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 warriorhun on January 15th, 2011, 8:50 am

Dear All,

of course targeted jamming of recording AND data flow capacity makes sense. You know those UAVs? The drones, who are playing God over every other Pasthun wedding in Afghanistan? It is a simple model plane, with a Hellfire or two rocket attached. But the main point of UAVs is battlefield surveillance. Normal camera, infrared camera, thermocamera, a few kinds of such shit is applied, and, well, some of those Predator beauties are carrying, well, jammers.
Now, every military machine has an enemy. Tanks have the bazooka, airplanes the SAM missiles. So, what to do against UAVs? Shooting them down with atrillery is futile. How to put out the eyes of Predator drone? Do not forget, the drone is controlled by some guy in front of a computer in a military base, so the Predator not just records things, but provides real-time dataflow of battlefield.
USA has UAVs, but Israel, Russia, China, Iran are busily building them, too, and I bet the Israelis were very un-symphatetic to the idea of US drones watching them..
What are the countermeasures?
I just link one article of a thousand on the topic:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-28018.html
The 2003 article says about UAV countermeasures:
If unsuccessful, threat commanders will employ tactical UAVs and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) to deny blue force commanders a common operational picture. Moreover, UAV precision munition, electromagnetic pulse, and electronic attacks against command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) will be intended to significantly reduce the blue force's targeting effort, adversely affect blue tempo, and consequently deny the Objective Force the ability to mass the effects of their battlefield functional areas (BFAs).

Countermeasures

In terms of effective current countermeasures against UAVs, there are both passive and active tactics and techniques. UAV countermeasures include employing camouflage, concealment and deception (CCD) techniques; intercepting and destroying the UAV by air-or ground-based fire before it launches or during its flight; destroying the GCS and/or datalink antenna controlling the UAV; jamming the UAV's ground-to-air or air-to-ground datalink signal to its GCS; or intercepting, acquiring, and exploiting the UAV's datalink signal.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 15th, 2011, 9:15 am

Wow, wow, wow.
As per my previous post, I seem to remember already posting nearly the same thing on Septemberclues a year ago.
I am afraid my mind is turning the same thought cycles again and again on the topic.
I will search the old forum for my old nickname, and give it on the introduce yourselves topic before this turns into some credibility issue.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 15th, 2011, 11:27 am

Dear simon and all,

The first UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as per drones, most known as Predators) were used by Israel in 1973 Yom Kippur war. USA UAVs were present over Kosovo in 1999, one shot down over Pristina. Chinese UAV were in existence as back as in 1994, and Russians had it, too.

UAV is a reconaissance vehicle,a relatively small model plane. It has thermo, infrared, and normal camera recording, in its nose, and rockets on its wings. What the camera records is fed live to an operator in a military base. It provides live, real-time view of the battlefield.

But the enemy has it, too. In order to put the eyes of the enemy out, you have to do something. Phisical destruction would be like shooting atrillery shells on a flock of sparrow. What you have to do is:

1. Disrupt the live feed data flow from the enemy UAV to the enemy operator, because the UAV may have started recording before it was detected. So, plainly speaking, jamming the data-flow.
2. Stop the enemy UAV to videorecord anything after detection, so the enemy can not evaluate the recorded data after the battle is over and the enemy UAV flown home. So, plainly speaking, jamming the video recording capacity.

But, putting out the eyes of one UAV is not enough. You have to do it for every enemy UAV over the battlefield. So you target with your dataflow and recording jamming not the UAVs, but the whole battlefield area. A battlefield area as big as, lets say, downtown New York City?

But if you jam the whole battlefield, you jam your own UAVs, too. In order to avoid this, you have to shield your own dataflow and recording capacity from your own jamming. And of course, the enemy tries to jam your UAVs as well. Of course Taliban do not do it, but neither would the camera-owning citizens of NYC. But your cameras are protected.

Therefore as in the 1990s both America and her historical enemies had UAVs, so both targeted electric dataflow and recording jamming technology over the area of battlefield must have existed against the enemy UAVs, plus technology for shielding the own UAVs from our (I mean American, but Hungary is in NATO too, so I may say our) own jamming must have existed in the 1990s.

Therefore, if you can jam electric dataflow and recording capacity over the battlefield area, you can jam electric dataflow and recording dataflow in urban area, as in New York City. And if you can shield your own cameras from your own record jamming, you can film a live event- and alter it as you wish, can attach fake CGI planes, fake falling the Twin Towers, and you are shielded from your dataflow jamming, so through MSM, you can put this live on TV for all the TV viewers in New York City.

