Electronic Jamming on 9/11

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Tufa on September 6th, 2012, 3:41 pm

The issue of Electronic Jamming has been cooking a while, and I much appreciate the detailed work of many posts above. If we now take this slow ...

  1. The 911 event cannot be implemented in the real world according to the law of physics --- and there is multiple and independent proof of this. Examples would be that a Plane would crash against the heavy and very strong WTC façade; fuel would ignite instantly producing a fire ball on the impact side of the Towers. The Tower would have had a dent from the impact. The Towers would still be there today. An additional point is the fall of the Towers.
    This results in that ALL the 9/11 videos + photos is and must be fake, because the story itself is a fairy tale.
    Add in that most of available material has been proved fake on its on merit.
  2. nonhocapito on 04 Sep 2012 wrote:All I am saying is that we heard a whole lot of things in 11 years but we never heard about the two towers falling at the same time. So, for interesting it can be, there is really nothing to back this up.

    The main argument for a simultaneous demolition of both Towers, is that the Towers have to go, no one will see how or when, and the simplest method will do. I here speculate that a bunch of legal contracts + permits exist, so that the demolition is legal (hoi polloi don't like this disturbing view). Rather obviously, the Towers where empty/vacant. Even more obvious is that it was guaranteed that no one would be killed during the demolition.
    There are some technical problems with a top-down demolition, and also if bringing down the Towers one at a time. I would like to see an experts opinion on these matters. Note that the "basement" of the Towers, 7 floors deep, built of steel, was common to the two Towers. If you shoot in the basement first, both Towers are coming down.
    Here you should look at debris pile photos, where machinery and equipment is thought to be able to use "ground level" for "rescue work". I prefer the analysis I provided in FAKING THE RUBBLE where a split second is enough to discredit 99% of these ridiculous "photos". Though I agree with and appreciate other views provided of many other relevant problems of the photo material.

    I much like the post Post by reichstag fireman on 02 Sep 2012 which expand and clarify an opinion I myself have had for some time. My thought was to hold the news in N.Y. until 9:03, so you don't have to mess with any missile or explosion. A smoke generator would do for the local audience.
  3. Satellite news feed. The following quote is very promising:
    reichstag fireman on 03 Sep 2012 wrote: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".


    I would like to comment and improve on the post by
    nonhocapito on 04 Sep 2012 wrote:I wonder how many times I have to explain that I am not saying it was not technically possible to block satellite signal. But it was illogical and inconsistent with both the idea of how satellite signals work (why should the signal be disrupted at all?) and the fact that officially there were broadcasting from the city. For the third time: these are not technological objections, but logical ones.


    A solution for the satellites would be to put an air plane with a satellite transmitter, or down-link, high up in the sky, as high as you can come, with a strong transmitter, that overtake the original transmission that is coming from space. The plane should be positioned between the N.Y. dish antennas and the actual satellite. This arrangement will enable the use of a different broadcast for the local N.Y. area, where a reality check might be performed by looking on the Towers or taking a photo.
    This arrangement can have reasonably sharp border between broadcasts, as satellite receivers have dish antennas, which are highly directive. The transmitter on the plane can also have a directive antenna, so a well defined region is singled out. The transmitted signal should not destruct any satellite antenna, only dominate over the actual satellite. A combination of blocking signal and "alternate" broadcast can be used.

    This I think is simpler compared to:
    Mickey on 05 Sep 2012 wrote:(1) Satellite footprints were all CONUS (Continental United States). DTV and DN did not have the concept of "spot beams" introduced maybe until a few months later. Maybe there was ability to block NYC region specifically (and you can insert theories about "satellites" authenticity here) but the knowledge of this was nowhere in the public domain. CONUS beam is CONUS beam. What was receivable in Alabama, was receivable in NY or anywhere else.


    I have a recording, with (eg; sort of) English translation, of two witnesses that appeared on TV4 Swedish television in 2011. The statement given only moderately agree with the official story. The source video is in a 8G torrent, where a selective download of blocks 3799-3880 is recommended. D. Duck told me in 2009 of a witness with a reasonably similar story, as far as I can remember (this was second hand; I never met the witness).
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2012, 6:01 pm

*


"British humour" from BBC correspondent JANE STANDLEY at 10:45AM on September 11, 2001... :rolleyes:

Image

"It's almost Orson Welles, isn't it?"


Yes. Jane actually uttered these words. At 6:06 into this BBC archive clip:
http://archive.org/details/bbc200109111039-1121

For those who don't know, Orson Welles staged a completely fictional CBS radio event called War of the Worlds", back in October 30, 1938 - which suggested that an actual alien invasion by Martians was currently in progress. Many people in America fell for it - and thought it was actually happening. Why on Earth Jane Standley would compare Orson Welles' silly little media hoax to the "very real terror event" that she was supposedly witnessing LIVE (in flesh and blood - and within a couple of hours) is anyone's guess...

In any case, we now have two BBC "psychic" correspondents (JANE STANDLEY and GREG BARROW) who predicted two different WTC collapses - 20 minutes before they (according to the official timeline) took place.

Of course, Mrs Standley was the BBC woman who later on in the day reported (20 minutes too early) that the WTC7 had collapsed - while standing in front of a window greenscreen (meant to be her location in New York), showing the WTC7 still standing. On an anecdotal side note, and for those who champion the 'jew job' (well, I don't think anyone would question that Larry Silverstein is jewish) it's interesting to note that the kabbalistic meaning of "7" is: "wholeness and completion". Now, I don't know (and honestly don't care much) if Jane's a jew - but this article of hers seems to be sympathetic with the World Jewish Congress in condemning the Vatican's 'knowledge/yet silence' about the Holocaust:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1453779.stm

The funny thing is that, in Jane Standley's above article, she quotes the Vatican historians as explaining away why they have lost their archives relevant to that time period - in this way:

But the historians argue that key documents have not been made available by the Vatican and that the indications are that they are not going to be any time soon. This follows a letter from the Vatican to the panel saying that its archives were not accessible beyond 1923, for what it described as "technical reasons".


What's funny about it, do you ask? Well, it sounds hilariously similar to the classic quote by BBC editor Richard Porter when he explained away the astounding loss of their original 9/11 tapes - with this utterly outlandish excuse :

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."
Richard Porter - BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html


NASA also claim to have lost - or "misplaced" - their original "Moon Landing" tapes. History's such a fickle thing! :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6433
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 8th, 2012, 5:14 am

Hi! Sorry for not saying so earlier but great work Simon!

Just a thought:

JANE STANDLEY of the BBC is notorious in her own right for pumping out a doubly bogus 911 timeline on BBC WORLD TV.

But which audiences actually received that "live" BBC coverage on 911?

Maybe STANDLEY and her re-jigged lies were no mistake at all. Maybe her inconsistent timeline was completely intentional, for broadcast quite intentionally into New York on 911!

Was New York living in a media-induced artificial time warp on 911, courtesy of the doubly dishonest STANDLEY and BBC WORLD TV?!

Do STANDLEY's supreme lies about collapsed-but-not-yet-collapsed towers afford us an insight into the real timeline for their true demolition?

Also: And where'd she go? The wonkypedos have painstakingly airbrushed any reference to STANDLEY from their weird wonky world of make-belief..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... e_Standley

STANDLEY was "only barely notable" claims a chief wiki-wonka. Her unceremonious erasure from the historical record should extinguish any remaining doubt that wonkypedia is a global menace to true enlightenment!

EDIT: Aha! So here is the ghastly hag today. Shacked up with fellow 911 hoaxster Greg Barrow, both stuffing their faces at the World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/people/jane-standley

Image
Last edited by reichstag fireman on September 8th, 2012, 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reel.deal on September 8th, 2012, 8:42 am

^ ...all rogues lead to Rome ?

remember this... ?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5UuGgf_ec

so what the Orange TM ad is saying is that the 8/14/03 NYC blackout
knocked out all cellphone network coverage aswell as all electrics.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby brianv on September 8th, 2012, 1:00 pm

Image

:o That's never Jane Standley! WTF ???
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby pshea38 on September 8th, 2012, 6:02 pm

geobro (who openly admits to having dyslexia) has longsince insisted that he viewed the
unfolding disaster footage (broadcast on skynews) after 11a.m. U.K. time, on 9/11.


110% sure of the time asked 100s of fellow tradesmen who have radios going all day asked reporters who hear the news as it breaks .super fxxxxxxg confident about that one. theres a bit in JFK about news being announced b4 it happens bloke i knew at work told me a story about his sis hubby who worked in towers being telephoned & told not to go to work that day i personally heard it at 11.40 am others i know swear to 9.30 ish strange but true

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread746869/pg3#pid12214572

yip 100% stand by what i say on the time got a lot of people to back me up on it 2 it was only when i watched the green screen expo on wellaware1 that i got the answer to how that was on the tv over here when it was not even going down in america....

ps was watchind a national geographic thing on sky uk last night the woman who was not there about 9-11 some spanish bird using a english alias who claimed to have lost her hubby & been rescued by firemen on 9-11 then spent time in hospital had everyone fooled for years then interview went to her spanish mates & showed a clip of her in spain on that day her pal said that they heard about attack at breakfast time ? and i have spoken to people who were abroad and say the same so its not just the uk that aired it


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread878841/pg3#pid14924131


I have sent him a message requesting that he come to cluesforum and explain exactly what he saw, and when.

This has to be connected to what reichstag fireman is proposing here.
If enough confusion is generated regarding the actual 9/11 timeline, all genuine (and contradictory) reports coming
from any direct witnesses in New York will be laughed off and ridiculed, just like other obnoxious testimonies (like geobro's).

If the 9/11 movie was pre-fabricated, as it was, they would have had to reproduce, in reality to New Yorkers, exactly what was broadcast.

Or maybe they wouldn't have had to, indeed!
Last edited by pshea38 on September 8th, 2012, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pshea38
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Prophet_One on September 8th, 2012, 6:05 pm

brianv wrote:
:o That's never Jane Standley! WTF ???


She lives in Rome now - maybe SS can look her up :)

quote from here - http://www.wfp.org/people/jane-standley
Jane Standley works in Communications for WFP’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Branch. Before moving to Rome, she worked as a Foreign Correspondent for BBC television, radio and new media, with resident postings in Nairobi, Johannesburg and New York. Especially in Africa, Jane co-operated frequently as a journalist with WFP in often difficult locations such as Somalia, Burundi, and the DRC.

PS I have a friend there - a correspondent for NPR (Sylvia Poggioli ) and she says JS in hanging out with her for awhile.
.
Prophet_One
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 5:51 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on September 8th, 2012, 8:49 pm

reichstag fireman wrote:
EDIT: Aha! So here is the ghastly hag today. Shacked up with fellow 911 hoaxster Greg Barrow, both stuffing their faces at the World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/people/jane-standley

Image


Holy poop!

Both stuffing their bellies at the World Food Programme in Rome ? :huh:

Hey, RF - I resent that you used the word "shacked up" - hehe ! :P Anyhow, if I bump into them I'll let y'all know - although its' highly doubtful that I will. I have a feeling they are every bit as 'real' as the 9/11 phonytographers... viewtopic.php?f=19&t=340&hilit=phonytographers

It would make sense for the perps to have mostly/wholly fictitious entities enacting the various 'star reporters' of that day.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6433
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on September 10th, 2012, 10:58 pm

Tufa wrote:
A solution for the satellites would be to put an air plane with a satellite transmitter, or down-link, high up in the sky, as high as you can come, with a strong transmitter, that overtake the original transmission that is coming from space. The plane should be positioned between the N.Y. dish antennas and the actual satellite. This arrangement will enable the use of a different broadcast for the local N.Y. area, where a reality check might be performed by looking on the Towers or taking a photo.
This arrangement can have reasonably sharp border between broadcasts, as satellite receivers have dish antennas, which are highly directive. The transmitter on the plane can also have a directive antenna, so a well defined region is singled out. The transmitted signal should not destruct any satellite antenna, only dominate over the actual satellite. A combination of blocking signal and "alternate" broadcast can be used.



Dear Tufa,

Whatever was broadcast to New Yorkers that morning is not known. On the other hand, what is known (through the official 9/11 accounts) is that most of the New York TV stations lost their signal due to "FLIGHT 11" striking WTC1, the one harboring the big TV antenna... I mean, how convenient was this for the perps to "justify" that New Yorkers lost their beloved TV signals at 8:46 am?

Could it be that TV (and all other communications with the outside world) in New York were blacked out for, say, only about 45 minutes - and that their first morning news (as the TV signal somehow was reinstated - with a special, custom-made NY soundtrack/commentary) only mentioned the diversionary "Pentagon attack", the mysterious "car-bomb at the State Department", the "White House evacuation" and the Shanksville (non-)event? Plenty of drama right there - to keep New Yorkers hooked to their TV sets! Who in NYC would be looking at the WTC towers with such loads of dramatic news unfolding?

Could it be that during this 45-minute, total TV/communication blackout, nothing at all had happened at the WTC, but that smoke generators were slowly and surreptitiously enveloping the WTC towers in preparation for their sequential demolition (by safe, reliable, conventional dynamite explosives)? Could it be that during the relatively short timespan between the "Pentagon attack" (at 9:37am) and the first tower collapse (WTC2 - at 9:59am), a smokescreen was raised to block any clear view of the WTC2 demolition to any early-birds dwelling in Lower Manhattan? (Well, by that time it seems Lower Manhattan was fully evacuated anyway - according to the official tale). In this scenario, what would New York TV viewers have noticed? Practically nothing. And only 29 minutes later (10:28am), the other tower (WTC1) would go down - behind the very same smokescreen - only that this time, that smokescreen would be amply "justified" in the minds of direct onlookers- due to the earlier WTC2 collapse - which undoubtedly raised lots of dust as it fell down.

Were perhaps both WTC towers demolished at the same time? Perhaps so. The thing is, we just cannot know exactly how it all played out. Does it matter much? No, because what we DO know today - and have proved beyond any reasonable doubt - is that the imagery aired on TV on that day was totally artificial. Knowing that all the 9/11 imagery was artificial, we must ask ourselves the question: WHY? Why would all the US TV networks broadcast artificial images on TV? What was there to hide?

As for the electronic HERF jamming enacted to impede any video cameras from filming (who would trundle around Lower Manhattan with a video camera on an average Tuesday morning anyway?) it is only common sense to assume that such an extra safety-measure would have been deployed - were it only to reduce the risk of someone capturing 'inconvenient' images. But let's stay real : even if some 'Joe Public' managed to record some images of that morning, they wouldn't show much more than completely useless, smoke-filled sceneries.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6433
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby nonhocapito on September 11th, 2012, 2:50 pm

simonshack wrote:
Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wpix-911.jpg

"A screen shot of the frozen picture as seen on the WPIX Satellite feed. It is my understanding that the satellite feed was microwave-relayed from the World Trade Center. It appears as if this shot was frozen by the Satellite Uplink's equipment upon loss of signal. If you look very carefully, you can see the shot was frozen not long after the second plane hit the #2 tower. The transmitting mast in the first tower was the primary broadcast facility for: WCBS 02, WNBC 04, WNYW FOX5, WABC 07, WWOR 09, WPIX 11, WNET 13, WPXN 31, WNJU 47, WKCR 89.9, WPAT 93.1, WNYC 93.9, and WKTU 103.5."
~Mike Fitzpatrick, NECRAT Webmaster


Well OK Simon, however my impression is that those two quotes explain that the signal that left the twin towers to reach the satellites was disrupted. That signal took care of a number of local stations, that were, in the official narrative, apparently prevented because of this to broadcast clearly or at all to the outside world from the city. Their signal could not reach the global networks.

But this doesn't say anything about what the people in the city could watch on TV. It doesn't say that receiving satellite signals on your satellite dish in Brooklyn could have been in any way a problem. Why would it be so? Even if we accept the idea that local transmission was disrupted by the loss of the antenna (in the official narrative), there is nothing in the official narrative to take care of, say, the BBC, german TV, CNN international and all the other signals that could be reached by satellite.

Personally I watched the events of 9/11 on satellite TV in Italy (CNN was broadcast at the place where I worked back then), and so far I still find it pretty hard to believe that people in NYC could not receive the same signal, because there is no acceptable, reasonable justification for this.

(And for the umpteenth time: yes I know that technically it is possible to block such a signal. You don't even need the "government" to do it when you have all the media corporations on your side. But I am saying that it could not be justified within the scenario of the official narrative).

As with the fake technical problem with the card, as proposed by rf, I also find it hard to believe that, on top of the mayhem happening in the city, pure technical inconveniences were offered to the public, without any direct or indirect relation with what was going on.

Let's not forget that this disruption would apply to Hotels, too, that have hundreds of rooms equipped with satellite TV. Would all of them have technical issues on 9/11? What official explanation could be given for this?

Alas I tend to agree with SmokingGun that there's a fat chance we are encouraging trolling here.
I understand that the idea of a TV/communication disruption over the whole city, a complete block of information, would make many things easier and can be fruitful for us to contemplate it. However we never needed this scenario so far to imagine how things really went. I dare say the pigs were cocky enough to present images on TV that did not perfectly adhere to reality as seen from a distant location in the city, without the need to block all communication. The plan would still work considering that TV/Hollywood people were behind the plan, and those people live for the belief that TV shapes reality.

[EDIT: in its most drastic version, we are toying with the idea that NYC was left with 45 minutes of no television, no radio, no internet and no telephones. We are asked to believe that during these 45 minutes, the city cut off from the world, in the year 2001, went on with its daily business without a problem, until TV magically restored in them attention and curiosity?
Do we really want to go along with such a preposterous idea?]

As for the contemporary demolition. If Heiwa could be so kind to give us his opinion about this, and whether it is true (as it certainly could be) that demolish them at the same time was the only way to go, this would certainly add a significant element to the discussion.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Heiwa on September 11th, 2012, 6:12 pm

nonhocapito wrote:If Heiwa could be so kind to give us his opinion about this, and whether it is true (as it certainly could be) that demolish them at the same time was the only way to go, this would certainly add a significant element to the discussion.

IMHO all footage of the WTC1/2 collapses is fake. :rolleyes: No structure of any kind can collapse like that, i.e. a weak top part of the structure crushes down, from above, by gravity a strong bottom part of the structure below that carried the weak top before in a fountain of debris producing smoke/dust in all directions. :rolleyes:
The footage is stupid Hollywood CGI. :lol: Any times in this faked footage have no values. :angry: Did WTC2 really collapse before WTC1 as per the faked footage, or? <_< It doesn't matter because no WTC1/2 collapses can take place in the real world. Planes flying into towers making small holes in them cannot cause top down collapses of the towers. :rolleyes: It is simple physics. I explain it, e.g. at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm . ;)
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reel.deal on September 11th, 2012, 7:25 pm

Image :huh: :blink:

;)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby nonhocapito on September 11th, 2012, 7:38 pm

Heiwa wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:If Heiwa could be so kind to give us his opinion about this, and whether it is true (as it certainly could be) that demolish them at the same time was the only way to go, this would certainly add a significant element to the discussion.

IMHO all footage of the WTC1/2 collapses is fake. :rolleyes: No structure of any kind can collapse like that, i.e. a weak top part of the structure crushes down, from above, by gravity a strong bottom part of the structure below that carried the weak top before in a fountain of debris producing smoke/dust in all directions. :rolleyes:
The footage is stupid Hollywood CGI. :lol: Any times in this faked footage have no values. :angry: Did WTC2 really collapse before WTC1 as per the faked footage, or? <_< It doesn't matter because no WTC1/2 collapses can take place in the real world. Planes flying into towers making small holes in them cannot cause top down collapses of the towers. :rolleyes: It is simple physics. I explain it, e.g. at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm . ;)


Gee, Heiwa, thanks for an answer that has nothing to do with the question. :P
But OK, methinks it does matter if there is some scientific argument to back up the idea that you could not demolish one tower without demolishing the other at the same time, be it because the debris falling would compromise the second demolition, or the shared foundation would cause the second tower to fall anyway.
Personally I cannot make my mind about this structural problem, aside observing that you did not contemplate it in your analysis of the collapse hoax as far as I know, which could mean this is a non-relevant element. Luckily I am not an engineer so I wouldn't know. :D
(Of course here I am talking about the traditional, controlled demolition that happened behind the scenes, which the public did not witness and that has nothing to do with the faked imagery of the collapses -- so no need to repeat here that the official narrative/imagery is bogus and fake.)

EDIT: if there is no conclusive structural argument in favor of this idea, personally I think I'll tend to dismiss it. I have difficulties imagining a cloud of smoke thick and high enough to cover the whole two towers so much that you cannot tell if a tower is there at all. I tend to believe that when the TV announced that one of the towers went down, people across the Hudson or in Brooklyn etcetera from their roofs could have had some way to discern the shape of only one tower left standing. Isn't this the most likely possibility after all?
I know, I know: there are no authentic images of 9/11 out there. This problem remains. But maybe there have been some, somewhere, that resembled enough the official narrative as witnessed for afar. Only the media, not surprisingly, never picked them up -- while the government, that monitored the whole area soviet style, confiscated everything. That's a possibility too that requires no blackout and all that.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on September 11th, 2012, 10:52 pm

nonhocapito wrote: I have difficulties imagining a cloud of smoke thick and high enough to cover the whole two towers so much that you cannot tell if a tower is there at all. I tend to believe that when the TV announced that one of the towers went down, people across the Hudson or in Brooklyn etcetera from their roofs could have had some way to discern the shape of only one tower left standing. Isn't this the most likely possibility after all?


Exactly my thoughts, Nonho:

Now, please remember the absurd and nonsensical (yet oft-repeated) storyline - uttered on many occasions by TV anchors and media-interviewed "firsthand-witnesses" alike :

"I saw the top (or "a part") of the tower tumbling down"

There must be a reason why even the TV anchormen/women kept talking about "a PART (???) of the WTC2 tower seems to have fallen" - while the TVimagery showed a clear and unmistakable TOTAL collapse of WTC2. This apparently 'minor detail' of the TV blabla of the day deserves, with what we know now, further consideration.

I'll just leave it at that for now - for everyone to ponder.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6433
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fast67vellen2o on October 17th, 2012, 7:08 pm

Just to add to this thread and I don't know how useless this information may or may not be, however, during the "attacks" I was a senior in high school in Wilmington Delaware. Cell phone usage was almost completely down until that evening when I was finally able to get ahold of my parents. I had Cingular at the time and the phones wouldn't connect and/or you received a network busy recording or signal.

-Fast67
fast67vellen2o
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: September 11th, 2012, 5:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests