Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Does anyone know if you can access the bulk of each U.S. network's coverage of 9/11 as it happened? I know that CNN has about 4 hours or so that can be accessed, but I'm looking to view the events from FOX, NBC/MSNBC, CBS and ABC. I've been looking around but can't seem to find them.
One of these days, I want to sit down and compare the coverage of all of them, and see what I can find out that was different, surprising, etc, about each broadcast.
MSNfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
Just finished a Journalism and 9/11 lecture in my Journalism class a few weeks ago-used this archives website for your same exact purpose (comparison/analysis). The only big problem with it is that you have to be affiliated with something that has a subscription or have your own subscription to it. My university did, so I am not sure what it might entail otherwise...definitely worth looking into though as it has a lot of what you're looking for.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1955 times:
There is a book/DVD called "What We Saw." The DVD pretty much has CBS covereage from the beginning. Do not remember how far it goes. I was stationed in Japan on 9/11 and did not have access to the same coverage, so when I got back to the states I bought this book.
RW170 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 430 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
What you need is the September 11 Television Archive on archive.org. It has nearly all coverage from before the attacks started on the morning of 9/11 through 9/13 from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, and Fox.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5742 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1744 times:
Quoting RW170 (Reply 3): What you need is the September 11 Television Archive on archive.org. It has nearly all coverage from before the attacks started on the morning of 9/11 through 9/13 from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, and Fox.
The man speaketh the truth. Some of the clips are unavailable though, for some reason. Especially the CNN coverage is chilling, since they were the first to interrupt their normal services. The first time I watched, I could definantly feel my heart pumping a bit during the commercials.
One of the Danish TV stations also have an archive up, with about 2-3 hours of coverage, starting from just after the 2nd tower was hit, but before the Pentagon was struck.
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1736 times:
It's not coverage from the day of the attacks, but one of the most moving videos related to the attacks that you can find online is Jon Stewart's opening monologue from the first Daily Show episode following the attacks, on September 20:
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
RW170,. that was just what I wanted. I couldn't get the videos to play on AOL, I think that'll keep me busy on and off for a while, when I want to compare the coverages of each network. I'm especially interested in seeing the BBC's coverage and how they viewed it.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9073 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
A truly terrible day........
Thanks to all those who have provided links. To my surprise, though, this CNN footage of the second aircraft actually hitting doesn't seem to be shown in them:-
To me, that was a very revealing shot. The approach was from the south-west, over the Statue of Liberty, and the smoke clearly shows that there was a crosswind. The aeroplane is banking steeply to port. I found a still picture once and analysed it; the bank angle is about 45 degrees, and the wings are visibly bending, proving that the pilot was hauling back on the column as well. Even so he very nearly missed the whole building..........
That 'proves,' to my satisfaction anyway, that the pilot was indeed an amateur who knew little or nothing about the need to crab to counter a crosswind; and also that there was no 'government conspiracy' involving fancy guidance systems. Just a bunch of people who had been trained just well enough to commit one of the biggest atrocities in history..............
[Edited 2009-04-21 06:36:29]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
CasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1553 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8): Thanks to all those who have provided links. To my surprise, though, this CNN footage of the second aircraft actually hitting doesn't seem to be shown in them:-
As I recall, this video was an amatuer shot or local affiliate shot, that was not brought into main broadcasts until late in the afternoon.
Same goes for the telling first impact shot by the firefighter documentary.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1281 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8): That 'proves,' to my satisfaction anyway, that the pilot was indeed an amateur who knew little or nothing about the need to crab to counter a crosswind; and also that there was no 'government CONSPIRACY' involving fancy guidance systems. Just a bunch of people who had been trained just well enough to commit one of the biggest atrocities in history..............
Kamikaze pilots were trained just well enough to hit a moving target that was defending itself. Not much skill needed to crash a plane.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5742 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1245 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8): That 'proves,' to my satisfaction anyway, that the pilot was indeed an amateur who knew little or nothing about the need to crab to counter a crosswind; and also that there was no 'government conspiracy' involving fancy guidance systems.