Therefore, they were doing exactly this on 9/11.

Is there any fault in my logic? If yes please point it out to me.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 15th, 2011, 8:08 pm

warriorhun wrote:Therefore, if you can jam electric dataflow and recording capacity over the battlefield area, you can jam electric dataflow and recording dataflow in urban area, as in New York City. And if you can shield your own cameras from your own record jamming, you can film a live event- and alter it as you wish, can attach fake CGI planes, fake falling the Twin Towers, and you are shielded from your dataflow jamming, so through MSM, you can put this live on TV for all the TV viewers in New York City.

Therefore, they were doing exactly this on 9/11.

Is there any fault in my logic? If yes please point it out to me.


Uh...any fault? NOPE! That's just the concept I've been trying to convey for the better part of 3 years time! :P
However - just what percentage of visual 9/11 material (recorded by the perps with faraday-protected cameras) is real and how much is entirely computer generated is still open to debate. On the top of my head, I'd say 20% vs 80%.
Either way - ALL the available 9/11 imagery is manipulated/manufactured/edited - or in simpler words - ALL fake.
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, 11:30 pm

Dear simonshack,

you ask:
However - just what percentage of visual 9/11 material (recorded by the perps with faraday-protected cameras) is real and how much is entirely computer generated is still open to debate. On the top of my head, I'd say 20% vs 80%.


We may speculate, but what is the point? There is no such thing as 99% reality, or 20% percent reality. This is something like the freedom of speech. Either you are free to speak anything, or it is not freedom of speech. 99% freedom of speech is no freedom of speech. Something is either 100% real, or it is not real.

Now, all material the perps recorded is 100% real. The leaders had to monitor from the command post what is happening on site, in real time, live, because in case of a possible fuck-up, having the live feed is time-critical for decision making. (I would not be surprised if the on-site video recording was done by UAVs). But, no way will they show these recordings on MSM! No way! Not even altered, and certainly not live on TV-what if they overlooked some minor detail which will hold a key for the people to figure out what really happened? Would you risk this in their place? Because I would not.

That means, on 9/11 you did not see live recordings of what is happening on-site, on-time, and not even an altered version. But, that certainly does not mean that what you saw was simply a computer generated scenery!

Reality would mean on-site, on-time, live picture on your TV screen. And what we are dealing with here is ALTERING REALITY, and FAKING REALITY, and these are not the same!!! What do I mean?
1. ALTERING REALITY: you take a real video of the World Trade Center, in real time, on the spot. You just do not do it on 9/11. You do it on 9/10. Or on 9/9. Then, you alter reality by simply saying these are live pictures, and you are altering the pictures so people will see smoke and fire coming out of the towers. You alter reality by cutting in two CGI planes on these pictures.
2. FAKING REALITY: you simply can not make the Twin Towers collapse on the film you took on 9/9 (at least I think so). So you have to fake reality: you substitute the film with a CGI graphic of the Twin Towers falling. (Perhaps the process with the planes were such substitution, too.) But, if the main parts must be CGI, why fuck about with previously recorded pictures? That decision must have been made I think based on which needs less work imput on the part of the crew.

Conclusion: No real pictures, period. You can ask and speculate only: what percentage is ALTERED REALITY, and what percentage is FAKED REALITY?
But neither has anything to do with reality ie. what really happened. Based on the pictures, you can not even speculate on what really happened, I am sorry to say. One thing you can be sure is the Twin Towers are not standing so something must have happened to them. The other thing you can be sure is, whatever happened, it had nothing to do with what you see on any film or picture. Period.

If you find any fault in my logic, kindly please point out to me.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on January 16th, 2011, 12:37 am

The official narrative of WTC 7 is that it burned all day before coming down in late afternoon. We've determined the videos of its collapse are fake. Today a friend asked a question that stumped me.

If a thick cloud of smoke obscured the WTC complex in mid-morning when WTC 1 and 2 came down, and all the images/videos from that day are untrustworthy fakes because electronic jamming blocked all real images, then why do we think WTC 7 was still standing in late afternoon? Wouldn't it be more likely the perps brought it down in the morning, hidden behind the smoke cloud?

When we were analyzing the videos of WTC 7, did we also investigate the timing of its collapse?. If so, what did we conclude?

