Electronic Jamming on 9/11

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 13th, 2011, 5:25 pm

mlebek wrote:Simon, sorry for my opinion but please give me some hints why the following video what looks perfect to me is a fake. i know how digitally genereated crowds of people look in hollywood films, not so real like in this video. how did they do that? i am really impressed about the quality if it is unreal.

if you wish i leave this forum after your response, thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5m ... re=related


Mlebek, (sorry - didn't mean to sound nasty with you yesterday - I used to have the same questions as yourself - long ago ! ;) ...)

You may be impressed by the quality at first glance - and of course they tried to do their best to fool the entire world with their trickery. What needs to be done and what we do here is to scrutinize these "apparently realistic" images and expose them for what they are: Piss-poor forgeries. The below 2 frames are from the video you linked to, btw:

Image

In fact, the anonymous and soundless video you linked to (from Xenomorph's notorious shill channel) is nothing but a new, slightly improved rendering of another old anonymous video known as "WHAT WE SAW" by "Bob and Bri". We still don't know who Bob & Bri are - even though 'they' published their video on the internet back in 2006...Here's a frame extracted from their video which I downloaded years ago directly from their YT channel - I hope you are not equally impressed with this image "quality" !
Image

Now, returning to the more recently released Xenomorph video that you linked to, here's the sort of frames we may find in it :
Image

NOTE THAT THE GLITCH CANNOT BE A RANDOM VIDEO ARTIFACT SINCE IT FOLLOWS A PARTICULAR PORTION OF A BUILDING FOR SEVERAL FRAMES.

I'm quite familiar with that Xenomorph video - in fact, I also remembered a funny little scene : here's my own little 'cartoon story' I made of it :
Image
Yes, the guy actually stops his leisurely walk and turns around to get a better look at the catastrophe rolling down his way ! :lol:

So, to answer your question "how did they do that?" - here's what they can do today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
Now that's pretty impressive, if you ask me !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Cellphones/Cameras did not work on 9/11

Postby regex on January 13th, 2011, 5:41 pm

Another question came to my mind yesterday: NIST released 2000~ photographs of that day, I haven't had the time to check them, but don't you all agree with me that it would be such a huge timeconsuming work to create 2000 - more or less - authentic photographs.

I agree with you simon when you say that most (or even all) photographs and videos of that day are fake, especially the live footage and the famous "amateur" footage.
But still, I can't imagine how they are able to do such a thing.

I mean, they can't just go around on the streets asking people if they wanna be a part of a conspiracy and they need fake photographs.
So, according to the phonecalls someone made with Hezakhani and Fairbanks, I can smell their fear when they talk about their videos. Hezakhani isn't even allowed to talk about his footage anymore.

Well so what I want to know is, do they pay these people with huge amounts of money OR do they force them to be part of the conspiracy.
Imagine 2 people knocking on your door and tell you that you have to do something or you will be killed, and there won't be any investigation.

I remember a hearing at the CCC this year:
Someone (I think he was from New York) was fighting the state because the patriot act forced him to give all data of his consumers (he leads some ISP). That started back in 2004~ if I remember correctly, and he is still not allowed to talk to ANYONE (except his laywers) about the case. He even isn't allowed to say the sex of the FBI agent that talked to him. If he says anything wrong he goes to prison for 10 years. That's insane.
regex
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: January 2nd, 2011, 1:30 pm

Re: Cellphones/Cameras did not work on 9/11

Postby fred on January 13th, 2011, 6:28 pm

regex wrote:don't you all agree with me that it would be such a huge timeconsuming work to create 2000 - more or less - authentic photographs.
...
I can't imagine how they are able to do such a thing.
...
I mean, they can't just go around on the streets asking people if they wanna be a part of a conspiracy and they need fake photographs.
...
Well so what I want to know is, do they pay these people with huge amounts of money OR do they force them to be part of the conspiracy.
Imagine 2 people knocking on your door and tell you that you have to do something or you will be killed, and there won't be any investigation.
...



