Electronic Jamming on 9/11

[warriorhun]

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?

[simonshack]

Thanks
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.

Yes - well summed up, Equinoxed !


**********************************************
Warriorhun - slight misunderstanding there - maybe I didn't word my thoughts clearly:
When I wrote "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?" - this does NOT imply that I believe the LIVE TV feed contained any amount of real imagery. On the contrary. So yes, your last post makes sense.
(no need for UAV's - I wasn't the one suggesting that...)

In fact, I may have caused some confusion myself since I lightly speculated - earlier on - about some percentage (20%) of real footage making up the 9/11 imagery. With this, I wasn't referring to the LIVE TV broadcasts but rather to :
A - Real NYC image sequences captured before 9/11 and used as a basic platform to create the 3D animated visual material.
B - Some controlled/selected/edited non-crucial WTC imagery (captured with HERF-protected cameras) successively released in 9/11 movies/documentaries, etc... However, am really not too sure about this last side of things - as it wasn't really necessary and a potential risk in itself : the bottom line is that not 1% of the available 9/11 imagery is 100% legit.

[warriorhun]

Dear simonshack,

you say:

A - Real NYC image sequences captured before 9/11 and used as a basic platform to create the 3D animated visual material.

Agreed. This is exactly what I said in other words in my post. Cool.

B - Some controlled/selected/edited non-crucial WTC imagery (captured with HERF-protected cameras) successively released in 9/11 movies/documentaries, etc... However, am really not too sure about this last side of things - as it wasn't really necessary and a potential risk in itself

To make you sure on the last side of things, please consider this:
1. ONE LEADER PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
2. SEPARATION OF DUTIES
3. NEED-TO-KNOW BASIS
This is not something I made up, I did my national service in Hungarian army, and not on grunt level: I learned it there.
So, if command post did not delete ALL live feed-I can not imagine why they should not delete it for the life of me-if they pass on non-crucial/selected parts of live feed to the media crew-because non-crucial images can be EDITED only by the media crew, that may breach need-to-know, because if they overlooked some minor detail, the media crew may logic out what was done by the on-site crew, so one leader personal responsibility is breached, too. De-conspiration is possible, which must be avoided at all costs.
Therefore, they did not release even non-crucial parts of the live feed for later documentaries.

no need for UAV's - I wasn't the one suggesting that...

I took a shine to UAVs while reading Andy McNab's Nick Stone series. And I like them even more, because using them, I was able to understand the jamming theory. And the more I think about, the more I feel, that maybe they hold the key of the live feed, too.
Please let me stress this again:
1. ONE LEADER PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
2. SEPARATION OF DUTIES
3. NEED-TO-KNOW BASIS
You have an autonomious on-site crew for demolition reporting to command post. If you have a HERF-protected camera crew on-site to record the live feed, they have to be from your MEDIA crew, violating separation of duties, violating need-to-know, and one leader personal responsibility. De-conspiration very, very highly possible.

But may I ask: do you really need to have cameras on the GROUND for your live feed? You do not need it inside the building: the on-site crew leading operator reports to you on radio when the charges are ready or whatever. You have to monitor what is OUTSIDE of the building! And not only one side of the building-which you can do with one camera/side only x2 towers. But if you send up one UAV, you may monitor the whole area, you have ONE live feed, you do not have to collate 8 different pictures. And with UAV camera, you can have so detailed pictures, too, if you wish, that you can read what porno magazin is in the hands of the resting, smoking on-site crew members waiting for the final order.
So, why not UAV?

the bottom line is that not 1% of the available 9/11 imagery is 100% legit.

In other words: 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.

Your opinion?

[simonshack]

I'd say it all sounds good to me, dear Warriorhun

It's a pleasure to entertain this no-nonsense, advanced level of discourse regarding the logistics of the 9/11 psyop. Also, not having even the slightest military background or experience, I appreciate your insights into this part of the operation. I can understand your point for UAV's being involved and will certainly not rule out this possibility. Undoubtedly, we have come a long way and, for this very reason, must tread ever more cautiously when attempting to establish the finer strategies and techniques employed to pull off this wretched, pathetic mega hoax.

[RoyBean]

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.

Hm, that cockup. Has anyone here come across the "BBC intentional cockup" theories as I have recently (still looking for the original posts on some forum I can't remember atm). Just asking

This has been a very illuminating thread, BTW.

[simonshack]

This has been a very illuminating thread, BTW.

Dear Roybean,

Thank you - on behalf of all contributors to this important topic.

