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 August 9th, 2012, 3:42 pm

rick55 wrote:
The Camera Planet Archive is actually available for viewing right now!


Thanks, Rick.

I just managed to leave a comment on that page.
http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.n ... -Clip-Reel

The comment goes:

"FYI: we know."
(and I added a link to this thread)

Wondering if my comment is going to stay up for long. ;)

And for your information, Rick - I've seen all of these silly clips. Over and over again. NIce to have them all lined up in one place: thank you, Mr. Rosenbaum! :)

edit: Oh, and I received a welcome message from Stevie on my personal e-mail account! So cute!

Hello, and thanks for registering at TheCameraPlanetArchive.

http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.net/

You can log in to view your account profile : ....................................


We're so glad you joined us.

-- TheCameraPlanetArchive


So am I. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby cam251 on August 9th, 2012, 7:15 pm

Did anyone bring up the interesting phone conversations the news people were having with regular people?

Even though these things were said aswell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwEzJzQ_HY look at this!!!

"alot of the local tv signals, radio signals, two way radio signs, am/fm channels"

"Many of those signals in new york city have *cuts off* ......BEEN Disconnected?

That is very weird, also the witness are on the phone with them in this video and!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK1C9dZhsuA&t=8m8s 8:05 time stamp


What is going on here?
cam251
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 6:54 pm

Re: Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on August 10th, 2012, 12:51 am

I like this jammin' a whole lot betta than 9/11 jammin'.
Though the world's full of problems
They couldn't touch us even if they tried
...
They want us to join their fighting
But our answer today
Is to let all our worries
Like the breeze through our fingers slip away



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv_wZQJYlo0
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Tufa on August 13th, 2012, 4:28 pm

The electronic jamming, is not about if it can be done or not. It is much more about how only cameras can be targeted. This is my sensitivity list:

1) All equipment with antennas and antenna amplifiers.
When you already have an antenna and a coax cable, electronic jamming will indeed be dangerous for the input amplifier!
Antenna and transmitters also count in this category.

2) All equipment with attached cables or other metal rod or cable attachment.
It will receive the jamming, transport it along the rod/cable, and insert in into the electric equipment.

3) Equipment, that lack cables, and operate on a battery.


4) Equipment that is not of an electric/electronic nature.

Where is Mr Tripod and his video cam?
If he has already made a recorded tape, prior to the jamming, where do you find the magnetic tape?

Edit/Add: I don't know what happened, or how it was done. I merely like to see a sound argument.
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby nonhocapito on August 31st, 2012, 7:20 am

Tufa wrote:I don't know what happened, or how it was done. I merely like to see a sound argument.


Personally I have no idea how this technology could work. I accept the jamming hypothesis but I certainly cannot verify it. I am sure the military must have worked out over the years pretty sophisticated disruption systems to handle enemy electronic devices.

But I also think that maybe it wasn't really necessary to disrupt any signal
. Evacuation early on, a couple of timed explosions and smokescreens could have sufficed. Later, a lot of control on the people, maybe, soviet style? Pre-homeland security style? I imagine that in the decades during which the plan was being prepared, controlling the resident population of Manhattan, individual by individual, was probably at the top of the list and not beyond the realm of the possible.

It remains a fact that there isn't nearly enough imagery around to resemble a credible scenario of spontaneous documentation of the event. They tried, even with the latest 2010 NIST crap, but came short. The imagery available all looking alike, as if created in the same studios by the same people. There is no variety, no truthfulness, too much fuzziness on the sources, too short clips, too much "consistent" material. One can easily conclude that there are really no authentic pictures out there, not even harmless ones of the towers smoking away or the people leaving downtown. I feel that this is maybe the weirdest, most puzzling and most amazing element of the whole 9/11 scam.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on September 1st, 2012, 12:25 am

nonhocapito wrote:One can easily conclude that there are really no authentic pictures out there, not even harmless ones of the towers smoking away or the people leaving downtown. I feel that this is maybe the weirdest, most puzzling and most amazing element of the whole 9/11 scam.

Me too.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby lux on September 1st, 2012, 11:59 am

I don't discount camera jamming completely but my problem with it is that there were still a fair number of film cameras in use in 2001. These would not be jam-able as far as I know so I don't see why the perps would bother with jamming.

Canon alone made dozens of film camera models from 2000 and beyond. Nikon made a similar number of models during this period plus a number of other major and minor manufacturers were still making them circa 2000-2001. All these cameras plus, of course, those already produced earlier and still in use would be counted in the millions.