Sadly there are a hell of a lot of deranged people out there, with all sort of fancy ideas as to what "really" happened on 9/11. One group of people are into "TV Fakery", suggestion that all videos and pictures of either aircrafts have been edited in afterwards, and have even offered $100k for an original video of the 2nd hit. Other groups are into Hurricanes(!), Mini-nukes(!!) and remote controlled drones being used instead(!!!).
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7619 posts, RR: 28 Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 11): Sadly there are a hell of a lot of deranged people out there, with all sort of fancy ideas as to what "really" happened on 9/11. One group of people are into "TV Fakery", suggestion that all videos and pictures of either aircrafts have been edited in afterwards, and have even offered $100k for an original video of the 2nd hit. Other groups are into Hurricanes(!), Mini-nukes(!!) and remote controlled drones being used instead(!!!).
True enough. But as noted on pilotsfor911truth.org and a few other places, aviation professionals the world over are still pretty curious about the performance of whoever was at the controls of American 77. If the DoD would be kind enough to release more of the footage they (surely!) have then that single security gate camera, it would really help to visualize the maneuvering that allowed Honjour or whoever to hit the Pentagon in the manner they did.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2843 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1191 times:
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 11): Sadly there are a hell of a lot of deranged people out there, with all sort of fancy ideas as to what "really" happened on 9/11. One group of people are into "TV Fakery", suggestion that all videos and pictures of either aircrafts have been edited in afterwards, and have even offered $100k for an original video of the 2nd hit. Other groups are into Hurricanes(!), Mini-nukes(!!) and remote controlled drones being used instead(!!!).
Didn't take long for one of them to prove your point. Yup, there's video being supressed, for some evil reason...
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7619 posts, RR: 28 Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Quoting 4holer (Reply 13): Didn't take long for one of them to prove your point. Yup, there's video being supressed, for some evil reason...
Nobody said anything about evil reasons or whatever - just that there are surely more than one security camera at the Pentagon operating in daylight hours and we've only seen public footage from one of them.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5742 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1180 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12): True enough. But as noted on pilotsfor911truth.org and a few other places, aviation professionals the world over are still pretty curious about the performance of whoever was at the controls of American 77.
PffffffT are a joke and noplaners to boot, who seem to have a rather fanciful idea of the movements of AA77 (but no maths to back it up). I don't follow them much, but I seem to recall that their theory is that some eyewitnesses saw AA77 north or south of the Citgo gas station, and that that somehow proves that it could not have hit the Pentagon. Apart from the actual physical evidence ruling that one out, the very same eyewitnesses also saw the impact!
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12): If the DoD would be kind enough to release more of the footage they (surely!) have then that single security gate camera, it would really help to visualize the maneuvering that allowed Honjour or whoever to hit the Pentagon in the manner they did.
The Pentagon has cameras where cameras are needed, ie. at vehicle entry points and so forth, the rest is covered by the local security detail. As for the videos from cameras outside of the Pentagon, this site has a pretty good rundown of them (bearing in mind that security cameras usually tend to focus on whatever they're there to to help secure, instead of pointing randomly into the sky or at a non-related building): http://www.flight77.info/85videos.php
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1104 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12): True enough. But as noted on pilotsfor911truth.org and a few other places, aviation professionals the world over are still pretty curious about the performance of whoever was at the controls of American 77.
He crashed a plane into a large staionary building, not exactly the hardest thing to do in the world.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7619 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1043 times:
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 15): I don't follow them much, but I seem to recall that their theory is that some eyewitnesses saw AA77 north or south of the Citgo gas station, and that that somehow proves that it could not have hit the Pentagon. Apart from the actual physical evidence ruling that one out, the very same eyewitnesses also saw the impact!
I don't dispute eyewitness accounts or the physical evidence that is plainly available regardless of what conspiracy theorists claim. Again, I'm stating that given the available footage of everything else from that day, for archival and curiosity purposes alone, the public should have a lot more of AA 77 to see. There are buildings all over DC with rooftop or other cameras facing the Potomac that may or may not have the Pentagon in their line of sight - with a little help from computers depending on where they were pointed, it wouldn't be hard to see the aircraft's path and/or impact.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 133 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5742 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9073 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7619 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