I am now giving this 'old' thread a bump, as I consider it a key read to envision just how the 9/11 hoax was pulled off. It also helps understanding just how the newsmedia's bold Master Plan to release an (almost*) entirely prefabricated photo/video image pool of the 'morning's events') could possibly have been implemented - and met the obligatory, 'foolproof safety-standards' which must have been observed by the 9/11 psyop planners. Lastly, it also goes to explain how and why no authentic amateur footage exists of the morning's events.

(* I will soon submit an article elaborating what I mean by 'almost')

[Brutal Metal]

Simon do you think the jamming encompassed New Jersey too cause lots of people could have filmed this event from there?

[simonshack]

Simon do you think the jamming encompassed New Jersey too cause lots of people could have filmed this event from there?

That issue will be also addressed in my next article.

[Brutal Metal]

Cool thanks sir I'll be sure to check out your findings!

[simonshack]

Cool thanks sir I'll be sure to check out your findings!

Thx for responding first to my question here ! viewtopic.php?p=2361321#p2361321

[Brutal Metal]

I just left a reply and please don't take it as a wiseass comment, it's just my opinion since I've lived in Florida since 1989!

[Tufa]

I have a critical view on the topic "Electronic Jamming on 9/11".
I absolutely do not agree, and I have many questions!

1. There is a confusion between a working radio communication link and that electronics in general fail to work.
2. There is a confusion between a cell phone's ability to communicate with the phone network, and its ability to take pictures. All phones take pictures, even if the net is down?
3. The date when cell phones built-in cameras first appeared on the market. When?
4. The wave-length region suitable for disrupting a video camera. The corresponding bending, reflection and absorption characteristics in an ordinary city. Nodes without any/low radiation ?
5. Depending on the wave-length, if an attached cable to a Gadget would work as an reception antenna, and make the Gadget more sensitive to an input electrical field; to destroy it more easily.
6. The field strength necessary to abort a video camera running on batteries without any cables.
7. The field strength necessary to erase recorded material on the cassette of the camera.
8. The field strength that would permanently kill the camera, so it will never work again. (no cables!)
9. The field strength that would permanently kill ordinary electronics, without an attached cable, such as watches, toys, battery fire detectors, ..,
10. The field strength that would permanently kill ordinary electronics, that do have an attached cable of some kind, such as car electronics, elevator electronics, room temperature control units, electricity meters, home electronics, computers, cassette players,..
11. The field strength that would permanently kill ordinary electronics, that not only have a cable but actually some kind of input antenna, such as cell phones, police radios, TV reception amplification units, ordinary radios of all kinds, car radios, TV broadcast equipment, Police base-station, cell phone base-stations, and similar
12. For all above, the number of transmit antennas, the energy conversion factor of the transmitter, and the energy source. How many watts?
13. If a single pulse was used, at what time it should be applied; the recording prior to this moment will be recovered as the tape will not erase even if the camera dies. Similar discussion in the time-domain if a continuous transmission was used.

I refuse completely any idea including "secret military technology". The list above is to illustrate that

1. To abort a video camera, you will need a high level of the field.
2. You must destroy the camera. You can not switch it on and off. It will die!
3. The recorded tape, up to the "bing", will survive!
4. Most antenna-electronics will go dead, and cable-electronics would be approx 2x as sensitive as a video camera. One dose will be received directly by the electronics, and one dose extra for each attached cable.

Antenna units have sensitive input or output amplifiers. An antenna will receive a good dose and the coax will feed this directly into the electronics.

"Aiming" for the tripod-man would be rather absurd. Your antenna must be several wave-lengths wide for this to work. Problem finding the tripod, that can be far away.

I am rather upset how easy the above problems are ignored by using the "I have seen it" + "military secrets" in above posts.

I now offer an alternative theory, that don't need any EMP/fields, and kindly do prove me wrong! I have intentionally chosen an extreme approach, so it should be easy! One good picture is all we need ...

1) ALL the TV broadcast is pre-recorded (and fake), including the news-caster. It has been pre-viewed on a test-audience, such as common (?) in film industry (checking jokes, horror effects, timing, and psychological impact). This is rather different compared to the "September clues".

2) 9/11 was not a clear day. See thread on the "weather on 9/11", that have so forth not come to any conclusion on this. Any picture of any kind (marriage, party, ) approximately from the N.Y. area could help here.

3) Some parks (battery park+water) and other obvious good camera sites are cleared by Police.

