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 Mickey on September 3rd, 2012, 7:44 pm

reichstag fireman wrote: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

wonkypedia wrote: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.
Mickey
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: August 9th, 2011, 5:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 3rd, 2012, 11:05 pm

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?
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby brianv on September 3rd, 2012, 11:35 pm

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?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 4th, 2012, 12:48 am

brianv wrote: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
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on September 4th, 2012, 1:37 am

Mickey wrote:
nonhocapito wrote: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.
Last edited by fbenario on September 4th, 2012, 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on September 4th, 2012, 1:40 am

nonhocapito wrote:
reichstag fireman wrote: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.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 4th, 2012, 2:00 am

fbenario wrote:
Mickey wrote:
nonhocapito wrote: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.


Please explain. I don't understand how it is obvious. There is a huge anomaly here that is not addressed.

There is no credible independent footage from NYC on 911. In what purportedly was a 102 minute event from start to finish, not a single amateur cameraman took a single photo of the burning towers, nor captured one second of movie footage.

How can that be?

We are told there was real-time TV coverage almost from the moment of the first supposed "plane strike". So why didn't New Yorkers take to the streets by their thousands on watching that horror on TV, to look at the towers with their own eyes?

Why are there not thousands of amateur photos of the second strike, and photos of the two towers ablaze? And why no camcorder footage? Was no amateur cameramen there, to capture the final moments as each tower collapsed into rubble?

For a city with suburbs housing over 10 million people, there should be literally millions of amateur photos of the 911 towers published online! Yet we find none.

The answer to that anomaly - that extraordinary absence of photos and videos - some might say is obvious: the towers were demolished, without warning, at the same time.

And at the time of their demolition, neither tower had any visible damage. Neither tower had suffered any fire. So that is why no one was readied with their camera to photograph them. Just the same reason I always miss those amazing wildlife shots - I wasn't prepared. The opportunity came so unexpected, there wasn't even time to pull the camera from its bag.

So why didn't New Yorkers see the broadcast footage that the rest of the world was watching? Why didn't they rush outside with their cameras to look at the burning towers with their own eyes? Sure it was all there on TV, but if you lived in New York, wouldn't you want to see it for yourself?

Perhaps because all TV and radio broadcasts had been disabled or blocked in New York. There was a total media blackout in New York. So New Yorkers couldn't watch the PSYOP on 911. While the PSYOP unfolded on world TV, New Yorkers remained blissfully ignorant of what the rest of us thought we were seeing on the city's own doorstep!

Had New Yorkers been able to watch the TV like the rest of us, they would soon have realised it was all fake! They could soon verify that the towers were still standing, completely undamaged, right until the final simultaneous demolition of them both.

That's really a very simple hypothesis.

All broadcast footage that we saw around the world was faked. The "live" footage showing two smoulding towers with gaping holes in them, followed by two independent collapses spaced by many minutes was all totally, totally faked! It had to be.

And that's why a total media and telecoms blackout was vital to keep New Yorkers completely in the dark. Only once the two towers had been demolished was New York merged back into the mainstream propaganda. Finally, the TV and radio broadcasts into New York miraculously burst back to life! At last New Yorkers could see what the rest of the world had been seeing - 100% media fakery!
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby nonhocapito on September 4th, 2012, 4:56 am

reichstag fireman wrote:For a city with suburbs housing over 10 million people, there should be literally millions of amateur photos of the 911 towers published online! Yet we find none.

The answer to that anomaly - that extraordinary absence of photos and videos - some might say is obvious: the towers were demolished, without warning, at the same time.

And at the time of their demolition, neither tower had any visible damage. Neither tower had suffered any fire. So that is why no one was readied with their camera to photograph them. Just the same reason I always miss those amazing wildlife shots - I wasn't prepared. The opportunity came so unexpected, there wasn't even time to pull the camera from its bag.

So why didn't New Yorkers see the broadcast footage that the rest of the world was watching? Why didn't they rush outside with their cameras to look at the burning towers with their own eyes? Sure it was all there on TV, but if you lived in New York, wouldn't you want to see it for yourself?

Perhaps because all TV and radio broadcasts had been disabled or blocked in New York. There was a total media blackout in New York. So New Yorkers couldn't watch the PSYOP on 911. While the PSYOP unfolded on world TV, New Yorkers remained blissfully ignorant of what the rest of us thought we were seeing on the city's own doorstep!