It's just a made-for-TV movie. A lot more work goes into making Cloverfield or Avatar or even Gossip Girl. They have their sets, their models, their artists, and their actors and actresses. We've already seen how they cut and paste the same elements together to create dozens of amateur videos and pictures from one set of images. The same voice over actress screams on different "amateur" videos. The buildings show up in exactly the same (wrong) perspective from completely different cameramen. It's a big job, but not a huge job compared with a typical movie with higher production values.

There are hundreds of thousands of people with Top Secret security clearances who are trusted to handle the most sensitive classified information. Within that group of people there are thousands that they can tap to work on an operation like 9/11, but they don't need thousands of people to work on it.

As for money, there are plenty of actresses and actors looking for work all the time. They may just hire someone to pretend to be a horrified witness and pay him $2000 for a half hour of work. I'm sure he signs all sorts of documents that threaten him with dire consequences should he ever reveal any secret information. They probably just tell him it's for a morale operation and they want him to pretend to be a hero fireman who rescued someone from an elevator in order to build popular support for the real firemen heroes. So it's for a good cause. Or they may use people they trust within their skits. There are plenty of people who work within the military and intelligence community who can be trusted to keep secrets, and many of them are happy to participate in domestic covert operations (whether legal or illegal.) It's not like they're actually going to kill a pretty nine year old girl. They know it's just a make-believe tragedy. All they need are people who are sympathetic to the goal of the operation (more gun control, less violent political rhetoric, whatever it is....)

"How would you like to be a part of history and work on a top-secret operation with your Congresswoman and the President of the United States, Sheriff? We are trying to crack down on the ability of crazy people to buy guns, and need your help." For all I know the Sherrif has a background in Army Intelligence or PSYOPS or used to work on covert operations long before he became Sheriff. The "Congresswoman's Aide" is probably some FBI recruit or politically ambitious guy looking to further his own career in politics. I'm sure he'll get into the graduate school of his choice and get a nice job in some administration for his cooperation.

They don't go up to random people and put guns to their head to make them cooperate. They have no shortage of applicants looking to work on clandestine projects or covert operations. We know why Gabby Giffords agrees to do this, right? She was an unknown and now she's world famous, and a potential candidate for the White House.

As an unknown actor, would you rather be:
the guy in hemorrhoids commercial who can't sit down? or would you rather be
forever known as the hero who tackled the murderous gunman?

All kinds of people are looking for this kind of work.
fred
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby mlebek on January 13th, 2011, 7:50 pm

simonshack wrote:So, to answer your question "how did they do that?" - here's what they can do today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
Now that's pretty impressive, if you ask me !


Ok, many thanks, now i understand what you mean.
They have this pool of scenes, people, buildings, backgrounds, zombies and stick them together just as they like. Maybe this silly guy was filmed at malibu beach and one week later he is the leading actor in 'Steve against the smokin curtain'.
Thats just sick.
mlebek
Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: October 20th, 2010, 6:04 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby mlebek on January 14th, 2011, 1:13 am

Fireman: 'Our radios(Giulianis)didnt worked, but police officers radios worked.'

from 06:00:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I&feature=related

Report about these not working radios of the firemen:
http://therealrudy.org/radios.php
mlebek
Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: October 20th, 2010, 6:04 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby maiklasLTU on January 14th, 2011, 12:31 pm

Wait a minute... Were the television sets working and cameras not? That doesn't make sense to me...
maiklasLTU
Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: September 21st, 2010, 8:09 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 14th, 2011, 1:36 pm

I'm gonna buy myself one and aim it at the annoying paparazzi who always bother me when I go shopping downtown... :lol:

Image

http://www.spymodex.com/video.htm

This one jams all video cameras within a range of 70m. It goes for as little as $790. I'd imagine the Pentagon could afford a few? <_<
Image

This is a professional high powered video camera jammer. It produces a powerful 4 watts of jamming power to disable just about all video cameras up to a distance of 70 metres and covers all frequencies between 900Mhz - 2.5Ghz. This device will jam the signal for any wireless video camera, wireless lans and bluetooth.


