the first place if they dont have a target? i strongly urge you to re-examine your understanding of the physical and choronlogical timeline, and the implications of this missile theory (disinfo). you are being misled. isnt it strange that the video of this "event" is conspicuously absent? i said it in the other thread, there may very well have been other explosions, including the one this video is supposed to show, but conventional means would have been sufficient if not more efficient in causing these possible blasts. look at the description of the video's contents:
its the author that tosses the missile suggestion in there, but he never says the video actually shows a missile, just that it shows an unexplained explosion. then this paragraph immediately follows the above info about Taliercio's footage:
so no futher evidence to support the taliercio footage. yes the author regurgitates that "mystery object" confusion (also could be birds or faked vid - take your pick), but thats all. there is no more mention of taliercio's "missile" footage after that small mention. then there is the real disinfo and true intent of the article, i pointed it out in the other thread but i guess for context its necessary here as well: it (this missile into wtc 7 theory) tries to create a fake conspiracy to help subtantiate 2 of the gov.'s claims: -that they tried to make an intercept, but were too late -that WTC 7 had damage that would lead to a collapse if thats not enough to convince you this info is mis/disinfo, look at the author's position on the WTC:
dont be fooled. its not even that subtle, but this theory is disinfo. it hides behind a few real facts but mostly it is a hit piece working against the truth. sorry magz. like i said (in the other thread) i dont know if you are trying to push this info or if you are simply seeking some other opinions/insights on it. i certainly hope its the latter. but please look at it closely and see if what im saying makes any sense. thank you. |
Actually, as I am currently in NEADS, I can tell you that they still knew where the plane was, but only within a certain radius. However, I can tell you no missiles were launched that day. I already explained my background in another thread. But I can tell you that not a SINGLE MISSILE was launched that day. Trust me as well, a cruise missile probably would have taken out that camera man, no fighter jets were in the immediate area as far as I know, I was in the Pentagon area at the time, so I don't have as much knowledge of the WTC. But I'll say this, it was not a Government conspiracy.
killian - April 10, 2007 05:24 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (gavenjenno @ Apr 9 2007, 08:49 PM) |
| Actually, as I am currently in NEADS, I can tell you that they still knew where the plane was, but only within a certain radius. However, I can tell you no missiles were launched that day. I already explained my background in another thread. But I can tell you that not a SINGLE MISSILE was launched that day. Trust me as well, a cruise missile probably would have taken out that camera man, no fighter jets were in the immediate area as far as I know, I was in the Pentagon area at the time, so I don't have as much knowledge of the WTC. |
wether you are telling the truth or not, i agree and am fairly certain that NORAD as well as other US agencies know exactly what is in the skies (of all EARTH) at all times, including (but not limited to) 9/11. but thats a whole other debate and i didnt want to open that (even bigger) can of worms in this debate. of course they know and control US airspace, but it still doesnt make any sense to fire missiles at the planes in the WTC 911 scenario.
EDIT:
| QUOTE (gavenjenno @ Apr 9 2007, 08:49 PM) |
| But I'll say this, it was not a Government conspiracy |
there you confuse me and i dont agree with you. i respect your opinion and hope that you hang around, do some research, and see what inconsistencies you may (or may not) observe in the government's version of events.
Silven - April 10, 2007 04:44 PM (GMT)
This is the second thread where ppl talk about a missle hitting wtc 7 :s . Is this something that yust popped up out of nowhere?!
Video pls!! :D
Video pls!! :D
Terrorcell - April 10, 2007 04:52 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (gavenjenno @ Apr 10 2007, 12:49 AM) |
| Trust me as well, a cruise missile probably would have taken out that camera man, no fighter jets were in the immediate area as far as I know, I was in the Pentagon area at the time, so I don't have as much knowledge of the WTC. But I'll say this, it was not a Government conspiracy. |
Ohhhh thanks for clearing everything up!
Guess that explains all the aluminum>steel, WTC7, Jet fuel ignited office fires>steel, the 2 flight paths of AA77, the "2nd" plane seen screaming away from the Pentagon seconds after "AA77" hit it, and how a plane with a 124' wingspan, a 40 some foot body and 155' in length can fit into a crater that is 60' long, 20' wide, & 10' deep.
Whew! Thanks! I can go back to watching American Idol finally!!!!
:P
8bitagent - June 5, 2007 03:33 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (gavenjenno @ Apr 10 2007, 12:49 AM) |
| [QUOTE=killian,Apr 9 2007, 03:32 AM] But I'll say this, it was not a Government conspiracy. |
what, all evil arabs from a cave?
the 19 hijackers, KSM and Osama are all puppets of Pakistan, saudi Arabia, UAE and Sudan...who THEMSELVES are puppets of the new world order, who does influence over the US, UK and Israel.
Meaning, the same groups who control "al qaeda" control or influence the US government. Either way, its a conspiracy.
Now as for the missile stuff, it was hillarious seeing someone link to a hardcore neo Nazi site like "Vanguard" to try and prove that WTC fell from fire, and fighter jets fired missiles.
that new picture of roof damage, could very well be unrelated.
genghis6199 - June 5, 2007 04:21 AM (GMT)
TERRORCELL STOLE MY LINE !!!!!!!!!
but 8bitagent gave me another:)
"that new picture of roof damage, could very well be unrelated."
yeh the roof fell in and caught fire because wtc 1 and 2 were it's good friends and it was sad............
but 8bitagent gave me another:)
"that new picture of roof damage, could very well be unrelated."
yeh the roof fell in and caught fire because wtc 1 and 2 were it's good friends and it was sad............
industrock - June 5, 2007 06:31 AM (GMT)
You want to know what the "damage" on this rooftop is from?
Mildew coming from exhaust pipes that blow hot moist air out of the building and onto the rooftop. Notice how the vents are angled down toward the roof instead of up in the sky? Notice how the black mildew marks trace back to the mouths of each of those pipes?
Mildew coming from exhaust pipes that blow hot moist air out of the building and onto the rooftop. Notice how the vents are angled down toward the roof instead of up in the sky? Notice how the black mildew marks trace back to the mouths of each of those pipes?