Had New Yorkers been able to watch the TV like the rest of us, they would soon have realised it was all fake! They could soon verify that the towers were still standing, completely undamaged, right until the final simultaneous demolition of them both.

That's really a very simple hypothesis.


I think that a good approach is starting by saying that we are not insiders and we cannot answer every question and we should refrain from trying to do so without supporting what we say with some kind of evidence.

But the speculation is interesting so I'll repeat my objections.

1) It is hard to justify the blocking of satellite TV signals over a whole area. The signal is supposed to be coming from space and should never be subjected to such an interruption. Satellite TV was streamed to hotels, offices, private homes: such an unjustified disruption would not go so unnoticed, I think;

2) It becomes even harder to justify such a block, when the official narrative features TV signals being transmitted from the city to the rest of the world. The two scenarios don't work well together and this could or should have caused credibility problems down the line;

3) There is not one single testimony nor I ever read in 11 years about the towers falling down at the same time. I think there should be some sort of support to this idea, other than the fact that it works in some way.

4) Cell phone lines were very likely blocked, but I never read or heard of regular telephone lines being blocked or not working. And as Hoi noted, there are people with CBs and stuff. I don't think the city could have been cut off from communicating with the world. 19 simple guys from saudi arabia were supposed to make 9/11 happen, after all.

5) We cannot assume that keeping the city in the dark guaranteed that no pictures were being taken or no crucial witnessing was happening; there still could be someone, citizen or tourist, taking an accidental picture of the towers NOT burning and smoking when they were supposed to, or NOT falling down at the right time -- and the pigs would have an even bigger problem on their hands.

I will repeat myself by saying that the evacuation of the whole of downtown Manhattan, plus a blocking of the clear POVs to the WTC, plus some kind of staged explosions and smoke could have sufficed to convince the population in the city of the truthfulness of the event. It is true that this does not justify the lack of imagery, and that it had to be achieved in some other way. But as I said, and as Simon and others stated plenty of times: confiscating pictures, blocking their spreading, and putting the whole population under surveillance could have been enough.

[EDIT: it is also possible for the truth to contain elements from the two different hypotheses. There must have been a complete control over the movements of the population, with a total control over the imagery being produced -- but once this was achieved, there certainly was a margin to separate the real events from the official narrative even more, even to the point of not caring to produce fake smoke or staged explosions or timed collapses. It is possible (although we'd need some or more evidence in this sense), provided the aforementioned total, Stalinist control over the population remains in place.]
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 4th, 2012, 5:19 am

nonhocapito wrote:
fbenario wrote:
nonhocapito wrote: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 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.

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



Well "fred" is certainly nothing to do with me, nor is "ozzybinoswald". Did you truly think that? I just studied the last few posts made by "fred", before his suspension:

search.php?author_id=24&sr=posts

So there was some sort of "personality clash" with nonhocapito and Maat. Alas, such is life. Yet from my limited read, "fred" came across as sincere if confrontational. But perhaps I'm missing a major part of the story behind your falling out with him? Or your reason for mentioning him here. I notice that "fred" never did return despite the apparent invite. From his forum ID (#24) he must have been a member of this forum virtually from the beginning. One of the founding members, almost. All the more sad that he went his own way. Why was that and where did he go?

I am left surprised (and saddened) to find myself accused of being "fred". An insinuation of being persona non grata, too? To be honest and maybe call me blunt, but I'm lost. If the administrators of this forum would like me to follow "fred" and walk the plank, then please just say. Although an explanation would be appreciated beforehand. Of course that would be a shame, at least for me. I like to think I contribute something, and certainly enjoy posting.

The accusation comes completely out of the blue, nonhocapito, and while it was delivered with your usual graciousness, it still felt very barbed and brutal. What goes?
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 4th, 2012, 5:53 am

1) It is hard to justify the blocking of satellite TV signals over a whole area. The signal is supposed to be coming from space and should never be subjected to such an interruption. Satellite TV was streamed to hotels, offices, private homes: such an unjustified disruption would not go so unnoticed, I think;


Terrestrial TV in NYC was off-air, supposedly due to mast damage on the WTC. The conditional access schemes for "satellite" TV could be used to shutdown viewing of satellite TV throughout the NYC area, while leaving the rest of the east coast/USA with full coverage of the PSYOP.