But seriously - the Pentagon should have its very own, classified toys - most probably 1000 times more powerful and sophisticated.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby mlebek on January 14th, 2011, 2:40 pm

simonshack wrote:This one jams all video cameras within a range of 70m. It goes for as little as $790. I'd imagine the Pentagon could afford a few? <_<


http://www.spymodex.com/video.htm:
"This device will jam the signal for any *wireless*video camera"

Only cached version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OEojWaVmzaQJ:www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx%3Fid%3D17015+jamming+cameras&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a
...In the second step, to block the camera from taking pictures, the device uses a projector that emits a narrow beam of white light directly at a CCD. The beam saturates the CCD with varying intensities of light, Abowd says, forcing the camera's electronics to constantly adjust, and ultimately producing large white splotches that cover about one-third of the recorded scene. The result: a low-quality, if not worthless, recording or photograph.


http://news.cnet.com/2100-1009-5074852.html
...When the handset is taken into a room or building containing the Safe Haven hardware, the phone is instructed to deactivate the imaging systems. The systems are reactivated when the handset is out of range.



http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/HP-Developing-Picture-Jamming-Technology-to-Block-Unwanted-Photographs-.htm
HP is developing a privacy technology that can jam still and video cameras...


What about jamming uplinks from broadcasting vans?

Evens so i think smoke is cheaper and safer...
mlebek
Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: October 20th, 2010, 6:04 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby nonhocapito on January 14th, 2011, 6:21 pm

simonshack wrote:I'm gonna buy myself one and aim it at the annoying paparazzi who always bother me when I go shopping downtown... :lol:


hehe... it makes you wonder though, why the celebrities who lament the loss of privacy don't make use of this stuff? And the "elite" alex jones shouts at out of hotels: why don't they use it?
It really makes you see the difference between pretend secrecy (private life of celebrities, bilderberg meetings, the wikileaks "bunker", etc) and real secrecy, which is "jammed" and substituted with fakery (9/11, 7/7 etc etc etc).
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby SmokingGunII on January 14th, 2011, 8:52 pm

Guys - I've never been convinced that electronic jamming equipment was used on 9/11. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I'm not convinced it was. Let me expand.

First hit wasn't expected, so no need to jam any equipment - there was no plane, people weren't looking for a "plane" in the sky, so they used fake footage (Naudet) to convince the world there WAS a plane.
Nobody expected the 2nd hit either, as the first impact was initially repoted as an accident, so ANY cameras trained on the WTC were trained on the smoking tower. The 2nd "hit", came from the South, out of view for "ordinary" people that had already been moved North.. The only footage of the 2nd "plane" is the fake news footage and the subsequent fake "amateur" footage. There were NO planes, so why would the perps need to disable electrical equipment? Perhaps a missile or drone was used for the 2nd impact to convince those across the Hudson, but even that is debatable.

Of course the PTB requested all films, video be handed in to help the fight against "terrorism" and I would expect that most, outraged, law abiding citizens of America would have done just that. So that leaves us with the genuine non-incriminating photos from afar, which may or may not help us in the quest for the truth.

Conclusion: There are very few genuine photos available from that morning. Unfortunately, camera phones weren't available then, otherwise we would have a raft of imagery available on the net (I've always felt that 9/11 was rushed through earlier than plannned- was the advent of phone cameras the reason for this?), so only a few tourists would have had genuine video cameras on them at the time. How many tourists would be in the vicinty at that time of the morning? When I visited NY, I never made it down to WTC until the afternoon.

These are my personal thoughts and do not, in anyway, contradict the fact that TV Fakery and fake victims, were at the core of this giant hoax.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 14th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Dear all,

I like the electric jamming idea as I have experienced cell-phone jamming during rioting myself.
But as for a wide area full electric jamming, I have a question. Would it not affect the TV-s the people are watching in their homes, which we want them to do instead of looking out of their windows towards the Twin Towers?
If we jam camera, cell phone, photographics equipment, web cameras, every one of these... We should know the technical details. Are there shadows from the jamming, where you may take videos? Because if shadows are possible, say behind brick wall or fuck knows what, then you have to jam the machine-to-machine electric data flow, too. And this means you jam the TV, too. And you need very careful crowd control.
Or are we jamming now just the recording possibilities, video cameras, cell phone cameras, picture cameras and web cameras? But not data flow?
The theory is good. However we need specific technical details to be SURE. Otherways it is speculation. Not as if anything is wrong with speculation.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 14th, 2011, 9:32 pm

Dear all,

as per my previous post:

Of course we have to jam electric data flow. We not only want people not recording with cell-phone cameras, we also have to make sure they are not calling their friends on cell. But that needs jamming all electic data flow. That affect the TV-viewers in NYC, too, do you think? Or is it just cell phone electric data flow jamming, but TV electric data flow is not affected, because in case of videocameras, photocameras, and webcameras, we only jam recording capability, and because nobody records nothing, there is no need to jam recorded electric data flow, so TV-s are saved?

