Electronic Jamming on 9/11

[SmokingGunII]

Dear RF - I certainly don't have to post anything for "your indulgence". As I've said, the theory put forward is ridiculous. I will make the following observations to make my position clear, but I have now wish to participate in a time wasting argument with you!

The media/comms of NYC was cut off during the hoax.
If you have documentary evidence of no media broadcasts being available in NYC that morning please post it.
Neither tower had any fires or damage before collapse.
I believe there are enough non-media connected witnesses to explosions to assume that the towers did suffer fire damage. Notwithstanding someone I know also witnessed the explosion in NY from across the Hudson.
The two towers were simultaneously demolished.
Please explain how you can demolish the towers at the same time without anyone from a distance noticing?
Everything was over in a few secs.
Even New Yorkers can tell the differnce between a few seconds and over an hour and a half.
No one in NYC was expected it.
No independent footage/photos
Footage of planes and jumpers, agreed. I've found a number of photographs from different blogs & sites that clearly show the damage was as shown on TV and with one tower standing, which also destroys (pun intended) your earlier consideration that the towers were demolished at the same time.
Official timeline falsifed.
This could definitely have happened but not by 100 minutes.
Footage of tower fires, damage and collapses all faked
A mixture of both real & fake/tampered with IMHO

[Mickey]

However, I find it hard to believe that the whole city was left without a TV signal, when the rest of the world could receive signal coming from the city. It seems inconsistent and hard to explain in a second moment, after all the shock has settled.

I have my apprehensions about this. How do we know that anything was really coming out of NYC, especially during the alleged 102 minutes of "terror" timeline? We all agree that all of the footage during this time was prefabricated and ready to go from the main 6-7 worldwide networks. There was nothing necessary to broadcast live from NYC. Even the "local stations" did not have to relay anything from local stations necessarily in this case, they already had the theatrics ready. Of course, this is just a theory that this is possible to do with the prefabricated material.

[nonhocapito]

In theory, the broadcaster could disable the satellite receiving equipment in specific houses, whole streets, or even entire districts.

My point was not technical. Obviously it is possible for the signal to be disrupted. All the media were in on the 9/11 scam, so nothing easier than manipulating the signal if needed. No need to disable the receivers, it would have sufficed to obscure or manipulate or replace the transmission at the source.

My argument was psychological: how could these people accept the idea that their satellite signal was disrupted, when that signal is supposed to be coming directly from space and thus is not supposed to find any obstacle on its path, especially considering the "beautiful weather" in NYC on that day?
What would the new yorkers think in a second moment of the fact that they could not access the official narrative like everyone else, and that they could not even watch satellite signals broadcast from germany, france, saudi arabia and whatnot?

It seems a risky strategy. I am more in favor of the idea that evacuation of Manhattan could have been enough, and that maybe faked explosions and smoke actually were staged in the towers, although I admit this sounds a bit like a circus with a lot of crazy variables... And it remains that the absence of spontaneous records of any sort is incredible too and it is something that could only be achieved with complete, Stalinist control over the population.

Fred as in Benario?!

I DISCLAIM ANY LIKENESS OR SIMILARITIES TO ACTUAL PEOPLE EITHER LIVING OR DEAD AND ANY SUCH LIKENESS OR SIMILARITIES ARE UNINTENTIONAL AND STRICTLY COINCIDENTAL!

Fred as in a former member of this forum whose nickname was "fred". I am a bit surprised to see how you seem so learned about this forum, so much into the discourse as if you belong to it since forever, yet you are not aware of the past presence of such a relevant member.

Sorry rf, this is nothing personal... since impersonation and multiple identities are the norm on the internet and a chronic problem on boards like ours, I am always expecting former members to pop up under new names. Your disclaimer is funny but is not really valid, you know... I don't want to single you out or anything, just letting out my impressions to see what they bring back.

[nonhocapito]

However, I find it hard to believe that the whole city was left without a TV signal, when the rest of the world could receive signal coming from the city. It seems inconsistent and hard to explain in a second moment, after all the shock has settled.

I have my apprehensions about this. How do we know that anything was really coming out of NYC, especially during the alleged 102 minutes of "terror" timeline? We all agree that all of the footage during this time was prefabricated and ready to go from the main 6-7 worldwide networks. There was nothing necessary to broadcast live from NYC. Even the "local stations" did not have to relay anything from local stations necessarily in this case, they already had the theatrics ready. Of course, this is just a theory that this is possible to do with the prefabricated material.