2) It becomes even harder to justify such a block, when the official narrative features TV signals being transmitted from the city to the rest of the world. The two scenarios don't work well together and this could or should have caused credibility problems down the line;


We know that the entire narrative and all footage from NYC on 911 was faked. There was no reason for the media to video a single second of footage in NYC on 911. What was broadcast was CGI'ed garbage, and pre-recorded guff - phony interviews with alleged survivors, etc.

Even so, blocking radio and TV going IN to NYC is not the same as blocking the transmission of video coming OUT of NYC (even if there was any)


3) There is not one single testimony nor I ever read in 11 years about the towers falling down at the same time. I think there should be some sort of support to this idea, other than the fact that it works in some way.


While in the great scheme of things, the key theory of this forum - on close examination - is obviously true,. 9/11 was a massive and monstrous media hoax. And I'm really grateful to you, Simon, Hoi, Maat, and many others here, for exposing the Hoax to the extent that it was so easily understood. But for what it's worth, I suspect that the Sept Clues Theory is not quite fully developed. And that's why, to my mind, the simultaneous collapse of both towers and total media/telco blackout in NYC is a missing aspect.

4) Cell phone lines were very likely blocked, but I never read or heard of regular telephone lines being blocked or not working. And as Hoi noted, there are people with CBs and stuff. I don't think the city could have been cut off from communicating with the world.


There are numerous references to telecoms failure (landline and cellphone) in NYC on 911. It's standard MO for PSYOPs. Impose a telco outage to control information leak. Exactly that was done on 7/7/2005 in London. A trifling PSYOP in comparison to 911. There's really nothing to it: pull a few telecoms network switches.

5) We cannot assume that keeping the city in the dark guaranteed that no pictures were being taken or no crucial witnessing was happening; there still could be someone, citizen or tourist, taking an accidental picture of the towers NOT burning and smoking when they were supposed to, or NOT falling down at the right time -- and the pigs would have an even bigger problem on their hands.


Sure.. "there could still be someone" with real pictures or footage from NYC on 911. But we are now 11 years down the line, so where is that footage?

I will repeat myself by saying that the evacuation of the whole of downtown Manhattan


Yup that is credible to a degree.

plus a blocking of the clear POVs [points of view] to the WTC,


How could they block the view of Manhattan from Hoboken? From what radius were the WTC towers visible with the naked eye? 10 kilometres or more in some directions? No one spotted the smoke and reached for their camcorder? How is an area of that enormous scale cleared of eyewitnesses, many of whom had cameras? Not a credible theory.

Remember that anyone in or around New York who listened to the TV or radio on 911 (since you suspect it wasn't blocked), would have heard the news of the apparent attacks and gone straight out with their cameras to capture the event. Yet that didn't happen. How so?


plus some kind of staged explosions and smoke could have sufficed to convince the population in the city of the truthfulness of the event. It is true that this does not justify the lack of imagery, and that it had to be achieved in some other way. But as I said, and as Simon and others stated plenty of times: confiscating pictures, blocking their spreading, and putting the whole population under surveillance could have been enough.


Confiscating ALL revelatory photos and footage from 911 would be technically impossible. On that point, this theory is foundering.

The logical hypothesis of least resistance is the one above - total media and telecoms blackout on 911 in NYC and sudden, simultaneous tower demolitions, catching the whole city (still in media darkness) by surprise. Then we have the fake footage supposedly showing first one tower struck and on fire, then second tower ablaze, then first tower collapse, then second collapse. All fake!
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby nonhocapito on September 4th, 2012, 6:19 am

reichstag fireman wrote:The conditional access scheme for "satellite" TV could be used to shutdown viewing throughout the NYC area, while leaving the rest of the east coast/USA with full coverage of the PSYOP.

2) It becomes even harder to justify such a block, when the official narrative features TV signals being transmitted from the city to the rest of the world. The two scenarios don't work well together and this could or should have caused credibility problems down the line;


We know that the entire narrative and all footage from NYC on 911 was faked. There was no reason for the media to video a single second of footage in NYC on 911. What was broadcast was CGI'ed garbage, and pre-recorded guff - phony interviews with alleged survivors, etc.

Even so, blocking radio and TV into NYC is not the same as blocking the transmission of video coming out of NYC (if there were any)


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.

reichstag fireman wrote:The more people who believe a theory, the more it is true? So the Official Narrative (OBL and his 19 evil hijackers with boxcutters) must be the correct theory then?


