SPECIAL COVERAGE

selection 2008

regions

topic pages

genres

actions

selection 2008

all action pages >>

resources

newswire article

creative

global

31.Mar.2006 16:46

9.11 investigation | imperialism & war

9/11: Only live feed of "2nd hit" done with military cam

author: Nico Haupt e-mail:

e-mail: nicohaupt2@yahoo.com

Still ignored by the majority of the 9/11 truthlings: Only 1 live feed of the second hit did exist. CNN and FOX picked up from local W-ABC in time. The chopper used the military WESCAM system from L-3/Westcam Inc.

W-ABC Camera Type Identification

By Nico Haupt, March 30 2006

CNN and FOX showing the same synched local 'live' feed from W-ABC (ABC7), by using a military camera system

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WABC_startof2ndhit_clip.jpg

Only 1-2 minutes after the '2nd attack', CNN and FOX stop to broadcast the same synched local feed from W-ABC (ABC7)
At the end of the synched W-ABC 7 pick-up feed you can clearly recognise parts of a helicopter cam attachment (see below, to be identified later)

Note: FOX then switches to local W-CBS feed, who had no own live footage of 2nd hit
(CBS only aired at an unknown time, much later after the second attack, some footage allegedly 'filming' some flying object, buttering into the front, see collections here)

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WABC_endof2ndhit_clip.jpg

Identification of the W-ABC Camera System

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WABC_908_WESCAM.jpg

At around 9:08 AM EST, FOX TV goes back to the original W-ABC live camera (no 'tight shot' anymore), now showing for only 1 second, then suddenly zooming out again, the identification of the camera type: A "WESCAM".
A "WESCAM" is a special anti-vibration camera that mounts on a helicopter and delivers some really stellar visuals.
We know, that this helicopter was steady the whole time and that all media choppers had been whisked out of the area.
Why would a regular media copter remain steady at this position, already before the second hit, not moving at all?

Why also did this unidentified helicopter chose a position where the South Tower is hidden and covered by the North Tower, instead of flying just a little bit to the side, to get a better angle?
Was this chopper really from W-ABC or maybe one of the identified U.S. Helicopters, as seen on some footage at time of second hit and confirmed on WINS.
After both attacks also on the footage of Rick Siegel (911eyewitness.com), you can visibly notice 14-16 other helicopters, who passed the crime scene

Who was the pilot of the "W-ABC broadcast" and who was the cameraman?

Why did U.S. Miltary Helicopters had been in time before the second hit, but no F-16?
Did these military media perps really film a flying object?
Or would the original footage reveal an empty lanscape, then in reality upgraded with a 'live'-CGI, synched and uploaded via vector-keying?

WESCAM is a military camera system

The "WESCAM" was actually improved and integrated into the U.S. military, specificially as part of L-3 Communication:

(Note: L-3 Communications was created in April, 1997 with the purchase of business units that were part of the Loral Corporation and Lockheed Martin merger in 1996)

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WABC_L3_wescam.gif

Among their features are:

single and multi-spectral payloads
short-range, mid-range and long-range lenses
daylight, low-light and thermal sensor cameras
laser rangefinders and designators

"...Wescam�s visual information systems are used by the most discriminating customers around the world including armed forces; federal and local law enforcement agencies; broadcasters of news, entertainment and sports; and NASA...."
This camera was certified in 2000. The description of this advanced camera system shows, that it can work with paralell real time video edit functions, i.e. live-Inserts of CGI's (Computer generated Imagery):
"...our integration technology takes visual information one step further, by providing the most advanced end-to-end system solution. Visual imaging can be integrated with radar, Global Positioning Systems, Inertial Navigation Systems, moving maps, communication encryption protocols, etc. to provide a turnkey package for real-time visual information..."
Wescam conducts business under 3 brands:

L3 Military and Defense Sales
Live Sports Coverage
APS Custom Lens Assemblies
L3 explains, that these kind of cameras are also used for live sports broadcast, adding additional imagery within their complete system, including "point-of-view":
"...remote controlled miniature camera systems to the broadcast industry, has allowed us to provide incredible point-of-view coverage of live sporting events..."
"...digital and analog wireless communication systems - Wescam combines superior imaging technology with digital and analog wireless transmission and reception to enable our customers to communicate high quality video images and data from moving vehicles to remote receive stations..."

The L-3 Iraq war connection

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/Jay_Garner.jpg

L3 became more popular regarding the bio of Jay Garner, who was appointed by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to head the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in post-war Iraq.
He had also directed several major Defense Department programs, was Commander of Space and Strategic Defense Command and assistant Chief of Staff until his retirement in 1997.
After retiring as a three-star general, Garner became president of SY Technology, a provider of communications and targeting systems for missiles which was bought in January 2002 by L-3 Communications for a reported $48 million.

...more here: http://www.911closeup.com/nico/WABC_cam_identification.html and http://www.911closeup.com/nico/

contribute to this article

So?

31.Mar.2006 17:42

What

link

Helicopters and jets and the internet too have been developed through the military, just to name a few out of many thousand things. What is your point?

From this article,

31.Mar.2006 20:38

it would appear as if...

link

we can now surmise that the tell-tale visual footage of the second hit, that one we all saw on t.v. in real-time, and the one that changed the zeitgeist forever, was...well...intentionally captured by the u.s. military, and purposely provided to u.s. (via a complicit corporate media), while at the very same time as that same u.s. military was failing to provide a defense of the nation's air-traffic system.

Malice Aforethought.

Could you post stills and/or video, please?

