Electronic Jamming on 9/11

[reichstag fireman]

Yeah, (if true) it is the opposite of what we would expect. Those nearest the PSYOP knew the least, and were the last to learn. The localised media and telecoms blackout was critical. And so, on 9/11 a.m., New Yorkers were blocked from accessing outside information. They had to be isolated from discovering the global narrative that was being told to the world. New Yorkers would otherwise soon verify that the narrative was a lie - not borne out by physical evidence on the ground. E.g. the towers were not in fact on fire at 09:03 EDT, as BBC TV in London was claiming.

So New Yorkers had to be the last in the world to fall for the PSYOP delusions. The rest of us were glued to the TV in horror as the nail-biting PSYOP unfolded. But for those in the Big Apple, at that point, it was still just a normal day. Business as usual, right up until the two towers were simultaneously felled. The thinking in the city then had to be re-synchronised with the rest of the planet, with the ending of the comms/media outages. Then New Yorkers suddenly got their awakening, as they learned of the horrors that had been happening on their doorstep without them even noticing

For New Yorkers, the morning of 9/11 did start off with some trifling problems earlier on: metro closures, TV & radio reception issues, faults with the cellphones and landlines, etc. But nothing to arouse widespread suspicion of foul play ahead.

Perhaps there is a generic question of how the conspirators secure the communications for any community, in the run up to a major PSYOP. A tried and tested blueprint for 'comms lockdown' must be in existence.

There are still some weak-points, though. A small number of New Yorkers had their own equipment for communicating independently with the outside world. CB and radio hams, for example, who were not reliant on the global telecoms network. They posed a potential risk to the Operation since they could learn of the PSYOP before intended. Their communications in the NY area on 911 needed jamming. A simple job for some SIGINT unit of US.MIL.

There is also the question of stopping 'PSYOP info leak' in to and out of New York conveyed by those on the move in cars, trains, planes. etc..

[nonhocapito]

The idea that both the towers were demolished at the same time is interesting, also for another reason, because it could have been difficult to demolish one leaving the other standing up; risky, even. The damage, the rubble, the quake effect could have compromised the following demolition.

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.

Satellite TV existed in 2001 and was certainly popular. If offices were closed, hotels for example must have had their own satellite receivers working, and people in front of them. Not necessarily New Yorkers either.

If those TV sets did not work too, I wonder how at the end of the day could this be justified at all, if that signal was supposed to come straight from space and not from, say, the antennas on top of the WTC (if that explanation was even ever officially offered?) (let's not discuss in this context the credibility of satellites, please, let's limit ourselves to discuss what satellite receivers were supposed to do).

Wouldn't the people report and discuss publicly the bizarre fact that satellite signals were disrupted on the morning of 9/11, and that there cannot be any reasonable explanation for it?

Alternatively, to keep the city completely unaware of what was going on until 10:28, one could hypothesize that all the TV signals broadcast over the city (including satellite signals) had to feature normal programming.

So the signals would not be obscured but did not announce planes or explosion or any of that, nor showed the towers smoking away. this could explain why all the TV archive publicly available comes from Washington or LA, but offers none of the NYC channels saved for public consumption. When it would be naturally the kind of TV archive everyone would want to see.

But this possibility is also hard to accept when when we imagine that sooner or later people, seeing the footage the rest of the world saw live, would wonder why the TV they saw did not report the event at all that day until later.

p.s. I hope it is not completely inappropriate if I say that reading your posts, reichstag fireman, gives me a dejavu everytime. I can't help it, judging by the language used and the way of the arguments, I could swear I am reading Fred's posts.

[reichstag fireman]

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.

You're right - it is difficult to believe. But what exactly is known about the satellite TV available in the Greater NY area in 2001? Were free-to-air or free-to-view satellite channels commonly broadcast into N.America back then?

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.

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?

Satellite TV existed in 2001 and was certainly popular. If offices were closed, hotels for example must have had their own satellite receivers working, and people in front of them. Not necessarily New Yorkers either.