Once again, I am not talking about technical problems, but psychological ones: the point is not that the signal actually came from NYC. I agree with you that it probably came from somewhere else, be it Laurel Canyon or Tel Aviv or London or the Hollywood Boulevard.

The point is that the official narrative presented witnesses, journalists and similar crap as broadcast live from Manhattan. Hence, it seems hard to justify to the people in the city the idea that all signals, including satellite signals (why?), were disrupted.

[brianv]

Sorry to jump in Smokey but...

Neither tower had any fires or damage before collapse.
I believe there are enough non-media connected witnesses to explosions to assume that the towers did suffer fire damage. Notwithstanding someone I know also witnessed the explosion in NY from across the Hudson.

Believe what you like and, who do you know? I know someone who claims an airplane, of all things, hit the towers! Delusional liars all!

Please explain how you can demolish the towers at the same time without anyone from a distance noticing?

You throw up a smokescreen, "Hey look they're making another movie, the 500th this year featuring the towers". Goggle were advising people to turn their TV's on... remember?

"I've found a number of photographs from different blogs & sites that clearly show the damage was as shown on TV and with one tower standing,"

Please provide the images and verify their authenticity!

This could definitely have happened but not by 100 minutes.

Why couldn't it?

[reichstag fireman]

If you have documentary evidence of no media broadcasts [nor telecommunications] being available in NYC that morning please post it.

There are numerous accounts of media and telecoms outages in NYC on the morning of 9/11. Outages that were explained officially by:

• supposed damage to TV/radio transmitter masts on the WTC
• supposed telecoms network capacity problems as people tried to contact friends & relatives in NYC

The more interesting question is how could "satellite" TV have been disabled for those in NYC? Recall, for this (working) hypothesis, New Yorkers had to be kept deaf and blind to the fake PSYOP "attacks" in their own city. They had to be kept dumb until after the towers had been demolished.

But satellite TV could have brought the news of the global PSYOP into NYC before time, New Yorkers could then have verified with their own eyes that the PSYOP narrative was bunkum - towers not burning - towers not damaged - towers still standing at 10:28.

Terrestrial TV in NYC was sorted. Off-air officially due to mast damage on the WTC. Telephones were nobbled too. Officially from capacity overload. So the weakpoint then was "Satellite" TV.

How could Satellite TV have been disabled for New Yorkers? Perhaps by disabling on a receiver-by-receiver basis (as illustrated above), the crypto system used for subscription-based & free-to-view satellite channels. Simple, eh?! Quit the emotionalisation and please address the feasibility of that alleged aspect to the PSYOP.

I believe there are enough non-media connected witnesses to explosions to assume that the towers did suffer fire damage. Notwithstanding someone I know also witnessed the explosion in NY from across the Hudson.

And you (whoever you are) can personally vouch for the credibility of this "someone" who says he saw everything?!

In 2001, I too encountered "someone" who claimed to have video-ed the burning towers from across the Hudson. "Richard Siegel".. remember him? Do we have a mutual acquaintance?!

Siegel was touting his fake CGI'ed video of 'burning towers from across the Hudson' for $20. Crooked little turd! Siegel is really keen to engage the doubters, too. Claiming to be living now in Paris, Siegel pleads with any nay-sayers to call him up so he can personally explain his sincerity. All part of the service he's paid to provide, eh?!

I've found a number of photographs from different blogs & sites that clearly show the damage was as shown on TV and with one tower standing, which also destroys (pun intended) your earlier consideration

Please provide links to all these "different blogs & sites" with "a number of photographs" that "clearly show the damage was as shown on TV". All images will of course need to be independently examined and verified as genuine.

IN SUMMARY:

So this is what you offer as a rebuttal: no hard facts, no corroborative proof, no images, no web links, no identifiable genuine witnesses. The word of an unidentified dodgy acquaintance is your trump card? Some grunt like Richard Siegel who claims to have seen or even video-ed everything, is worse than no witness!

Forgive my cynicism, but I'm not yet persuaded!

[reichstag fireman]

My argument was psychological: how could these people accept the idea that their satellite signal was disrupted, when that signal is supposed to be coming directly from space and thus is not supposed to find any obstacle on its path, especially considering the "beautiful weather" in NYC on that day?

Genuine "satellite" outages happen. In the case of NYC on 911, the broadcaster could have added some meaningless on-screen message to befuddle viewers: "Your viewing card is invalid - please contact service provider on 982-734-9228".

