Psy Ops company

[jlsumme]

I could not remember the name of a company that has feeds from all of the major TV networks, that could have been involved with the broadcast on 9/11? I thought I saw it in a video but now I can't find it after searching for hours. Thanks for any help.

[simonshack]

I presume you are thinking of SCL
(STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION LABORATORIES) http://www.scl.cc/


Read about SCL here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... boratories

[jlsumme]

Thanks, I thought this was the video but did not want to watch all 8 parts.
http://youtu.be/j7A2hVDdB10
Does this company have the ability to do that? Could this be the reason that some of the competing networks were sharing the feed and the banners/logos were wrong?
Things I noticed about 9/11...
At TV archives.com, Katie Couric looks really worried for some reason, like maybe she knew something was gonna happen. You can see the "blob" coming towards the #2. If you measure the length of the object and measure the width of the building then compare that to the fox "noseout" footage (measuring the width of the building and plane)taking a ratio to figure approximate size relative to distance of shot...hard to believe these were the same objects. One measures about 110 ft the other about 15 ft.
But....I support the bombs bringing the buildings down. Not sure of the no-plane theory yet.

[hoi.polloi]

You're in good company, jlsumme.

We haven't any proof that planes or missiles of some kind were or were not used. In other words: it is possible that, behind the fake airplanes (literally and chronologically), there was some kind of projectile to mildly corroborate the prefab witness testimony with the "man on the street". Certainly all the videos of the planes are fake though.

[jlsumme]

I could not find the correct place to post this question so it might as well be here. This goes slightly against the grain of this topic and Simon may want to move it to the correct place. So alot of us believe that the film archive (towers 1 and 2) was false in some way... but when it comes to building 7 we steadfastly back that video as the real deal.So what gives us the ability to separate the the North and South towers videos to be fake but the building 7 to be real.For us in the US for which I am a very proud citizen (like the jews were in Germany before they were f***ed) should we be preparing for the next "Terrorist" attacks to take our liberty away? To believe this whole thing you have to believe that it's in the NWO's plan.I could ramble on and on but you guys aren't stupid. Maybe I'm stupid for not researching it before posting.

[simonshack]

... but when it comes to building 7 we steadfastly back that video as the real deal...

No. There is no 'real deal' in ANY of the available 9/11 video footage.

WTC 7 STUDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

[jlsumme]

I believe that a building (wtc #7) under the somewhat weak stress observed should not have fallen as it did, but with all of the fakery could the perfect collapse be fake? Here goes the Dr. Judy Woods thing.....Don't hit me yet (covering head).What if that building was taken down by HARP or some other unknown weapon and they had to make it look like a standard demolition to keep prying eyes away from the actual truth with the fake video. If we dismiss the primary videos we must question the building 7 video and not take it as the truth either.

[hoi.polloi]

Speculation about anything that went on behind the fakery is hard for us to comment on because we as admins have personal biases and ideas. A lot of the time we mention our biases, saying we have no hard proof of our opinions but that perhaps HAARP or perhaps a missile or perhaps a controlled demolition did this or that. It's not really crucial to know.

In this case, since our primary focus is on the fakery of the video, documentary, newspaper and media 9/11 stuff, we can't really go into what precisely destroyed the towers. I personally don't think we will ever know.

[fbenario]

I believe that a building (wtc #7) under the somewhat weak stress observed should not have fallen as it did, but with all of the fakery could the perfect collapse be fake? Here goes the Dr. Judy Woods thing.....Don't hit me yet (covering head).What if that building was taken down by HARP or some other unknown weapon and they had to make it look like a standard demolition to keep prying eyes away from the actual truth with the fake video. If we dismiss the primary videos we must question the building 7 video and not take it as the truth either.

I've read this post a couple of times, and have no idea what point you are trying to make. As we have proved conclusively, every image/video of 9/11 is faked. We don't even have any basis for concluding that WTC 7 came down later in the day, or at any specific time at all. There is nothing to be gained from meandering theories about WTC 7.

[repentantandy]

Once you accept the increasingly credible explanation of 9/11 as a wholly scripted, pre-recorded, actor-performed and CGI-simulated wargame scenario "flipped live" (as Dr. Tarpley would say) -- the whole suspicious business with Building Seven's "free-fall" collapse takes on a very different coloration. Yes, several aspects of the master plan (as with any complex enterprise) encountered glitches in the actual execution and had to be rescued/covered with imprecise improvisations and/or "plan B" substitutions, but the perps' "full-spectrum" control of major media still kept the fakery rolling forward, well after the crucial 102-minute "Tuesday Morning Movie" had been screened on all the compliant TV networks.

Perhaps the "Building Seven Movie Sequel," featuring yet another simulation of a "hijacked jet" was supposed to be screened right after the Goatmeister's "live" words of outrage and reassurance were telecast to a shocked nation, but something delayed the actual destruction of that Silverstein structure by its planted explosives, and the sorry Shanksville circus-act had to be hastily and clumsily concocted, or at least imprudently modified from its initial status as a fall-back device.

Then, in the perps' rush to come up with a "plane-less" substitute CGI video of Building Seven's still-essential-to-the-overall-scheme demise, several crucial hours of re-rendering time ticked by until the tape was ready for broadcast. But not all of the players and technicians in the now-revised plot managed to "synchronize their watches" so to speak, and thus the CNN and BBC "cock-ups" resulted.

No matter. With "full-spectrum" control of the major media still highly operant, even the transpiring of Building Seven's downfall (both simulated and real-world accomplished) could be kept out of majority consciousness for years, dismissed or excluded from the various "official" reports, and eventually "dusted" off and heavily flogged as a time-and-effort-wasting distraction by the perp-devised-and-controlled "truther movement".

[fbenario]

Building Seven's still-essential-to-the-overall-scheme demise

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If there were no WTC 7 'story' at all, it wouldn't change anything about the sheeple's understanding of the 'events' of that day. There would STILL be no increase in peoples' willingness to think for themselves. And why do you still assume WTC 7 came down 'later' in the day? There is no evidence for that time-line whatsoever, since you can't base any conclusion at all on the faked images/videos.

[repentantandy]

Building Seven's still-essential-to-the-overall-scheme demise

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If there were no WTC 7 'story' at all, it wouldn't change anything about the sheeple's understanding of the 'events' of that day. There would STILL be no increase in peoples' willingness to think for themselves. And why do you still assume WTC 7 came down 'later' in the day? There is no evidence for that time-line whatsoever, since you can't base any conclusion at all on the faked images/videos.

You certainly don't have to "buy it," fbn, but you do admit, don't you, that the Solomon Brothers (and associated spooks') NYC headquarters WAS destroyed that day -- and that the Shanksville lie is the weakest, least backstopped, most transparent of the 9/11 fables: No flashy CGI video at all, just a mere handful of wildly contradictory "witnesses," a serious lack of on-the-ground "soap opera" stories, a single dingy photo of a "plane part" in a backhoe shovel, and an utterly hokey picture-postcard image of a "mushroom cloud" in the wrong geographical location. An absolutely pitiful job of fakery.

And that's why I'm suggesting that it was a hastily slopped-together "alternate destination" for the much more elaborately prepared sim-plane scenario, its nefarious sim-hijackers, and its "tragically heroic," let's-rolling, martyred sim-passengers, a fictional destination-substitution necessitated by some major glitch in the perps' "wargame" plan that also delayed the scheduled (for TV viewing anyway) destruction of their heavily insured "Command-Center," Building Seven.