Have we seen any legitimate, believable images/videos from mid-afternoon that show WTC 7 still standing?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 16th, 2011, 1:07 am

fbenario wrote:
When we were analyzing the videos of WTC 7, did we also investigate the timing of its collapse?. If so, what did we conclude?

Have we seen any legitimate, believable images/videos from mid-afternoon that show WTC 7 still standing?


Fair point, fbenario

If they had the smoke generators working all day long and until sunset, WTC7 could have collapsed at just about any time of the day.
The infamous BBC cockup could have been just the result of poor coordination on the part of the hoax directors.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 16th, 2011, 1:16 am

warriorhun wrote:
That means, on 9/11 you did not see live recordings of what is happening on-site, on-time, and not even an altered version. But, that certainly does not mean that what you saw was simply a computer generated scenery!

(...)

If you find any fault in my logic, kindly please point out to me.


Dear Warriorhun

In my mind, this fancily-colored 16-second video sequence (showing "plane" approach seamlessly split over different networks) is totally computer-generated.
You are quite free (freedom of speech - you know :) ) to argue that it is something else (half-real/quarter-real/one-tenth real - or whatnot!...) :

Image

But if you'll agree to this much (fake 16 second sequence) it begs the question: how much (if anything) is real of the 9/11 imagery?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Equinox on January 16th, 2011, 3:26 am

"This post is not to focused on electronic jamming,"
More as a reference to the magic prefabricated sequence.

Final approach of UA 175 as was seen on the TV networks.

-16sec to -15sec : "DIVEBOMBER"(cbs)
Image
-15sec to -7sec : "THE BALL"(nbc)
Image
-6sec to -4sec : "THE WINGTIP"(cbs)
Image
-3sec to 0sec : "INTERNATIONAL SHOT"(abc)
Image

This truly hits the nail on the head in regards to TV fakery being used on 9/11, Sometimes it isn’t easy for people to understand first go. I will try and explain it a bit.
A Flip book where an animation is on each page, and as you flick through each page quickly the animation has changed its position slightly, and is continuing its course through a motion. Thus when you flip through the book fast it shows a sequence of a moving animation.

Picture, that all 4 live channels... cbs, nbc, cbs (2nd angle), and abc. Are a page in the flip book and the motions are UA175 final approach.

So what happens is that on CBS out of the corner of the screen the plane appears, and disappears behind smoke, never to be seen again on that live shot.........

.....Amazingly within a second it appears on the NBC shot... same again appears out of the corner of the screen and disappears behind smoke never to be seen again in that shot.....

.....Uncannily after it is gone from the NBC shot it appears on the CBS 2nd camera angle shot coming out of the screen and yet again disappears behind the smoke.....
.
......And yet Finally for fourth and final time with in microseconds it appears on the ABC shot, again out of the corner of the screen and disappears not into smoke this time, as it the final approach.. it then dissapears into the trade centre.

Image

From septclues.info website
This is the 16-second sequence of the "second airplane approach" These four clips are the ONLY LIVE IMAGES (of the alleged "Flight 175") still to be found on the official 9/11 TV archives. I have put them together sequentially to highlight this 'curious coincidence': Is it plausible that 4 cameramen just happened to film a 'slice' of the full airplane approach, all 4 'slices' then combining into a seamless, full 'airplane approach sequence'? Or is this - more plausibly perhaps - a prefabricated sequence of computer-animated imagery?

In the real world, the odds for this sequence to occur are, of course, astronomically remote. Much as the endless string of bizarre 'coincidences' pushed by the official 9/11 storyline, this extraordinary occurrence challenges our very limits of credulity.


In my opinion, it isn’t even worth calculating the odds of this actually being a coincidence. There would be no way they could do that on live TV especially when the plane wasn’t even expected. Having the cameras setup... like that all in perfect timing going from network to network.
I’m no expert, but I can defiantly say this is proof of a prefabricated sequence being used on 9/11. There would be no way they could do that on live TV especially when the plane wasn’t even expected.
I will continue a bit further, so what did hit the trade centre?

Well we know it wasn’t a Boeing, whilst some people claim that they did not see anything hit it, I am more inclined to believe something did due to the high number of eye witness account to a light plane or a missile.

I believe a JASSM missile did strike the nth tower.

It looks like small plane, accurate enough to hit the towers in the right spot. And also was the militaries latest weapon.