Any number of official explanations are available for a "satellite" TV outage. Perhaps the perps could claim that the satellite "uplink" site was in NYC itself. Therefore the outage was officially due to physical damage to the "satellite" transmitter from the "plane strikes". Or one very simple explanation: the authentication servers of the satellite TV operator were housed in the Twin Towers?

What would the new yorkers think in a second moment of the fact that they could not access the official narrative like everyone else, and that they could not even watch satellite signals broadcast from germany, france, saudi arabia and whatnot?

The key for any staged outage is Plausible Deniability. Just like internet censorship. Much better for censors to time-out connection to a blocked website (just another network failure, yeah?) than direct would-be surfers to a page that reads: "ACCESS TO THIS WEBSITE IS BLOCKED BY ORDER OF GOVERNMENT".

It seems a risky strategy. I am more in favor of the idea that evacuation of Manhattan could have been enough, and that maybe faked explosions and smoke actually were staged in the towers,

Evacuations sure. Maybe not explicitly described as such. Public transport failures, staged road blockages, etc.

The elephant on the sofa here is the absence of any amateur photos or footage of the towers ablaze or collapsing. If the towers were both undamaged at the point of demolition, and if both towers were demolished together, then that is one explanation for the lack of genuine photos and footage.

No one in NYC was expecting the undamaged towers to collapse. So no one had readied their cameras on the towers to capture their totally unexpected 10 second free-fall controlled demolition.

In the implausible alternative scenario, the two towers were separately damaged in strikes 15 minutes apart. Both blazing furiously. And then collapsing 90 minutes later. The idea that no one independently photographed or video-recorded anything throughout that "102 minute" official timeline is just not credible.

although I admit this sounds a bit like a circus with a lot of crazy variables... And it remains that the absence of spontaneous records of any sort is incredible too and it is something that could only be achieved with complete, Stalinist control over the population.

Isn't that what the media by design has gained - total Stalinist control?

The perps on 7/7/2005 pulled off a PSYOP in which multiple simultaneous attacks supposedly struck the bustling capital city of Britain. Yet there is no independent footage out there, so far as I know. Of course 7/7 was much easier since 3 of the 4 supposed 7/7 attacks were deep underground on the Tube. Safely out of sight with all platform CCTV disabled, etc etc.. Whereas in NYC, the objects of the supposed attack were a quarter mile high! A media fraud to be admired for its audaciousness if nothing else!

Fred as in a former member of this forum whose nickname was "fred". I am a bit surprised to see how you seem so learned about this forum, so much into the discourse as if you belong to it since forever, yet you are not aware of the past presence of such a relevant member.

I have never heard of "fred" until now and have never posted to this forum under any identity other than "Reichstag Fireman". Who was "fred"? And why was he a problem? A shill or disruptive agent, presumably? What makes us seem similar?! I'm sure I'm wrong a fair amount of the time, but that's always down to incompetence rather than any sinister motive. I don't mind being wrong, and being shown to be wrong, so long as there are lessons learned from my blunderings! Thought-stopping insults like the one above from SmokingGunII serve no purpose in furthering anyone's understanding. If the hypotheses of simultaneous tower collapse and total NYC media/tv outage is wrong, that's no biggie to my ego! But sincere critics should explain exactly how and why those theories are wrong.

[Mickey]

Were free-to-air or free-to-view satellite channels commonly broadcast into N.America back then?

Yes. Before home based Ku band smaller dishes became popular for FTA TV, the large C-Band dishes were the most popular medium for receiving FTA sats and programming. C-Band dishes at a consumer level have been around since 80s. More recently Ku band dishes have become common to receive FTA programming since they are relatively smaller (85"-90" can catch most of them). The satellite backhauls are a wonderful source of catching the "actual" broadcasts unedited. I always wondered if some of the FTA hobbyists were able to catch some of the hoax material but it is also possible to "control" the backhauls and for the 911 theatrics they must have done to close all loopholes.

In the UK, until recent years, to watch free-to-view satellite channels still required a "viewing card". This was obtained from the broadcaster and inserted into the receiver. Those viewing cards were linked by database to the viewer's home address, by way of a serial number.

I have never been in the UK but totally doubt this. FTA has been around for a long time, it was just not there at a consumer level mainly because the dishes required to be quite big as they were broadcasted in the C-Band.

In theory, the broadcaster could disable the satellite receiving equipment in specific houses, whole streets, or even entire districts.