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.

reichstag fireman wrote:There are numerous references to telecoms failure (landline and cellphone) in NYC on 911. It's standard MO for PSYOPs. Impose a telco outage to control information leak. Exactly that was done on 7/7/2005 in London. A trifling PSYOP in comparison to 911. There's really nothing to it: pull a few telecoms network switches.


Once again: I am not questioning the technical possibility. (There are really too many technocrats on this board...) I am questioning whether this happened at all. Please provide links to these "numerous references to telecoms failure (landline and cellphone) in NYC on 911". I haven't read any. All I read about telephones concerned the cell phones used from the planes.

Sure.. "there could still be someone" with real pictures or footage from NYC on 911. But we are now 11 years down the line, so where is that footage?


Are you even following the logic of what I am saying? You said that it was possible that nothing happened to the towers at all until they were both demolished at a certain moment, and this is how image control was achieved, by not stimulating the curiosity of the people in the city.
I am saying that this could not be 100% foolproof, because people could have taken accidental pictures of the towers NOT burning or the towers NOT falling down when they were supposed to. A system to control the images afterwards had to be in place anyway.

reichstag fireman wrote:How do you block the view of Manhattan from Hoboken? From what radius were the WTC towers visible with the naked eye? 10 kilometres or more in some directions? No one spotted the smoke and reached for their camcorder? How is an area of that enormous scale cleared of eyewitnesses, many of whom had cameras? Not a credible theory.


I am obviously talking about the view from the avenues in the city. it is just an example of the kinds of controls that could have been in place.

reichstag fireman wrote:Remember that anyone in or around New York who listened to the TV or radio on 911 (since you claim it wasn't blocked), would have heard the news of the apparent attacks and gone straight out with their cameras to capture the event. Yet that didn't happen. How so?


I am not claiming it was not blocked. How would I know? I said i find it difficult to believe and I said why. As to why the pictures weren't taken, I said that for me this is certainly the most difficult thing to understand. I also said that your idea is interesting, I only have some objections to it and we can work on them. No need to make this personal.

reichstag fireman wrote:Not a hope in Hell's chance of confiscating all photos and footage. This theory is foundering.


Without a post-facto control over the imagery, your theory of no explosions, no smoke, and nothing happening to the towers is also impossible. So where this leaves us?

reichstag fireman wrote:The logical hypothesis of least resistance is the one above - total media and telecoms blackout on 911 in NYC and sudden, simultaneous tower demolitions, catching the whole city (still in media darkness) by surprise. Then we have the fake footage: first one tower struck and on fire, then second tower ablaze, then first tower collapses, then second collapse. All fake.


So you have your idea, the idea is perfectly accomplished, and nobody is submitting any reasonable or acceptable objections to it. Amazing of you. I wonder why do you need a forum at all.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby reichstag fireman on September 4th, 2012, 6:48 am

nonhocapito 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.


These ideas are incorrect. The satellite (aka skywave) signal was not physically blocked with an obstruction on 911. The crypto system at the broadcasting "headend" would only need tweaking to prevent the "satellite" TV signal from being decrypted by all those living in or near NYC.

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.


And most people still don't know that 911 was a Hoax. Even fewer are aware of September Clues.. Yet the comparatively low-volume of readership of this forum doesn't mean it has "nothing to back it up".

Please provide links to these "numerous references to telecoms failure (landline and cellphone) in NYC on 911". I haven't read any.


Okay, I will make an effort to do so. How much do you want and what do you want? Newspaper articles from that time? It's not going to be easy finding any references now. What with the intervening decade of fog.

Are you even following the logic of what I am saying? You said that it was possible that nothing happened to the towers at all until they were both demolished at a certain moment, and this is how image control was achieved, by not stimulating the curiosity of the people in the city.

I am saying that this could not be 100% foolproof, because people could have taken accidental pictures of the towers NOT burning or the towers NOT falling down when they were supposed to. A system to control the images afterwards had to be in place anyway.


I guess so. And it's also a question of the numbers of those realising the truth. If just 5 people captured "accidental" pictures of the towers NOT burning. What of it? Even if they decided to "blow the whistle" on the fraud, what audience would they find, compared to the media might of CNN, BBC, FOX, SKY, et al?

And a MAJOR POINT: so your "accidental" photo captures both towers still standing, no smoke, no damage, and has a timestamp of 10:25 9/11/2001.