Image

It is guided by a jamming-resistant GPS-aided inertial navigation system,
Accuracy is quoted as around 2.4 m (8 ft) CEP.
Developmental testing of the missile began in January 2001. Low rate initial production of the JASSM was approved in December 2001.

Compare the dates....

Testing first month of 2001.

9 months later 9/11.

Production starts Last Month of 2001.

( :lol: "nothing to see here folks move along")

The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) timed the impact of 175 at 9:02:54 , while the 9/11 Commission reports the impact and 9:03:11 (17 seconds later).

September clues also mentions an audio queue exactly 17 seconds before which can be heard on the live footage (beep/beep,--chur/chur)

So they fired a missile at the wtc, and buy using a 17 delay they had a enough time to start the 16 second plane approach on live TV.



Yes thanks for that simon, yes I cut n pasted flight 11 by mistake.
Last edited by Equinox on January 16th, 2011, 6:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 16th, 2011, 3:54 am

EquinoXed wrote:
So they fired a missile at the wtc, and buy using a 17 delay they had a enough time to start the 16 second plane approach on live TV.


Equinoxed,

Missile or not, the 17-second beep-beep was more likely the signal sent to the networks as WTC2 exploded. Here is the text I have published in my video description of SEPTEMBER CLUES part E :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7VHf4TVIY

RESEARCH UPDATE - SUMMER 2010:
The precise purpose of the 17-second audio signal heard on all TV Networks now has a plausible, logical explanation. When aligning/synchronizing all networks we may see that the first appearance of the "plane" is at (minus)-16 seconds before impact. We can then see the "plane" uninterruptedly during those 16 seconds, in 4 sequential shots seamlessly split on CBS/NBC/CBS (again)/ and finally on ABC.

Indeed, these 4 seamless "plane-shots" never overlap each other, as if each of the 4 "cameramen" were assigned to capture only their own, exclusive chunk of the "plane-approach" ! Now, what are the odds of THAT occuring in the real world? More likely, what I call the "16-SECOND MAGIC SEQUENCE was a prefabricated animation, cut in 4 pieces and distributed on the various phony TV broadcasts.

So, the BEE-BEEP (and its variants) heard 17 seconds before impact was likely the "GO!" signal for the centralized studio producer to launch that ready-made16 SECOND SEQUENCE. As the WTC exploded in reality (at 9:02.54, as correctly- & scientifically - recorded by the Lamont-Doherty seismic Observatory) someone cued the studio with that BEE-BEEP signal. This is why the officially released impact time had to go with the (false) 9:03.11 timestamp.

For more detailed explanations, please go to :
THE 17-SECOND ENIGMA
viewtopic.php?p=2055659#p2055659

NOTE: Of course, all this implies that the "planecrash" video sequence was manufactured well in advance of 9/11. There was no need for any real-time insertions as the entire Manhattan aerial scenery was a digital construct. The only need for real-time control of the 9/11 Live TV imagery would have been the smokeplume animation (in order to match the day's wind direction) : such adjustments can be easily made 'on the fly' within a 3D animation environment. However, this evidently didn't work out too well : when comparing the smokeplumes of the various TV network feeds, a great number of discrepancies and aberrations can be observed.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby hoi.polloi on January 16th, 2011, 4:06 am

simonshack wrote:
EquinoXed wrote:
So they fired a missile at the wtc, and buy using a 17 delay they had a enough time to start the 16 second plane approach on live TV.


Equinoxed,

Missile or not, the 17-second beep-beep was more likely the signal sent to the networks as WTC2 exploded. Here is the text I have published in my video description of SEPTEMBER CLUES part E :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7VHf4TVIY

RESEARCH UPDATE - SUMMER 2010:
The precise purpose of the 17-second audio signal heard on all TV Networks now has a plausible, logical explanation. When aligning/synchronizing all networks we may see that the first appearance of the "plane" is at (minus)-16 seconds before impact. We can then see the "plane" uninterruptedly during those 16 seconds, in 4 sequential shots seamlessly split on CBS/NBC/CBS (again)/ and finally on ABC.

Indeed, these 4 seamless "plane-shots" never overlap each other, as if each of the 4 "cameramen" were assigned to capture only their own, exclusive chunk of the "plane-approach" ! Now, what are the odds of THAT occuring in the real world? More likely, what I call the "16-SECOND MAGIC SEQUENCE was a prefabricated animation, cut in 4 pieces and distributed on the various phony TV broadcasts.