Unless they had a way to jam the more electronic-ized point & shoot film cameras ... but that would still leave the millions and millions of predominantly mechanical cameras that have been produced since almost forever.

The so-called "digital revolution" in photography was occurring in 2001 but it wasn't until a few years afterward that the major manufacturers dropped most or all their film camera lines and the world suddenly forgot about film.

Trust me, you can't jam a Nikon F except maybe with a .45. :)
Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby icarusinbound on September 1st, 2012, 1:12 pm

Exactly. And something that was even-more prevalent in the early 2000s was this sort of thing:
Image

I haven't seen these around for years, but apart from an AA cell and an inverter for the (irrelevant) flash, these tough toys might even still take pictures after being hit by a .45 slug. Ingress of dust and grit from a debris cloud would just make these slower to wind-on, and add some real-world lens-blur.

fbenario wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:One can easily conclude that there are really no authentic pictures out there, not even harmless ones of the towers smoking away or the people leaving downtown. I feel that this is maybe the weirdest, most puzzling and most amazing element of the whole 9/11 scam.


Me too.


Ditto. This needs to be tackled. Irrespective of whether the busted Official Story was 100% or 0% true, there must have been some actual photographs taken by the herded crowds, even just of the exodus itself. Are we saying that there hasn't been a single clearly-unadulterated snap identified at all?

Or....(and I'm scared to ask this...)

Do we actually know of anyone who definitely was there, physically (I mean near the towers) and without any doubt whatsoever was evacuated? No 'friends of friends', or mythical in-law's taxi-drivers, I mean someone who truly witnessed clouds/dust/emergency vehicles, assumed WW3 was commencing, and baled-out up the road (apparently minus their cheap stag-night camera).

Seriously- how far out can the radius of uncertainty about this be pushed out??

A sudden thought- wasn't there an NYPD 'camera amnesty', or some such reported arrangement, where people were being strongly encouraged to submit their cameras to aid in the crime investigation?? Or is that another shell-level of disinfo?
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Heiwa on September 1st, 2012, 1:43 pm

Any photo or film taken by any mechanical or electronic camera of a WTC tower 'collapsing' from top to bottom (weak top crushing strong bottom from above by gravity) causing a fountain of debris is fake ... as no structure of any kind can collapse in the real wolrd as seen on available footage. Prove me wrong and earn €1M! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . :P
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on September 1st, 2012, 10:23 pm

lux wrote:I don't discount camera jamming completely but my problem with it is that there were still a fair number of film cameras in use in 2001. These would not be jam-able as far as I know so I don't see why the perps would bother with jamming.

Canon alone made dozens of film camera models from 2000 and beyond. Nikon made a similar number of models during this period plus a number of other major and minor manufacturers were still making them circa 2000-2001. All these cameras plus, of course, those already produced earlier and still in use would be counted in the millions.


Dear Lux,

Let me firstly mildly object to your use of the word 'millions' in this context. I know you don't exactly mean to say that milions of 35mm cameras would have had been deployed in and around New York City on that tuesday morning - but the mere mention of 'milllions' here is unfortunate and - even if unintentionally so - inappropriately misleading. I guess I'm a bit over-sensitive of numbers being tossed about when it comes to 9/11 issues.

My proposed hypothesis that electronic jamming devices were in place is, of course, primarily related to video cameras (which afaik all feature electronic circuitries) and the perps' plausible wish to impede continuous / moving (as opposed to still) imagery being captured that morning. I doubt that the perps were overly concerned with Joe Public's still photos (for a number of reasons I will expound below) - although why exactly the NYPD would dispatch police officers to confiscate people's film rolls on that busy day remains, shall we say, an unsolved mystery... (see September Clues Epilogue from 4:14 onwards)

Now, if I myself had snapped photos of the WTC with my analog camera that morning (say, at 8:46 AM or 9:03AM), I would have rushed to the nearest "KODAK 1-hour developing shop" - to see what they showed. Well, if that police officer's words are to be trusted, he confiscated people's film rolls at around 10:AM. Sounds like the perfect timing for raiding the "KODAK 1-hour" shops, doesn't it? Another thing that police officer says: "the clocks stopped at 8:45 AM". Again, if he tells the truth, this would certainly support my working theory of EMP devices being activated that morning. "FLIGHT 11" supposedly hit WTC1 at 8:46 AM - only one minute after these clocks freezed!

Let me now just submit a few thoughts and considerations of personal nature, i.e. drawn from personal recollections, for what they're worth. I am not setting out to 'prove or establish' anything with this - just take it as some food for thought (or a reality-check of sorts) which may help counteracting this basic, all-too-common misconception (and objection to our working thesis): "Oh, but hundreds/thousands/millions would have filmed / photographed the events!"

