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
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:00 pm

EquinoXed wrote: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.
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
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by warriorhun » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:10 pm

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
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:27 pm

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
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:08 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by RoyBean » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:21 am

simonshack wrote:
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.
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
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:36 pm

RoyBean wrote:
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')

Tufa
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by Tufa » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:08 pm

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
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by lux » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:12 pm

Tufa wrote: 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
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by Tufa » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:37 pm

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:
Image
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!
Last edited by Tufa on Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Tufa wrote: 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:

Image
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?

Image

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.

Tufa
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by Tufa » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:52 pm

Dear Simon, it is absolutely wrong. Please kindly stay with me on this, until you understand my problem!
The product above clearly state that "any wireless video camera, wireless lans and bloototh".

The confusion is here:
1. There is a confusion between a working radio communication link and that electronics in general fail to work.
6. The field strength necessary to abort a video camera running on batteries without any cables.
The above machinery will likely work well, if you shall jam a communication link on radio. You just merely need to mess up the reception of the picture. That will be easy. That is not my question!

The problem is if you should mess up the picture of a camera recording on tape, on the built-in recorder. You need much higher levels (MUCH!!). The reception must be some exposed contact or conductor -- no more than 1/8 of an inch or much less.
How can you do this, taking into account that much other ordinary electronics will be around?

But I agree with your grey picture. And I agree (I demand!) that a Real picture would be needed.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:00 pm

Dear Tufa,

At this moment, I would say the greatest confusion (of communication) is the one between you and me ! :lol:

Jokes apart, I simply can't see what exactly you have problems with - regarding electronic jamming of digital devices, in a most likely totally ringed-off and evacuated environment such as Lower Manhattan on the morning of 9/11.

Let me quote these lines from your last post:
Tufa wrote:
The problem is if you should mess up the picture of a camera recording on tape, on the built-in recorder. You need much higher levels (MUCH!!). The reception must be some exposed contact or conductor -- no more than 1/8 of an inch or much less. How can you do this, taking into account that much other ordinary electronics will be around?
Even if the Pentagon used high-powered devices which messed up all sorts of other electronic equipment (aside from camera equipment), do you think that would have represented a grave concern for the perps? Even if it messed up the electronics in car ignitions, microwave ovens, TVsets, radios, cellphones, air-conditioners and whatnot - do you think that would have messed up the (non-digital) old-fashioned, electric wiring connected to dynamite charges in the WTC buildings? Or what else is your point here? Am I missing something?

Also, and as far as I know, electronic camera jamming is not about "messing up the picture of a camera recording on tape" - as you say - it is about keeping the camera from even operating/switching on! If I am wrong about that, this would imply that Quentin (the guy who wrote me in 2009 and whose account is published on septemberclues.info) is a liar. However, I honestly fail to see why he should have made up this story about his cousin's camera :
http://septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm
Quentin wrote:
"My cousin Stephen's PVDV401 Cam failed to turn on but assumed it was the battery; he blames Panasonic for "making unreliable shit". But it was in the charger for more than 4 hours the night before. So he claims to had been somewhere on Broadway heading North when it happened. The incident actually happened closer to the second hit - before 9 am (this info he just gave me in an email). He did not immediately think of pulling out the camera until he approached as close as possible the WTC for a better view. He pulled it from his bag only to struggle with it for a bit, releasing the battery then hooking it again, he did this several times - checking everything else he knew to check - to no avail. (Mind you, he had been bringing his new camera to work almost everyday and never encountered a problem with the power)."
Another Youtube user mentioned this - also in 2009:
"My camcorder at the time wasn't perfect and I don't know if it was momentarily powering on and off due to some defect. The litte red button on it would get stuck sometimes, or not work."
Of course, one or two such account aren't much, you may say - and I think we both wish to have many more similar accounts of camera disfunctions coming our way. However, just how many people would have been walking around at 8AM/9AM on an average Tuesday morning in the vicinity of the WTC (whose main tourist attraction - the rooftop - only opened at 9:30AM) ? How many would have escaped the (most likely military-managed) evacuation of the area - the occurence of which is beyond question - and even mentioned by official sources?