So, the BEE-BEEP (and its variants) heard 17 seconds before impact was likely the "GO!" signal for the centralized studio producer to launch that ready-made16 SECOND SEQUENCE. As the WTC exploded in reality (at 9:02.54, as correctly- & scientifically - recorded by the Lamont-Doherty seismic Observatory) someone cued the studio with that BEE-BEEP signal. This is why the officially released impact time had to go with the (false) 9:03.11 timestamp.

For more detailed explanations, please go to :
THE 17-SECOND ENIGMA
viewtopic.php?...

NOTE: Of course, all this implies that the "planecrash" video sequence was manufactured well in advance of 9/11. There was no need for any real-time insertions as the entire Manhattan aerial scenery was a digital construct. The only need for real-time control of the 9/11 Live TV imagery would have been the smokeplume animation (in order to match the day's wind direction) : such adjustments can be easily made 'on the fly' within a 3D animation environment. However, this evidently didn't work out too well : when comparing the smokeplumes of the various TV network feeds, a great number of discrepancies and aberrations can be observed.


This is, of course, a very logical explanation.

The suggestion is they needed some kind of signal in the news areas to let them know when the real towers had been removed - whatever the method. The problem is -- why would they need to make any sort of noise LIVE over their prefab footage? This is a curiosity. Perhaps aspects of the footage were not LIVE? This isn't hard to imagine but I still want to stick to the 'everything was prefab' before we assume they had to do some kind of LIVE thing.

Unless the news people were really 'out of the loop' of the Pentagon's plans and were only allowed to know that the plan was going down. In other words, they were the peons given commands but they messed up in some major ways that reveal their complicity with their masters. One of those major ways seems to be the Nose Out and another was the beyond-coincidental signal given 17 seconds before the 'airplane scapegoat' was to be summoned.

We really can only speculate why it happened, but the idea that the 'all clear' was somehow passed down from the traitorous neocon military masters to the media buffoons does make a certain amount of sense. It also makes sense that those news people would be simply dumb enough to reveal their complicity in a scheme they were not truly meant to understand themselves.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 16th, 2011, 5:43 am

hoi.polloi wrote:The problem is -- why would they need to make any sort of noise LIVE over their prefab footage? This is a curiosity. Perhaps aspects of the footage were not LIVE? This isn't hard to imagine but I still want to stick to the 'everything was prefab' before we assume they had to do some kind of LIVE thing.


Hoi,

Let me underline the technical audio-related aspects behind the reasoning for this particular issue. First of all, let me reassert again my audio research findings as presented in "September Clues E" - and the way I tend to interpret them through my experience as a sound technician:

A loud BEE-BEEP is heard on the ABC audio feed. It is a fast, twin-beep with a distinct, very short time-duration and spacing. This exact same twin-signal sequence can be heard (although at lower volumes and different timbres/sound frequencies) on ALL the other American TV networks broadcasting that morning. In fact, when aligning/synching all 5 networks (ABC,FOX,CNN,CBS,NBC) these double-signals all occur precisely 17 seconds before the visible "planecrash" seen on LIVE TV. So far so good? Ok.

Now, this must of course signify that all the 5 networks were broadcast out of the very same audio/video mixing console. This is where you need to know that a mixing console (whether analog or digital) is a complex apparel with lots of audio channels, all of which have special SEND/BUS faders which allow you to send any incoming signal across all the channels of the mixing board. A common, well-known annoyance/distraction to sound engineers working on such multitrack boards is to check the levels (switching them off/or turning them down to zero) of these SEND/BUS channels if incoming signals are not wished to bleed into multiple audio channels.

Hence, what appears to have happened in the central 9/11 TV studio is just such a distraction. Logically, the central TV studio had to be connected through a real time audio feed with the WTC demolition crew. Of course, the prefabricated 16-second sequence could not be aired LIVE before/or after the WTC demolition charges actually went off. Realistically, the risk of any kind of last-minute hitch/problem/delay with the WTC 'fireworks' had to be accounted for and their precise timeline could not have been pre-programmed into the prefabricated 'live morning broadcasts' (which basically only showed dull/repetitive/looped images of the smoking towers). Thus, one of the only required real-time, manually activated actions on the part of the TV studio was to send that 16-second sequence as soon as the GO! signal arrived from the demolition crew.