Back in the eighties, I lived on Houston street (a few blocks north of the WTC) for a few weeks and, as a young & eager amateur photographer I spent many hours dwelling around Lower Manhattan with my little analog camera. I distinctly recall strolling around the area - Battery park and surroundings - one early morning (around 8 - 8:30AM), thinking how amazingly few people were around. "Was this bustling NYC? - I asked myself - or some peaceful little village?". I eventually put it down to the fact that this wasn't exactly a residential area - and most people probably turned up for work around 9AM or so (I learned only in recent years that the main tourist attraction in the area - the WTC rooftop - only opened at 9:30AM). Now, believe it or not, it took me a few days to even realize the twin towers were standing just round the corner - as I happened to step into the WTC plaza. Later on, my sweet NY ballerina lured me into the elevator and up to the rooftop we went...

Image

As for Icarusinbound's question: "Do we actually know of anyone who definitely was there, physically (I mean near the towers) and without any doubt whatsoever was evacuated?" All I personally have to this day are the few testimonies sent to me by e-mail by individuals that - for what it's worth - sound reasonably sincere and legit to me. Why would they make up such accounts? Well, I suppose they could possibly be 'trolling' me - but in any case, here they are:

Letters from Thorbjon and Quentin:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2362218

Another direct testimony I have - from an Italian acquaintance of mine (who lived in New York in 2001) - is that the Path Line (the subway line serving the WTC ) was not operating that morning due to a "union strike". He just happened to try to catch a subway train that morning and noticed that the Path Line was locked down - and remembers reading that "union strike" notice. So if that's true, this would go to confirm that the WTC area was virtually isolated / cordoned-off / inaccessible on the morning of September 11, 2001. Of course, it would be good to have many more such testimonies and you may ask: "Where are those people?" Conversely, there should also be thousands of testimonies of the very loud, low-flying "FLIGHT 11", roaring at full throttle over the entire lenght of Manhattan - from top to toe! Where are those people?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXPbpckCqF0
(I put together this simulation with a video clip of a passenger plane about to land on Honk Kong's "Kai-Tak" airport. The jet sound I used is from a low pass, fast-going (but certainly NOT at 550mph as the "FLIGHT 11" speed was reported) Boeing 757 in Iceland. The boom sound is also an add-on of mine.)

Anyways, all these thoughts of mine just wish to reassess/rationalize/correct these two commonly held assumptions. A: "Lower Manhattan is bustling with 'hundreds of thousands/millions of people' in the early morning hours of any given weekday." B: "The WTC towers were so tall that you could see them from virtually anywhere in NYC". As it is, both A and B are simply not true - yet the vast majority of this planet's population nurture these misconceptions.

To sum it up, and even if my electronic jamming hypothesis is wrong, here are the conditions necessary for Joe Public to have had a chance to snap pictures of the 9/11 event (please remember that I don't subscribe anymore to my initial missile theory hitting WTC2. I now believe that nothing impacted the towers and that - perhaps - smoke machines pumped some military-grade obscurants out of some diagonal row of upper floor windows) :

- Joe would have had to be able to access the WTC area that morning. We may agree that this is an unlikely proposition.
- Joe would have had to carry a decent camera to capture anything of significance. (No, a disposable little Kodak box would not do - even in the unlikely proposition that Joe was standing on the WTC plaza right below the towers ).
- Alternatively, Joe would have had to be placed in one of the rare, more distant NYC intersections which allowed a clear view of the WTC towers. If so, Joe would have needed to carry a big telephoto lens to capture photos of any significance.
- Oh, but Joe could have been placed in a high rise building adjacent to the WTC towers - just like "William Nunez"!

As for the Joe Publics standing across the Hudson - in Hoboken or Jerseyside - they would have had to carry seriously big telephoto lenses to capture any significant detail of the "plane gashes". The thing is : do we have such pictures...of someone attempting to zoom in on the towers from far, far away? No, we don't.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby lux on September 2nd, 2012, 2:54 am

^ Yes, my use of the word "millions" was not meant to infer that there were millions of film cameras in the vicinity of the WTC, only that film cameras were still in use generally.

Thank you for the clarification regarding jamming as regards video cameras. I see what you mean and I don't disagree with your points.

I'd like to point out that the word "analog" does not necessarily mean film. A video camera can be either analog or digital and many video cameras in 2001 were still analog -- meaning they recorded analog signals on video tape. Digital video consumer camcorders began to be available in the mid 1990s but analog camcorders were still in use in 2001.