4) In N.Y., the Event is released to the public only after the "second" "plane" such as at 9:00 (am, local). No need to mess with any "explosion" special-effect. The TV version of the "explosion" is fake, as it contain pictures of animals and heads (long list) so it was "hand-painted"; pre-recorded.

5) Smoke generators now run in both towers.

6) The Twin Towers go down by a controlled demolition, possibly slightly mis-synchronised compared to the TV version. Demolition is from bottom-up; both towers share the basement structure, so both towers "fall" at the same time. This prevent the South tower debris from killing the cable (with the red button) to the north tower. The concrete floors was shot into rectangular pieces, that fit on the lorries. You need approx 2000m of special explosives for each of the 230 floors to do this. This is why a fake debris pile was essential. No dead, and computers + furniture was evacuated in advance.

7) Most/many people tried to take photos or video of the Towers, but it became just a grey mess. This material can still be obtained. The camera/tripod man just simply believe in the "Official" version, so he is not around here and provide his grey pictures!

8) The "smoking" debris pile (about 50 m high !) was necessary to obscure the view, so no one could take a photo of the pile's dimensions/hight or see any rectangular concrete blocks, or possibly absence of "rescue" workers.

9) There was no rescue work of any kind.

10) The paper work (permits, licence) was in order, including certificate by owner + authorities to bring down the towers; lawyers representing surrounding buildings in agreement on liability and insurance for the job. This imply that approx no one made a criminal act on 9/11 (hoi.polloi was in strong disagreement with me on this point; I do share his frustration)
This (10) is simply a speculation of mine, and I have no facts what so ever; it simply make sense.

11) There is a "second" or "deeper" 9/11 story, that explain why the video is fake and why the general public need/must be fooled. It should include "Terrorists", and should be real scary, to force cooperation and secrecy. This would also be told to any local citizen who was not fooled and complain. This explain why many people can work on the task and no one come forward and speak of any truths. They do the right thing! It is legal! They are patriots!
This (11) is simply a speculation of mine, and I have no facts what so ever; it simply make sense.

I hope you find my thoughts interesting!

[lux]

I refuse completely any idea including "secret military technology".

Camera, video & phone jammers are not "secret military technology." Devices which at least claim to have such capability (and more) are openly sold online, a fact that a few minutes with a search engine will demonstrate.

And, I don't think we'd be going too far out on a conspiracy theory limb to suggest that the military might have better ones than those sold on the interweb for 99 bucks.

[Tufa]

I don't get it. Please kindly provide more details. Do provide the links!
You say that you can stop/abort a recording, for a while, and then the camera will recover, so it appears like some kind of a glitch?
You can do this in a city at 2000m distance, without disrupting the entire city?
And the TV amplifier on the rooftop will still retransmit a good TV picture, afterwords?

I am very interested and wish to learn more!


EDIT:

Text: This device is not much larger than a packet of cigarettes and when activated, will disable almost any wireless video camera, wireless lans and blue tooth.
Will be complete useless on my Sony handicam recording on magnetic tape. I promise you!

[simonshack]

I hope you find my thoughts interesting!

I certainly do, dear Tufa. As a matter of fact, I can't really see that many points that we (you and I) disagree on.

However, let me address the points which you appear to be contesting a little.

Cellphone cameras: Forget them, they weren't widely available/commercially released until 2002. Besides, the early ones were abysmally crappy - and, as much as the worst available 9/11 "amateur videos" are pretty poor quality, there exists not a single 9/11 video which remotely looks like being shot with such an abysmally poor, hand-held cellphone camera.

Camera Jamming Technology: You can buy this device over the internet for a mere $790:


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

I am not exactly suggesting they placed a bunch of such devices around Manhattan - but why not? More to the point, don't you think the Pentagon would have something much, much more sophisticated than that? Perhaps even capable of covering some key vantage points/areas of Hoboken and Jersey - within lens reach (across the water) on either side of the southern tip of Lower Manhattan? Now, is there any reason why they would NOT have used such calibrated jamming technology on 9/11 (affecting only certain Hz frequency ranges - selectively) - since it exists - and since the whole point of the PsyOp was to replace the real events of that morning with prefabricated video material?

What was - in reality - the sort of view of the WTC anyone would have had (if still not evacuated from the area)?

Perhaps something like this?



Now, I'm not saying the above image is necessarily real - since it is extracted from an ABC TV news report. It is just to provide a visual idea of what anyone might have been able to see - as the towers collapsed: just a grey, impenetrable cloud of smoke.