When you show your "accidental" photos to someone as proof of the media hoax - the response would surely be....

"Yeah! yeah! The camera's timestamp is obviously wrong.. the picture must have been taken on the 10th september, not the 11th, or else at 8:25am, not 10:25am!

I am not claiming it was not blocked. How would I know? I said i find it difficult to believe and I said why. As to why the pictures weren't taken, I said that for me this is certainly the most difficult thing to understand. I also said that your idea is interesting, I only have some objections to it and we can work on them. No need to make this personal.


Sure.

Without a post-facto control over the imagery, your theory of no explosions, no smoke, and nothing happening to the towers is also impossible. So where this leaves us?

So you have your idea, the idea is perfectly accomplished, and nobody is submitting any reasonable or acceptable objections to it. Amazing of you. I wonder why do you need a forum at all.


The idea naturally percolated out of the bubbling broth of insights on this forum. As with any working theory, it's not 100% ship-shape. The main case put forward by September Clues is very solid indeed. I'm in awe at just what has been discovered and verifiably documented by such a small group of individuals. It does still have its weaknesses though. Simon is a modest man and acknowledges those problems. But by examining the holes - for possible alternatives - that can only strengthen the overall case that is driven forward.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Libero on September 4th, 2012, 7:13 am

If there are any actual photos or videos how could we expect anyone to ever get them out? The media is its own gatekeeper and the last thing it will do is expose itself. This, in addition to the fact that there would have to have been a select few individuals who caught the images, knew the government story was crap, the media was compromised, and did not turn them in immediately to assist in the investigation. The lucky photographer, of course would have to hold out hope that someday there would be an awesome forum such as this whereby they could expose the media of its fraud :) And somehow secretly.. and with no chance of repercussions.

Oh.. and regarding getting it out via google/youtube... those who control the search engine, also control the results.

And, what would the real thing look like if we saw it anyway? :lol:


This reminds me of a flick I recently caught on DVD called Safe House. Spoiler alert and a quick wrap-up for those that have not seen it -- Bad information about a government cover up is revealed at the end. Who can the brave FBI agent turn this information into? -- The Government higher-ups or the media? Why, the trusted media, of course!
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: August 24th, 2012, 9:21 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Mickey on September 4th, 2012, 8:16 am

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


It is absolutely relevant, since we are talking about how NYC may have been under various levels of media blackout. Let me explain as I may not have gone into details in my previous post.

In 2001, there were at least 3 MAJOR ways of receiving Television signals over the air (so this excludes Cable TV, IPTV, web based CNN/BBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX broadcasts etc)

1) Terrestrial TV signals.

This is the oldest method. It involves the popular directional antenna on top of the homes(or sometimes even inside) pointing at the local transmitter of the city. Signals can be received sometimes even 60-70 miles away. One could only get the local stations though, which would be about maybe a total of 20 stations for NYC in 2001. CBS/NBC/FOX/ABC would be carried by the local affiliates and broadcasted from this central powerful transmitter. All were analog at that time I believe. Channel #2 = CBS, Channel #4 = NBC, Channel #5 = FOX, Channel #7 - ABC etc. None of these channels are encrypted so that wholes masses can just point to the transmitter and watch the limited selection of channels for free.

2) Direct To Home Pay TV

Two of the most popular carriers in the US were(and still are) DirecTV (DTV) and DishNetwork(DN). They were popular because of the small dish size required so it could be easily mounted on roof tops of individual homes. Both DTV and DishNet would provide customers with all necessary equipment including the Dish, LNB, receiver and the most important part of it all, the Conditional Access Module aka the CAM aka Access Card that would go inside the receivers and was uniquely identified for each customer as each card had a unique number on the back of it.

In 2001 DishNetwork had satellites in orbital locations 61.5, 110, 119 and 148. It used Nagravision for the encryption/decryption scheme and access cards called ROM2, ROM3, ROM10 or ROMX in general.

In 2001, DirecTV had satellites in 101, 110 and 119. It used DSS encryption and H card (aka P2 card) and HU card(aka P3 card) for decryption in the receivers.