However, analog or digital, these cameras are predominantly electronic in the way they record so jamming would still be a possibility.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby hoi.polloi on September 2nd, 2012, 3:06 am

Before we get to the necessity of electronic jamming, let's look at what New York actually is rather than what New Yorkers, and those enamored with New York, sometimes think it is.

1. Control of the populace is no doubt priority number one if you are going to create a gajillion bytes of fake video footage that could be contradicted by any single real photograph. So you can throw your idea that New York wasn't on total government surveillance mode into the waste basket. Don't buy the act that "jets were 'rushed' to the scene, two hours too late, because the gov was slow on the upkeep." lol

2. The fact is it was early hours.

3. The towers were not that popular a place to work. In fact, we've shown there is some evidence the towers were partially or completely empty.

4. Many corporations were involved in the cover up and the benefits of 9/11.

5. New York smells bad and seems to smell worse every year I visit. So much for "burning corpse" smell. You could probably set a given bag of trash on fire in SoHo and it's not going to smell pleasant. People reported "burning corpse" smell during invasions by Martians as well. Senses like that were recorded in "interviews" with extreme bias and prejudice of the news media conspirators.

6. New York is full of people with no attention span. And they're proud of it. Hurry up and gimme your sammich order and get outta heyuh, you're holding up da line. What are you a tourist?! New York, even to lifetime New Yorkers, generally looks confusing/constantly stimulating and there is so much going on, many thought this little "bump" in their day - "the first explosion" - was a movie. I wouldn't be surprised if that rumor was passed on the street deliberately - served its purpose - and was later incorporated into the scripts (as it was in the horrendous Naudet barfer 9|11) to be presented as "the dumb yokel opinion that it looked like a movie." How many people would stand there agape after rumors passed around that it was just a movie? Not until the "second plane", when fewer people were paying attention than if agents yelled on the streets "it's a terrorist attack!" right away. Since there aren't even official reports of this, we can presume they did everything they could to downplay "the first explosion" (if there was one) in real life, but present their fake video fiction as if everyone were just hypnotized by "the first explosion" that "shook windows" and "rocked New York" (but apparently didn't make much of a noise except, according to some fake videos, a "poof" and a shattered pile of plates).

7. How many people had a good view? Really? The FAKE video footage has us believe everyone stopped in their tracks and sensed immediate danger. (Danger from a fire on top of a skyscraper? Get real!) Reality in New York seems to be: you hear a giant crash behind you, you move on. A crate of oranges might roll over you if you don't hustle. Am I wrong in identifying New Yorkers as especially numb in this way?

8.
although why exactly the NYPD would dispatch police officers to confiscate people's film rolls on that busy day remains, shall we say, an unsolved mystery...


My gut tells me this isn't that much of a mystery. They ostensibly tell the officers, "maybe photographs from that day will help us catch the terrorists!" Officers, whether seeing or missing the knowing wink of their superior, obey. There was a lot of betrayed trust on 9/11, was there not?

9. How many people owned cameras felt like wasting it on something the news is expected to cover for us? It wasn't as often that we saw so many news reports done with amateur footage, like we do in our "Potential Terrorist Citizen" and "Potential Hero Citizen" world of today. With its black-hat, white-hat thinking, the media has molded itself into a sinister portrayal of all humanity that didn't exist as it did in 2000. If you actually cared to take a picture of something like a distant smoking tower, then later learned it was "The Big 9/11", would you hide your footage or tell everyone you know? How many people would it take to hear about your photo before someone is knocking on your door about it? Or a friend wants to "borrow" the photos to tell "someone important" about it.

10. It is not dense like Mexico city. Beijing. Chinese frequently comment on "how empty" New York is for being such a popular city. They would know, of course!

11. Was jamming even needed? The rare photos that were actually taken - let's be generous and say there were 100 thousand people with accessible views in SoHo and one in a hundred (even more generous!) took a picture of something that ostensibly happened. I doubt anyone took reel after reel, one after the other, as if they pre-emptively "knew" 9/11 was to be the greatest redistribution of power from the poor and middle class to the rich from a simple skyscraper "accident". So the police had to collect just 1,000 rolls of film. If we're being very generous about our estimates. Are we saying that's impossible for the USA government? The FBI that - to the eyes of most Americans - murdered JFK and MLK, Jr. in plain sight? The government that we know tricked over 30% of the TV-watching public of the peace-loving government-mistrusting late 60's into thinking we put men on the moon - and through television eventually convinced almost the entire other 70%? Impossible to trick an American populace so naive as to think Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson was the first president? A public that doesn't know the geography, culture - or much of anything - of their own history - and is quite deliberately kept in the lightless dungeon of consumerist insanity? What if it was only 10,000 people? 100 reels? What if it was just 1,000 people? 10 reels? Even the 100 or so amateur videos, when you really look at them, and think about it, beggar belief that they could all exist if this event were real. To me, it's easy to imagine a handful of people actually trying to take a picture while the rest, motivated by fear, are in survival mode and have no interest in impairing their vision through a viewfinder.