That's how it was in Britain and Ireland, but is it how things were done in 2001 in the USA?

This is the same here in the US, but only for the encrypted channels which require proprietary equipment like DishNetwork, DirectTV etc. These can be circumvented but it's an entirely separate discussion and beyond the score of this forum. For Free-To-Air they cannot do it specifically for a house,street,district etc but have to do it for the entire footprint of the transponders.

Is it possible that the "satellite" TV signals was blocked on 9/11 for the greater NY area, perhaps by disabling the decryption function of satellite receivers in all premises in that specific region?

[/quote][/quote]

Although it is possible to do this for the pay/commercial vendors, for free-to-air it might have been possible to view backhauls. They must have controlled it/fed the same hoax material for a few hours or completely shut it off. FTA could have been a great source of catching some behind-the-scenes fakery in real time though. I wish I had FTA equipment back then.

[reichstag fireman]

You are missing the distinction between free-to-view and free-to-air satellite TV, Mickey.

Free-to-Air and Free-To-View satellite TV channels are both provided free of charge to the viewer.

However, Free-to-View satellite TV allows the broadcaster to disable viewing access on an individual basis:

From wonkypedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-view

The free-to-view (FTV) system contrasts with free-to-air (FTA), in which signals are sent unencrypted and are available for all to see with any DVB-S/S2 decoder...

The free-to-view system allows for restricting access based on location of the viewer. For example, commercial stations such as Channel 5 are made available to viewers in the United Kingdom, but are restricted in the Republic of Ireland and northern France, even though these areas are covered by the same satellite footprint, Astra 2D. Since BSkyB requires all its viewers to supply their addresses when registering, the broadcaster can select which channels that viewer can decrypt.

Using the same idea at a more parochial level, free-to-view encryption cards also allow for selecting the correct regional TV output based on the viewer's address. For example, by using the postcode given when registering the viewing card, a viewer based in Birmingham will have his/her configuration set to receive BBC1 West Midlands and ITV1 Central West on channel numbers 101 and 103 respectively.

In reference to NYC on 9/11, the questions are:

• Which "satellite" TV signals were normally receivable in the New York area in Sept 2001?
• What conditional access cryptographic schemes were in use on that date?
• How was a subscription linked to each "satellite" TV subscriber?

[Mickey]

You are missing the distinction between free-to-view and free-to-air satellite TV, Mickey.

Free-to-Air and Free-To-View satellite TV channels are both provided free of charge to the viewer.

However, Free-to-View satellite TV allows the broadcaster to disable viewing access on an individual basis:

From wonkypedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-view

The free-to-view (FTV) system contrasts with free-to-air (FTA), in which signals are sent unencrypted and are available for all to see with any DVB-S/S2 decoder...

The free-to-view system allows for restricting access based on location of the viewer. For example, commercial stations such as Channel 5 are made available to viewers in the United Kingdom, but are restricted in the Republic of Ireland and northern France, even though these areas are covered by the same satellite footprint, Astra 2D. Since BSkyB requires all its viewers to supply their addresses when registering, the broadcaster can select which channels that viewer can decrypt.

Using the same idea at a more parochial level, free-to-view encryption cards also allow for selecting the correct regional TV output based on the viewer's address. For example, by using the postcode given when registering the viewing card, a viewer based in Birmingham will have his/her configuration set to receive BBC1 West Midlands and ITV1 Central West on channel numbers 101 and 103 respectively.

OK this appears to be a EU only thing. In the US, there is no distinction between them. Free-to-air is unencrypted and free to view and the term is use interchangeably. It does not require any conditional access system and never has. You can buy FTA receivers and just point to a specific satellite or have a motorized dish that can point to any satellite on demand and receive free channels and or sports/live event broadcasts that are not encrypted. FTA streams are exclusively broadcasted in the US using linear polarity and pay providers like DishNet/DTV use circular polarity, and therefore use different LNBs to receive the signal.

In reference to NYC on 9/11, the questions are:

• Which "satellite" TV signals were normally receivable in the New York area in Sept 2001?
  
  Lyngsat has a good list. http://www.lyngsat.com/america.html
  
  Keep in mind, you have to click on each satellite to see which transponders are FTA (again FTA = FTV in the US). There are some satellites used exclusively by the encrypted pay providers like Dish and DTV.
  