The question of ANALOGUE CAMERAS/FILM
Now, one may argue that, for instance, older analog 35mm cameras (with no digital components) could have escaped the electronic jamming and captured (still) pictures on film that morning. Hey, what if I myself had been there with my old Minolta DX7 (as I was years before 9/11) walking around Lower Manhattan? Ok, so let's see: I escaped the evacuation miraculously, and I was left dwelling undisturbed in some street where I could point my lens towards the WTC. I then managed to snap a damning shot of the WTC just as the brief demo cutter charges went off (within a 1 or 2 sec timeframe!) - or even a shot of one or the other 500mph airplane crashing into the WTC! Wow, lucky me! Well, I would surely have rushed to the nearest "QUICK KODAK 1-hour" shop, and waited for my film roll to be developed. At 10:AM/11:AM (or later), I would have returned to the Kodak shop...and probably found that the NY police had confiscated my film rolls! Aaargh!

Watch at 4:00 into September Clues Epilogue:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BvmdWAIs14
And if that police officer's account is to be trusted, he even says that "the clocks stopped!" :blink:

But again, this is not the only way analog film could have been "deleted/controlled". Back in the old days, I remember that walking through airport X-ray luggage machines would be the nightmare of every photographer. If you left your film rolls in the screened luggage, the rolls would often turn out blank/burned-out. Now, is it really hard for anyone to imagine that the few exit roads from Lower Manhattan had similar (and more powerful) X-ray machines deployed on 9/11?

Do we have testimonies from anyone experiencing just this (burned-out film rolls)? No. But neither do we have authentic-looking tourist images of the crucial moments of 9/11, do we?

Tufa
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by Tufa » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:35 pm

My main concern is that, if you believe in the "Electronic Jamming", you no longer search for photos!
So, if it is not true, in is a line in the perpetrators defence of The Lies.
And that is rather serious.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:04 pm

Tufa wrote:My main concern is that, if you believe in the "Electronic Jamming", you no longer search for photos!
So, if it is not true, in is a line in the perpetrators defence of The Lies.
And that is rather serious.
Dear Tufa,

If I understand your frustration correctly, you still believe there may be some REAL images (somewhere) of the crucial moments of 9/11. Yeah, well - that's pretty frustrating if you ask me! Yet this is, as far as I can tell, what this entire research of ours seems to be confirming. Does this mean the perps are getting away with it?

No!

Our tireless efforts simply strive to confirm and denounce the core modus operandi of the 9/11 hoax. The massive amount of fake 9/11 imagery we have exposed to this day have divested the ENTIRE 9/11 image pool of ANY credibility.

Isn't that good enough for you?

Tufa
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by Tufa » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:46 pm