It is important to note that both the companies use different encryption schemes, hardware and software for their purposes, however why am I going into details about their encryption etc? It is far more important to note that both DTV and DishNetwork's encryption systems were compromised during those days and satellite piracy was rampant. So much so that DTV and Dish had started taking the help of federal authorities to crack down on the dealers and hackers who were profiting from this whole ring of mess, since their own electronic countermeasures were proving to be ineffective. One of the most infamous countermeasures was done during Super Bowl 2001 in January which eliminated several hundred thousand of DTV pirates from accessing encrypted content. With a compromised system, pirates from all of North America that could receive either DN or DTV signals could simply buy the equipment needed to descramble content and watch TV. NYC, LA and Chicago local stations were the most popular local channels and were widely accessible throughout the country because of this compromised backdoor. So NYC locals weren't just confined to those in the NYC. This backdoor had to be closed or at least be accounted for before the grand show. In an ideal world, the NYC local stations should have been accessible only to those customers who were legitimately paying for DN or Dish with NYC zip codes in the billing system.

3) Free To Air aka Unscrambled TV aka Free To View (Will be referred as FTA)

This one is oddly not popular enough among Americans(it doesn't have the pop culture HBO, Cinemax, MTV, ESPN etc ^_^ ) except at the hobby level for satellite enthusiasts even though the number of satellites that have unencrypted content is far more than the encrypted ones (http://gofastmotorsports.com/satellitechart.htm 72 degree through 139 degrees in North America). There are two types of dishes involved to receive programming through FTA, the 8 feet-14 feet Big Ugly Dish (BUD) for C-Band and the 90CM+ Ku band. Dishes upto 1M can be installed on rooftops legally in the US. The FTA KU band dishes are slightly bigger than the Pay TV DTV and DN dishes and very much look alike except that the FTA dishes use linear polarity LNB vs the circular polarity LNB used by the encrypted providers DTV and DN. FTA also doesn't require any conditional access module or access card. It just needs the dish, the linear polarity lnb and the fta receiver. Because of the polarity issues and lack of CAMs, by definition FTA cannot be used for intercepting any encrypted content in North America (keeping modulation differences on the side for simplicity purposes)

So why is FTA important for our discussion? All live news/sports/media and many special events are actually first broadcasted to the satellites unencrypted by "backhaul" trucks. An example of a backhaul truck is http://www.flickr.com/photos/markfaloon/637541716/meta/ These guys "uplink" the live feed to a predetermined transponder/satellite combination and sometimes even publish this info through social media outlets or the most popular Rick's backhaul forums http://rickcaylor.websitetoolbox.com/. The Pay content providers are the actual intended customers of this live feed. They receive the signal, compress it, encrypt it and then rebroadcast it to their specific satellites from where the mass consumers watch it through their paid access cards. However if you have the requisite equipment to catch the unencrypted stream and the information where the backhaul is being broadcasted, you can very well watch it, typically at very high quality as it is not compressed at this stage and also unedited/commercial free. You can even get behind the scenes audio and video when the pay tv consumers are watching commercials. This can include swearing by anchors, commentators and a whole lot of other obnoxiousness.

So for 911, whatever happened to the backhauls broadcasting live events as they were unfolding? There are many FTA sat enthusiasts who would have caught something. But if the networks already had the theatrics in DVDs, there were no live events and no backhauls and nothing to worry about for this mode of communication.
Mickey
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: August 9th, 2011, 5:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Heiwa on September 4th, 2012, 8:58 am

I do not see any problem.
The fake ‘live’ 911 news show, prepared since long, is broadcasted on all US major networks to confuse the public.
It cannot be received by regular viewers in the vicinity of the WTC that can look out and see that either WTC is already destroyed or still standing intact not on fire. They are shown something else. So far so good.
However, some of the latter NY-area viewers may use TVs receiving the fake ‘live’ 911 news show via sat-TV that are re-broadcasted there. If they look out and watch the real thing, e.g. intact or destroyed towers, they may spot the hoax. How to solve the problem? Evidently you fence off and destroy the twin towers first and start broadcasting the fake show at same time.
Anybody with possibility to watch the real WTC in downtown NY will see nothing except a cloud of smoke and dust (the towers are gone) and will thus enjoy the live/fake show on sat-TV instead with the towers on fire if they can see it at all. They will not reflect over the difference in timings.
If anybody with a view of WTC towers being already destroyed happens to see the live show on sat-TV with the towers still standing/burning ready to go down in impossible fountains of debris (weak top crushes strong bottom) and thus realizes there is a hoax/PSYOP going on, this anybody has no chance to be believed. FGFS - keep it simple! :rolleyes:
Last edited by Heiwa on September 4th, 2012, 5:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 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 1 guest