• What conditional access cryptographic schemes were in use on that date?
  DirecTV -> Were using H cards and transitioning into HU cards at that time. Interesting to note that earlier that year, DTV used a famous ECM to nullify hacked H cards en masse. HU cards were in infancy of the hacking stage.
  DishNetwork -> Were using Nagravision v1. Completely circumvented in the US and worldwide during those times.
  Other pay providers -> were using digicipher. As of today they have not been circumvented.
• How was a subscription linked to each "satellite" TV subscriber?

I can go into great bit of details on this but again will be out of scope for our discussion. Put simply though each card was indeed tied to a subscriber through the CAM #. Due to ease of hacking during those times, it was easy to clone them if the original subscriber wanted to "donate" the clone to any of their friends.

[reichstag fireman]

I am genuinely interested in this topic, Mickey. However, what you describe is not relevant to the thread.

A set of questions:

• What "satellite" TV channels were available on the east coast USA back in Sept 2001?
• What sat TV channels were commonly watched in NY? In Britain 99.999999% of dishes are aligned for BSkyB.
• Who were the broadcasters of those "satellite" TV channels?
• What did the broadcasters use to secure conditional viewing access on the east coast USA back in Sept 2001?
• How could those technologies be used to disable viewing of "satellite" TV across a specific geographic region?
• What part (if any) did conditional access play in a media lock-down across greater NY area on 9/11?

The argument against a media lock-down across NY is weak. Being based on the alleged availability and common use of Free-To-Air satellite TVs with motorised dishes in the city. I know of no one with such equipment. And it seems very unlikely that it would be used in an urban area.

Who would want such specialist and expensive equipment? No hotel would use it either. So it's not really an everyday solution for circumventing encryption-based conditional access schemes. And re-aligning a dish is not something done on the spur of the moment, and with no inkling of the PSYOP unfolding across the world.

When the "satellite" TV signal disappears, we generally just wait patiently for it to return. No loss. It wasn't worth watching any way! About the last thing any of us do in a TV outage is to go outside and try re-aligning the reception antenna!

Further, the 9/11 perps needed just a few seconds to simultaneously demolish both towers. With or without a motorised dish, who could re-align their receiver in that short time, to get PSYOP news from the outside world?

[brianv]

I'm just a passer-by here but...

I've been through every frame of every broadcast from "nineeleven" and there are precious few satellite dishes to be seen anywhere in New Amsterdam on that date. Is that significant?

[reichstag fireman]

I'm just a passer-by here but...

I've been through every frame of every broadcast from "nineeleven" and there are precious few satellite dishes to be seen anywhere in New Amsterdam on that date. Is that significant?

Definitely. And it's a numbers game, too.

So long as most of us are suckered, the few who aren't - the very few who immediately realise the hoax - what do they matter to the operation? Most will stay quiet out of fear. And the few who do speak out will be drowned out by the army of paid stooges and zombies.

What of those New Yorkers who did circumvent the media lock-down? The few New Yorkers who got news of the PSYOP from outside, before time?

In the numbers game, we're down to very few people. Throughout the whole of NY and beyond, perhaps no one realised that the media and telecoms outage was an integral part of the operation, until afterwards. If even then.

Let's not forget there were loads of insiders who knew exactly what the conspiracy was about from the very beginning, since they were part of it. So the very few outsiders who happened to rumble the Hoax in real time were not that important! What were they gonna do about it? Call up CNN?! Oh shit, the phones are down

EDIT: What do you make of Rick Siegel's footage "from across the Hudson", brianv? Siegel works overtime ensuring that youtube deletes any uploads of it. Nevertheless, little snippets of it are still there.. Here's one..

Youtube: Hoboken - WTC - Multiple Detonations?- What [Rick] Siegel Saw & Heard.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ808QZjHxQ

[fbenario]

However, I find it hard to believe that the whole city was left without a TV signal, when the rest of the world could receive signal coming from the city. It seems inconsistent and hard to explain in a second moment, after all the shock has settled.

I have my apprehensions about this. How do we know that anything was really coming out of NYC, especially during the alleged 102 minutes of "terror" timeline?

We needn't spend time on this line of inquiry. When the CIA threw the main switch exchanging live news broadcasts across the US with the faked 9/11 video, obviously all NY local news stations would have been included.

[fbenario]

Fred as in Benario?!

Fred as in a former member of this forum whose nickname was "fred". I am a bit surprised to see how you seem so learned about this forum, so much into the discourse as if you belong to it since forever, yet you are not aware of the past presence of such a relevant member.

The shill ex-member with username fred may also have been the infamous ex-member ozzybinoswald using yet another nom de guerre.