If those TV sets did not work too, I wonder how at the end of the day could this be justified at all, if that signal was supposed to come straight from space and not from, say, the antennas on top of the WTC (if that explanation was even ever officially offered?) (let's not discuss in this context the credibility of satellites, please, let's limit ourselves to discuss what satellite receivers were supposed to do).

Wouldn't the people report and discuss publicly the bizarre fact that satellite signals were disrupted on the morning of 9/11, and that there cannot be any reasonable explanation for it?

Alternatively, to keep the city completely unaware of what was going on until 10:28, one could hypothesize that all the TV signals broadcast over the city (including satellite signals) had to feature normal programming.

So the signals would not be obscured but did not announce planes or explosion or any of that, nor showed the towers smoking away. this could explain why all the TV archive publicly available comes from Washington or LA, but offers none of the NYC channels saved for public consumption. When it would be naturally the kind of TV archive everyone would want to see.

But this possibility is also hard to accept when when we imagine that sooner or later people, seeing the footage the rest of the world saw live, would wonder why the TV they saw did not report the event at all that day until later.

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?

p.s. I hope it is not completely inappropriate if I say that reading your posts, reichstag fireman, gives me a dejavu everytime. I can't help it, judging by the language used and the way of the arguments, I could swear I am reading Fred's posts.

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!

EDIT:

One thing that struck me is that the official 911 timeline may be bunkum in another way. We are given very specific times for critical events - alleged times of impact and times of collapse to the nearest second.

The whole operation from first "plane impact" (08:46) to second tower collapse (10:28) officially took 102 minutes. That's a very long time to keep a whole city in media darkness as you pull off a global PSYOP.

But what if those times are fabricated? That happened during the 7/7 operation in London. The initial timeline was very different to the one finally agreed upon for the Official Narrative. Is it feasible that the NYC911 operation was all over in just a few minutes? But in the confusion sown on the day, none of us had the composure of mind to note times on our own watches, for later verification of the official story. It is always the case that the shorter the op, the easier it is to fool us.

Also, the two sideshows - the Pentagon Wham-Bam and the Hole-in-Pennsylvania - served to confuse the chronology even more. Allowing the media perps to flick coverage between the three geographic PSYOP sites.

Just rambling here really. Hope someone finds it interesting!

[SmokingGunII]

I have to say, that out of all the theories that have been discussed with regards 9/11, this is the most ridiculous one I have come across! Almost as insulting as the official story.

[reichstag fireman]

For our indulgence, would you please explain what you find ridiculous, and why! At the moment you sound just like Noam Chomsky

• The media/comms of NYC was cut off during the hoax.
• Neither tower had any fires or damage before collapse.
• The two towers were simultaneously demolished.
• Everything was over in a few secs.
• No one in NYC was expecting it.
• No independent footage/photos
• Official timeline falsified.
• Footage of tower fires, damage and collapses all faked

EDIT: typo

[Heiwa]

It seems we all agree that all footage, films, photos, pictures of WTC being hit by planes, on fire, collapsing, people watching/filming the show from the street and adjacent houses or boats on the rivers, jumpers, helicopters filming, etc, were pre-manufactured and broadcasted by the five major US TV companies ‘live’ to confuse the worldwide audience.
Logically it was then not necessary to use planes and put the towers on fire, etc, at all. Easiest was just to fence off the area, explode some smoke bombs and destroy the empty towers from bottom up, while the show was run on TV. Any people on downtown Manhattan, incl. various press photographers (!) there had no clue what was going on.
Actually any combination with pre-manufactured items, e.g. the collapses (that are 100% fake), and real items, e.g. helicopters flying around, was much too difficult in view of weather, etc. Was the sky really cloudless on 911?
I therefore support the idea of reichstag fireman. Keep it simple. Fake everything.

Compare with Apollo 11, etc. NASA faked everything - and people believed NASA. With a little help of the media (and militarty).

[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?