I am not trying to say it did not happen. I just simply want to be SURE. But, of course, I understand it is not us who have really to figure out or prove anything. Based on the various data including septemberclues, we know what did not happen. What really happened? It is not as if it can not be un-raveled. Grab Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, all media people on screen that day, and ask them. No torture, you see, but throw in a bit of waterboarding, which as we all know is not torture, just harsh interrogation. So waterboard them, make them confess their sins and sims, hang them as traitors. Easy. We do not have to tell how it happened. But I admit, I do enyoy speculating, too.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 14th, 2011, 10:30 pm

warriorhun wrote:Or are we jamming now just the recording possibilities, video cameras, cell phone cameras, picture cameras and web cameras? But not data flow? The theory is good. However we need specific technical details to be SURE. Otherways it is speculation. Not as if anything is wrong with speculation.


Dear warriorhun,

I am no electronic engineer - let this be said - but all the tech-literature I've read so far concerning HERF, jamming devices and electronic warfare seems to confirm my initial speculations into this matter, that is: electromagnetic/electronic jamming devices can be tuned/calibrated to disrupt only the desired, specific, targeted circuitries/wavelengths/Hz ranges/frequency bands.

Please check out this company ("TANGREAT") which offers a wide range of jamming devices:

http://www.tangreat.com/en/default.html
Products on offer:
RF Jammer | Bomb Jammer | Radio Jammer | Radio Frequency Jammer | Vehicle Jammer | Stationary Jammer | Prison Jammer | Cellphone Jammer | Gps Jammer | Mobile phone Jammer | Portable Cellphone Jammer | Multi band Jammer | Gsm Jammer | Prison Jammer system | Signal Jammer


And - as per my post above - there are also companies producing specific video camera jammers. The point is, it is not like there exists only one crude machine which just causes random, indiscriminate electronic disruptions. However - you rightly mention that this discourse is bound to be confined in the domain of speculation - yet we may consider this speculation worthy of merit based on what appears to be a solid and verifiable fact: NO real, verifiably authentic images have so far emerged from that morning's events in Manhattan.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 15th, 2011, 12:06 am

Dear simonshack,

I was just trying to point out, that you have to jam not only recording capacity, but dataflow capacity, too, for cell phones/camcorders/web cameras etc..., not just for them not to be able to record anything, but so they can not send data about not being able to record anything in the area-without disrupting the dataflow of media to TVs, as we want NYC to watch their TVs and not their windows.
As I mentioned, in 2006 only cells were jammed in Budapest. But it did not disrupt police radio traffic. So I know this targeted jamming machine exists which specifically targets cells.And-as your link provided proof of existing targeted jamming machinery, from radio frequencis to signal jammers to all sorts of electric equpment jammer, and knowing full well that military/intelligence technology stands lets say ten years before civilian use, and as you say there are recording-jamming machines out in the market... then this is not speculation, this is a convincing case scenario.

One question only: on what basis are we thinking? The jammer idea, where does it originate from? Does it originate from the "how I would do it" question, or is it based on the reports that the telephone system did not work that day? Because if it is the latter, than I have to say the reports of cells not working in NYC on 9/11 (the supposed "system overload") was reported on the one and only-MSM. But it will be a good example of fakery giving a clue for a solution.
So the electric jamming idea is cool with me.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby RoyBean on January 15th, 2011, 2:42 am

I always believed it to be one of the easily doable parts of the operation. You assess the areas/locations, set up a surveillance/power jamming network, and zap away only when and where necessary. No biggie.
Someone almost convinced me that the Bob & Bri video might have been one that wasn't shut down completely but actually shows the zap-induced momentary disruption until I started looking closer at the video.
RoyBean
Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 6:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests