simonshack wrote: 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.