Startling new 9/11 footage released

[Studeo]

New video has surfaced from the September 11, 2001 attacks from a police helicopter hovering near the burning World Trade Center towers in the hope of rescuing survivors from the rooftops, only to find no one there as the buildings topple and smoulder.

"The whole tower, it's gone," one officer is heard yelling. "Holy crap, they knocked the whole fricking thing down."

An officer wonders, "How could it go down?"

The video is part of a cache of information from the attack handed over by city agencies to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal agency that investigated the collapse. The video surfaced on several websites on Monday (Tuesday NZ time), but NIST did not know who posted it initially.

The 17 minutes of footage shot from a New York Police Department air and sea rescue chopper shows much of what has already been seen but still shocks and disturbs: a chilling aerial view of the burning twin towers and the apocalyptic shroud of smoke and dust that settled over the city.

Only police helicopters were allowed in the airspace near the skyscrapers, and the officers were the only ones shooting images from above. The helicopter flies over the roof as huge gray clouds billow, and away as the video pans out to lower Manhattan. A sea of people can be seen fleeing the area on clear, sunny day clouded with billowing smoke from the towers.

The chopper lands eventually across the harbour from the towers and the camera pans into the helicopter, showing ropes that would have been used to rescue people from the roof. The sparse dialogue portrays shock.

"We got out of there at the right time," one officer can be heard saying.

"I know," another officer replies.

The chopper crew watches in the distance as the North Tower falls, the video zooming to capture the image of the building going down and a huge plume of smoke puffing up.

"Holy s--," another officer can be heard saying.

Stunning, still images from police helicopters were released to the public last year under a similar request.

The video was released by NIST on March 3 under a Freedom of Information Act request, but it wasn't clear who published the footage online.

NIST investigated the collapse of the twin towers and another building that was part of the World Trade Center complex after the 2001 terror attacks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/4743941/Startling-new-9-11-footage-released

[str8thinker]

Thanks Studeo!

For those who might want to save the video here are two links.


Full version (17:04)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w465MHsvYpg
w465MHsvYpg

Shorter version (4:37)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hU36qY8vks
8hU36qY8vks

[dan i el]

This 'previously unseen' footage only took 10 years to surface? Not bad.

Reminds me of the magic helicopter incident, one could even go as far as to say it is a case of smoke and mirrors:

http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/CHOPPER%20PAT%20GERMANTV_VS_HISTORYCH.gif

edit) the forum software doesn't like that .gif, here's the link: http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/CHOPPER%20PAT%20GERMANTV_VS_HISTORYCH.gif

[dan i el]

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000




Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.

While it's little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was "outraged" by the use of the technology, and even CBS's evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a "mistake".

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

The system CBS used was developed by a United States company called Princeton Video Images (PVI). Other players in this field include Symah Vision - part of French defence to media group Lagadere; Israel-based Orad Hi Tech Systems, and SciDex, another Israeli firm with offices in Europe and the US. Each system, while similar, has its differences. None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

"The prime use of our system is to insert promotional images into live coverage, or as a post-production application for pre-recorded (TV) shows - for example, to insert branded goods into the action that weren't really there, for product placement," Denny Wilkinson, PVI's chief executive officer, explains. "Advertising, however, has by far and away the biggest potential for this. It's where the money is."

The use of this technology is already becoming familiar in sports coverage. A number of international sports organisers have recognised the potential to generate more advertising revenue by - in effect - re-selling the same perimeter advertising billboards at their stadia. Through virtual imaging, different advertisers' brands can be seen in different countries that take the live broadcast feed.

A number of European broadcasters including Sky TV have already run "virtual advertising" trials. Mexican broadcasters, meanwhile, have fully embraced virtual imaging systems. And different sports - notably Formula 1 - now acknowledge the potential to deal with restrictions on tobacco advertising in certain countries by replacing cigarette branding in some territories with other images.

The use of this technology for editorial purposes however is more contentious. Already, other media owners - notably newspapers - have had to deal with concerns about digitally manipulating photographic images used in news pages. The Mirror's doctoring of photographs of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed holidaying together was perhaps the highest profile example.

Now concern is being voiced over TV viewers believing they can see something which is not actually there. Which is why it is hard to find anyone in UK broadcasting ready to admit that they - like CBS - are considering the potential of this technology beyond advertising. Sky, however, sees the technology's use as a way of enhancing "the look" of its sports coverage. "We use the ORAD system for a combination of editorial and promotional use," explains Phil Madge, Sky TV studio graphics supervisor "We are using it now to build virtual screens which hang down from the roof of various football stadia to highlight upcoming events, pre-recorded footage and Sky Sports promotions."

Sky purchased the system at the start of the current football season, although it had run a number of trials previously, Madge adds. It has been used less for virtual advertising due to a combination of Independent Television Commission restriction and Football Association concerns. However, it was also used by Sky News to create a virtual studio for the channel's millennium coverage.

"There is great potential to use virtual imaging in other ways but it remains a tool whose biggest advantage is for live broadcasting," Madge says. "There are obvious advantages in virtual studios as you don't need a physical set, just a blue screen against which the presenter is shot and a three-D computer model. You can change it over very quickly - there's no need to shift scenery. The downside is it can look quite computer `graphicsy', and a bit naff."

CBS's problems arise from the fact that its use of the PVI system went one step further than "enhancing" the look of its presentation: it tampered with the reality of an actual event it was depicting in a news show, raising the spectre of TV news reporters reporting "live" from around the world when they're actually far closer to home. The broadcaster - which has also used virtual imaging to modify the New York cityscape - defended itself by insisting: "CBS News' internal standards prohibit digital manipulation or other faking of news footage."

However, a CBS spokeswoman admitted that virtual insertion technology is yet to be covered by the broadcaster's guidelines. But Dan Rather, for one, thinks it should be. "At the very least we should have pointed out to viewers we were doing it,'' he told the New York Times. "I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.''

CBS is not the only broadcaster to use this technology in news broadcasts. Rival ABC recently included a report on Congress by a reporter wearing an overcoat in front of what to viewers seemed to be the US Capitol. The entire report was taped in a studio.

UK programme makers, however, doubt virtual imaging technology requires guidelines any different to the ones they already have relating to editorial balance, accuracy and fairness. "Any form of factual programme-making involves some form of editing of events. It's not hard to present the same situation in a number of different ways," one documentary maker explains. "But it is up to the integrity of the programme-maker to do so with integrity in a way that is both responsible and accurate. The same approach must apply to any production method."

It is a view which seems to be shared by the ITC, whose guidelines relate to the use of virtual imaging by advertisers - none specifically relate to editorial use. "It is an issue that crosses a number of regulatory areas - it could be a matter of inaccuracy, or undue prominence, or fairness. If it arose, we would have to consider each case on its own merits," a spokeswoman says.

Trouble is, for the time being at least, the onus is on the viewer to draw any example of tampering with reality to the attention of the regulator which then would investigate retrospectively. Assuming, that is, that they realise what they are seeing isn't real.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html

[Bluewool]

Why has it taken nearly ten years for this footage to be released?

[Fred259]

Why has it taken nearly ten years for this footage to be released?

Because the criminals are managing the crime scene, and every aspect of 9/11.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Been sitting on my hard drive for at least 6 months as part of the NIST files.
This is not news. I think someone sent it to crytomb unaware that it was already released as part of the NIST FOI request.

This "new" footage is nothing of the sort.

The destruction of the towers is almost entirely unseen in the new video; whether the camera was off or the "collapse" was edited out, I have no idea.

I don't know why the media would not want to highlight this video with firemen describing explosions and bombs blowing up in the towers - also released via FOIA:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-14/911-helicopter-footage-hits-worldwide-media-headlines-while-incriminating-911-foia-videos-are-ignored#comments

All of the videos above have been out for months, yet not one has reached even a quarter-million views. What would happen if 8 million people watched these videos?
Download the torrent and share!
http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page (release 35)

[Icecold]

What ongoing investigation does this vid belong to?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

This "new" footage is nothing of the sort.

The destruction of the towers is almost entirely unseen in the new video; whether the camera was off or the "collapse" was edited out, I have no idea.

I don't know why the media would not want to highlight this video with firemen describing explosions and bombs blowing up in the towers - also released via FOIA:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-1...nored#comments

All of the videos above have been out for months, yet not one has reached even a quarter-million views. What would happen if 8 million people watched these videos?
Download the torrent and share!
http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page (release 35)

[D-Day]

Here's some interesting witness testimony...

wQMK8ZV-gPc

[bennycog]

and he was right.. building 7.. notice how one of them said "black plane" flew into the second building?

[D-Day]

and he was right.. building 7.. notice how one of them said "black plane" flew into the second building?

Yep, I also picked up on that... interesting!

[Jake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXzrqv6Jf6M

EErrrrriiiiieeeeee!!!!!!

[777]

EErrrrriiiiieeeeee!!!!!!

Woowwww! When was that video posted?

[Jake]

EErrrrriiiiieeeeee!!!!!!

Woowwww! When was that video posted?

It I remember correctly, this was in 1996.

[Muzz]

And there was this one where he said we had to sort things out by July/August 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SUwqvXsYwU