01.Apr.2006 01:20

I. C. Freely

link

Pics would help. Thanks.

huh?

01.Apr.2006 08:40

link

"Why did U.S. Miltary Helicopters had been in time before the second hit, but no F-16?
Did these military media perps really film a flying object?
Or would the original footage reveal an empty lanscape, then in reality upgraded with a 'live'-CGI, synched and uploaded via vector-keying?"

i don't understand... are you suggesting there was no plane that hit the towers?

the

01.Apr.2006 19:45

message

link

from Nico Haupt(?) is that the u.s. military (and its industrial complex, likely in the person of Jay Garner) was in charge of the providing the visual feed that day. If this were in fact the case, then this would be a massive conflict of interest; and hence, we would have no guarantee about the authenticity of anything we "saw" that day.

Put simply--Nico is calling even the visual record into question.

While taking this negative possibility into account, we also need to be aware that this latest accusation might be made to merely muddy the waters even further so as to obscure the truth lying at the bottom.

But, on the other hand, the visual record is the key causal-factor in how we all reacted thereafter; and so, we must be absolutely certain that the television feed was totally genuine.

Maybe Nico could follow up with some more in-depth, concrete research into "how, and what," we actually saw on television that day. Was the feed, factual or fictional, or a combination thereof?

Praised be the truth seekers.

911 Circus

02.Apr.2006 09:09

spin laden productions

link

quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why also did this unidentified helicopter chose a position where the South Tower is hidden and covered by the North Tower, instead of flying just a little bit to the side, to get a better angle?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maybe the pilot and the occupants of the NBC4 helicopter, with eyes fixed more or less on the burning tower -- big surprise here -- were NOT expecting another jet to come roaring in from behind them and slam into the second tower, and so they didn't have their camera/s pre-emptively fixed on "a better angle" to capture the approach and impact.
I hope that explanation isn't too mundane for you, Nico.

Finally, and contrary to your assertion, the US media appears to have repeatedly broadcast every video of the second attack that became available* on the day - both professional and amateur. That is why at least a dozen unique videos of the 2nd approach and impact can be found online.

* five Israelis pre-emptively placed near Liberty Park in NJ were filming the first attack, and possibly the second {Bergen record, 912]: that video has not been released.

Naudet frames - sth twr impact

Ya',

03.Apr.2006 04:36

there's no denying

link

there's no shortage of independent footage that confirms the second hit.

Nico's point, in my opinion, is likely that the "first" "live" feed was under the direction of those who were in the know.

And in what i think is a related matter, bush has spoken on the record as having watched the "first" plane hit before going in to pet goat. Well, once again, his claim raises the question as to whether there was some kind of live shoot that he was privy to "as it happened". He certainly seemed to know enough to stay put for another thirty minutes.

No worries, mate.

the anti-literal and post modernist interpretation of Nico

03.Apr.2006 11:32

spin laden productions

link

Nico refers specifically and only to broadcast footage of the **second hit**, and mentions not Bush's twice-repeated claim about seeing (narrowcast?) footage of the **first hit** , so I am not sure how it is that you extracted a completely different interpretation of Nico's article to the plain English one upon which I framed my plain English response.

Nico is clearly making some kind of weird and patently false inference about the second impact footage, of which there are dozens of unique examples available that were broadcast repeatedly on 911 to prove him wrong:
There was no media focus on a solitary "unidentified" helicopter shot of the *second strike*, as asserted by Nico;
The helicopter was not "unidentified", as asserted by Nico;
And the heicopter crew should not have been focusing their camera on the Sth tower in anticipation of the second attack, as asserted by Nico -- in rather counter-intelligent kind of way.

9/11: 16 CGI's which fooled the world

03.Apr.2006 12:06

RayAntoky

rayantoky@aol.com

link

A follow up page by Mr. Nico helps explain his theory of what happened with the videos and what we actually saw.

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGI/CGI_aprilfools.html

911 Clowns

03.Apr.2006 19:16

spin laden productions

link

Thanks Ray - perhaps you can explain Nico's whacky CGI-767 theory to the person who is trying to pretend that Nico was trying to make a very different point.

911 Circus includes CGI-767, hologram-767, mass-delusion-767, or any other counter-intelligent product designed to conflict so radically from the documented facts.

The purpose of this strategy is twofold:

1) to make the official conspiracy theory appear plausible in contrast to other "conspiracy theories"
2) to spike the movement with hit-piece fodder, so that hitmen and hitwomen don't have to address the facts, such as the miracle fire at WTC7 (state of the art for controlled demolition), the absence of military response to any of the off-course jets, the 5 Israeli men who were arrested in an explosives-tainted moving van, etc & etc.

No worries

04.Apr.2006 03:32

for now

link

about what bush may, or may not, have seen.

And there's no denying that independent footage confirmed (post facto) a second hit.

All i'm suggesting is that first "LIVE" feed of the second hit was the key, the traumatic shock, that was needed to achieve the desired shift in the zeitgeist. They had to have that visual, so they went out a got it. At the same time, they also provided it to the complicit media.

The rest of the footage is supporting evidence, gratuitous, and witnessed only after the fact.

The Hauptian CGI/vectoring-plane stuff is the hang-out we need to steer clear of.

Cheers.

WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ

06.Apr.2006 21:16

Nico Haupt

niohaupt2@yahoo.com

link

WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11355

(incl. "9/11 NY Aircraft 'Witnesses'" (04/07/06) at

http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html )

By Nico Haupt
April 7, 2006

contribute to this article

add comment to discussion