12. Peer pressure. Yell anyone with a real story into submission. The crowds, also motivated by peer pressure, will do the rest.

Fuck.

Introduce a little jammer to this equation and it would seem they really covered their bases. You could probably do it without jamming anything, but to believe they wouldn't try is about as naive as the citizens of the USA are.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 2nd, 2012, 5:48 am

There are so many solid explanations here to collectively account for the lack of footage from NY on 9/11 that an electronic jamming hypothesis doesn't seem necessary. It's gilding the lily, even.

No doubt it's technically possible to wreck delicate electronic equipment through a burst of EMF energy. But to my limited knowledge, it's not practical over a large scale "battlefield".

The jamming of radio equipment, by transmitting disruptive garbage on the frequency used, is one thing. In fact that's well documented. It was the motivation for the military development of Spread Spectrum techniques.

In practice, however, generating enough EMF energy to cause the failure (damage to transistor gates) of non-RF equipment, such as a digital camera, is quite another. It's difficult to understand as a layman how that could be done over millions of square metres in the open. Just not possible, IMVHO, however much US.MIL would like us to believe it is.

Imagine, for the sake of comparison, the EMF energy released in a thunderstorm. The intensity of the natural EMF energy must be vast. Yet absent a direct hit from a lightning bolt, no electronic equipment is damaged, nor even disabled.

Perhaps trickery over the official timeline could be the greatest disguiser of truth for that day.

We were glued to the idiot box assuming that things were being reported in real-time from NY. But the chronology could be totally false in itself. There may have been no fires at all in the towers. And no damage before they collapsed were demolished. And maybe they didn't fall one then the other. What if they were demolished at the same time?

Maybe nobody photographed or videoed the towers that morning, because they had no reason to.

The time taken for the pulled towers to disappear out of view would be a few seconds. With no forewarning, passers-by wouldn't be ready with a camera to capture it. It was 2001 and camera phones were still an expensive novelty.

Maybe we have two timelines here. One true, one false:

The Official (Fake) Chronology: The media footage from the perps starts with two towers still standing. At 08:46 one is punctured ("by a plane"), and ablaze. 09:03 and Wham! Another is hit. Two are now ablaze. Then 09:58 and crash! One collapses. And then, 10:28, crash! The second falls. What if that is a totally fabricated chronology of ~100 minutes from start to finish? Fake footage showing the phony "plane" impact/s, the blazes, the puncture holes, and finally the collapses.

True Chronology: two towers still standing at 10:28. No blaze nor "plane" damage to either. Suddenly, both towers drop through simultaneous controlled demolition. 10 seconds later and both towers are gone. Just two piles of rubble. But then fake footage is pumped out to accord with the Official Chronology. Footage that was supposedly recorded over a timespan of 100 minutes or so.

And in the True Chronology (working theory).. at 08:46, a complete TV & radio blackout and landline and cellphone outage was imposed throughout Greater NY area. To keep New Yorkers deaf and blind to the global PSYOP. Outages explained later as due to damaged feeds from WTC. And while New York was isolated in total media darkness, both towers were demolished, simultaneously.

Is that why no one captured the blazes nor the "plane" damage (there was none) nor the two supposedly independent collapses of the towers? (they were demolished together)

My 2c

EDIT: timings corrected
Last edited by reichstag fireman on September 3rd, 2012, 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Maat on September 2nd, 2012, 8:15 pm

▲ By George, RF, you could be right on target! :o I like your lateral thinking there B) — it’s so easy to get accustomed to a particular paradigm that we can forget to step outside it.

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944
[More about Mulholland at http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/26/allen.php]
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on September 3rd, 2012, 12:44 am

reichstag fireman wrote:And in True Chronology (working theory).. at 08:46, a complete TV & radio blackout and landline and cellphone outage is imposed throughout Greater NY area. To keep New Yorkers deaf and blind to the global PSYOP. Outages explained later as due to damaged feeds from WTC. And while New York is isolated in total media darkness, both towers are demolished, simultaneously.

... which might explain why at 10:00 AM that day I couldn't reload a single webpage about NY, while trying to update the planted news stories from 8:45 AM of which I had just learned.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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