To go further on this issue, I provide comments of Simon's answer.
simonshack wrote:Jokes apart, I simply can't see what exactly you have problems with - regarding electronic jamming of digital devices, in a most likely totally ringed-off and evacuated environment such as Lower Manhattan on the morning of 9/11.
No, my scenario is a tripod camera in New Jersey. It is not close to or on the Manhattan. If you wish to see the Towers on the Manhattan island, the number of camera locations are limited, and simply guarding them is much simpler.
simonshack wrote:Even if the Pentagon used high-powered devices which messed up all sorts of other electronic equipment (aside from camera equipment), do you think that would have represented a grave concern for the perps?
Absolutely not, but did it happened?
If the effective camera-blocking range is 1/4 of the effective-destroy-electronics-range, do you still think it make sense? How about the corresponding area of coverage?
simonshack wrote:Even if it messed up the electronics in car ignitions, microwave ovens, TVsets, radios, cellphones, air-conditioners and whatnot - do you think that would have messed up the (non-digital) old-fashioned, electric wiring connected to dynamite charges in the WTC buildings?
The WTC Towers must go down on a computerized data bus for the charges. Charges close to each other will be connected using chemical means; a coloured plastic line with a thin thread of explosives inside. Especially if you plan for it in advance; resistance against an applied field is no problem.
simonshack wrote:Also, and as far as I know, electronic camera jamming is not about "messing up the picture of a camera recording on tape" - as you say - it is about keeping the camera from even operating/switching on!
This theory is that you need a low level to stop the camera from operating, and a higher level to destroy it. I'll challenge on that, and claim that you must destroy the camera permanently. The camera is insensitive to external (low level) electric fields; protected to work also in an industry environment where there might be a disturbing electric field. You will need a high field, to kill the processor or an amplifier.
"My camcorder at the time wasn't perfect and I don't know if it was momentarily powering on and off due to some defect. The litte red button on it would get stuck sometimes, or not work."
This indicate a mechanical failure on the button, possibly due to marmalade or honey.
simonshack wrote:Of course, one or two such account aren't much, you may say - and I think we both wish to have many more similar accounts of camera disfunctions coming our way.
Well, if the "directed energy" group (that the WTC came down due to UFO/Ray weapon/satellite weapon) had access to a bunch of accounts of dead electronic devices, don't you think we have had heard of them?
simonshack wrote:However, just how many people would have been walking around at 8AM/9AM on an average Tuesday morning in the vicinity of the WTC (whose touristic attraction - the rooftop - only opened at 9:30AM) ? How many would have escaped the (most likely military-managed) evacuation of the area - the occurence of which is beyond question - and even mentioned by official sources?
Agree on that; and you simply confiscate the tape for criminal investigation.

The question of ANALOGUE CAMERAS/FILM
I have travelled on plane with home-bought film rolls and back again, and they all developed OK. The rolls went through the X-ray machine something like 5 times.

If you load your camera with 35 mm black-and-white film, you can develop it yourself at home. This is the future for truthists! If you develop at a shop in N.Y. the pictures will be monitored, as was done at the JFK assassination. If you save your camera and go to Canada, and develop much later you will be OK. Note that most reasonably modern cameras are also filled with electronics, and can possibly also be destroyed by a strong field. The film is OK, but the thing refuse to "click"!
simonshack wrote:But again, this is not the only way analog film could have been "deleted/controlled". Back in the old days, I remember that walking through airport X-ray luggage machines would be the nightmare of every photographer. If you left your film rolls in the screened luggage, the rolls would often turn out blank/burned-out. Now, is it really hard for anyone to imagine that the few exit roads from Lower Manhattan had similar (and more powerful) X-ray machines deployed on 9/11?
I do not agree, and would like to challenge on that too. The X-ray/Gamma level to mess up the film will likely (how much?) also be dangerous for people. Patients with X-ray injures would certainly stir up some questions!
simonshack wrote:Do we have testimonies from anyone experiencing just this (burned-out film rolls)? No. But neither do we have authentic-looking tourist images of the crucial moments of 9/11, do we?
No, we don't!
How about if we find some!
Kindly note: This issue is under our control and can be decided by experiments or other methods.

Tufa
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Unread post by Tufa » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:00 pm

simonshack wrote:Our tireless efforts simply strive to confirm and denounce the core modus operandi of the 9/11 hoax. The massive amount of fake 9/11 imagery we have exposed to this day have divested the ENTIRE 9/11 image pool of ANY credibility.

Isn't that good enough for you?
Yes, it is!

The image pool (all video + all pictures) was fabricated to also include clues for the "conspiracies". Some men was assigned to challenge the "official" version according to the assigned conspiracy. All of these "conspiracies" did not work, like the U.S. space-weapon scenario. Unfortunately, the electronic-jamming -> no pictures kind of fit in, so I would like to have it properly investigated.

I would like to be certain that it is a clue, and not some idea thought up in advance: "bla bla electronic jamming and no one will understand that, and it "explain" why there will not be any pictures, and no one will search for them! It works, promise!"

Post Reply