Too bad... by letting the BE-BEEP cue/audio signal bleed into all 5 network feeds (ABC, FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS) the centralized TV-studio's sound engineer botched the most crucial real-time task of the day ! :rolleyes:

(NOTE: Likewise, two more real-time interventions had to be performed in the central 9/11 TV studio: triggering the prefabricated collapse animations of WTC2 -at 9:59 - and WTC1 -at 10:28. However, not all the TV networks showed the collapses precisely LIVE - as the 'Pentagon drama' provided a convenient distraction from the Manhattan events....)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6438
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Equinox on January 16th, 2011, 7:29 am

Thanks :D
This is clear to me now; you have provided the evidence well in this chain of events.

As proven with the verifiable seismic survey readings, and the 9/11 TV archives.

* Explosion, in the nth tower @ 9:02.54
* Demolition crew send audio queue (beep, beep,) through to central TV studio desk @ to start 16 second animation. @ 9:02.54
* TV animation crew start 16 second animation sequence @ 9:02.55
* Last approach of plane animation strikes tower on ABC @ 9:03.11.
* Official story always states the impact was @ 9:03.11.
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 16th, 2011, 11:29 am

Dear simonshack,

you say
In my mind, this fancily-colored 16-second video sequence (showing "plane" approach seamlessly split over different networks) is totally computer-generated.
You are quite free (freedom of speech - you know :) ) to argue that it is something else (half-real/quarter-real/one-tenth real - or whatnot!...) :
But if you'll agree to this much (fake 16 second sequence) it begs the question: how much (if anything) is real of the 9/11 imagery?

Your claim is duly noted, plane hit shots are CGI and not altered video.
But.
You claim they were altering their on-site, on-time live imagery from protected cameras for you to watch on TV. I say no way. Consider this:
1. They do have a live feed, from UAVs protected cameras, at the command post, but it was either auto-deleted in every 5 minutes or so, or deleted after the final project evaluation.
2. They do not alter their live feed for you to watch on TV live. Live feed altering is very time-critical, prone to human error, risky. And there is no need to risk. Why?
3. Because, I claim, the film basis of any altered videos shown on TV were recorded proir to 9/11. Why?
4. Tell me. Can you alter the live feed video picture, and can you alter the previously recorded video picture, to produce EXACTLY THE SAME final altered video picture? Sure you can.
5. So, which one would you use as the basis for altering? The top secret live feed video, or the previously recorded video, if it results in the same altered picture?

Therefore, as you claim 20% were altered videos, I claim yeah, but they are not the altered live feed, but previously recorded videos altered.
And you will never see any picture, not even an altered one, of the original live feed on MSM. Not in the past, not now, not in future, fucking never, period.

Does this make sense?
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby warriorhun on January 16th, 2011, 1:51 pm

Dear simonshack,

This is the second part of my previous post, and I type it in two parts only because I did not save the original big one so I lost it.
So, to continue, or underline what I claim so far:

As they were using jammers, and Pentagon was involved, this is clandestine military operation involving media.
Therefore 3 basic rules are most strictly observed:
1. ONE LEADER PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
2. SEPARATION OF DUTIES
3. NEED-TO-KNOW BASIS

1. One leader personal responsibility means command post. They monitor live feed from UAVs (or ground cameras for all I care). And they monitor what fakery is shown on MSM TV in advance. They co-ordinate the timings to match (like the 16 seconds clue).
2. Separation of duties means an on-site crew jamming, starting up smoke generators, contolled demolitioning the Twin Towers. Also a media crew in studio, producing the altered/fake reality shown on MSM TVs. The on-site and media crews are autonomious from each other, doing their own task and only that, no overlapping, and both report to command post.
3. Need-to-know basis means the on-site crew and the media crew must not know what the other is doing. No dataflow, no communication is allowed between them, they must not know each other. This way they can not de-conspire the whole picture, not even under waterboarding. Only command post must know the whole picture.

Therefore the media crew is not getting the live feed from the UAVs for altering. Because then the need-to-know would be broken, because then the media crew would know what is happening on site, because then they see it. They would know as much as command post. And as command post has the one leader personal responsibility, they must be the only one to know the whole picture, because the media crew does not hold the one leader personal responsibility.

Therefore I claim the media crew did not alter live video feed. If there are altered videos, the original of those videos were recorded prior to 9/11.

Same conclusion: and you will never see any picture, not even an altered one, of the original live feed on MSM. Not in the past, not now, not in future, fucking never, period.

Does this make sense, too?
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

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

cron