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 simonshack on January 5th, 2012, 8:05 pm

Tufa wrote:
The question of ANALOGUE CAMERAS/FILM
I have travelled on plane with home-bought film rolls and back again, and they all developed OK. The rolls went through the X-ray machine something like 5 times.

If you load your camera with 35 mm black-and-white film, you can develop it yourself at home. This is the future for truthists! If you develop at a shop in N.Y. the pictures will be monitored, as was done at the JFK assassination. If you save your camera and go to Canada, and develop much later you will be OK. Note that most reasonably modern cameras are also filled with electronics, and can possibly also be destroyed by a strong field. The film is OK, but the thing refuse to "click"!

simonshack wrote:But again, this is not the only way analog film could have been "deleted/controlled". Back in the old days, I remember that walking through airport X-ray luggage machines would be the nightmare of every photographer. If you left your film rolls in the screened luggage, the rolls would often turn out blank/burned-out. Now, is it really hard for anyone to imagine that the few exit roads from Lower Manhattan had similar (and more powerful) X-ray machines deployed on 9/11?

I do not agree, and would like to challenge on that too. The X-ray/Gamma level to mess up the film will likely (how much?) also be dangerous for people. Patients with X-ray injures would certainly stir up some questions!


Dear Tufa,

if you would like to challenge that too, you will have to deal with both Kodak and my own life experience: my first photography teacher had all his rolls blanked/fogged-out after passing through airport X-ray scanning. I remember he was absolutely livid in anger about having lost his work - and he would likely punch in the face whoever tells him that this never happened - or wasn't caused by the airport's security X-ray scanning.


And here is Kodak's very own warning (dated 2003):

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/ ... 5201.shtml

Airport Baggage Scanning Equipment Can Jeopardize Your Unprocessed Film
Because your pictures are important to you, this information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. New FAA-certified (Federal Aviation Administration) explosive detection systems are being used in U.S. airports to scan (x-ray) checked baggage. This stronger scanning equipment is also being used in many non-US airports. The new equipment will fog any unprocessed film that passes through the scanner.

The recommendations in this document are valid for all film formats (135, Advanced Photo System [APS], 120/220, sheet films, 400 ft. rolls, ECN in cans, etc.).

(...)

Suggestions for Avoiding Fogged Film
X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films. However, baggage that is checked (loaded on the planes as cargo) often goes through equipment with higher energy X rays. Therefore, take these precautions when traveling with unprocessed film:

Don't place single-use cameras or unprocessed film in any luggage or baggage that will be checked. This includes cameras that still have film in them.

If an attendant or security personnel informs you that your carry-on baggage must be stowed with the checked luggage or go through a second scan, remove your unprocessed film.

Have your exposed film processed locally before passing through airport security on your return trip.

If you're going to be traveling through multiple X-ray examinations (more than 5 times), request a hand search of your carry-on baggage. FAA regulations in the U.S. allow for a hand search of photographic film and equipment if requested. (See below for further FAA information.) However, non-US airports may not honor this request.

Request a hand inspection for all motion imaging origination films. Testing shows fog on motion imaging films even after a single X-ray scan. This increased fog flattens the entire toe region of the sensitometric curve reducing shadow detail in a telecine or projected image. However, Explosive Trace Detection instruments provide no risk to motion picture films and can be used in conjunction with hand inspection to provide a non-destructive method of motion film inspection.

If you're asked to step aside for a more thorough scan of your carry-on baggage, the film could be harmed if they use the more intense X-ray equipment.You should take your unprocessed film out of your luggage.

Lead-lined bags, available from photo retailers, will weaken the X-radiation on film and reduce potential harm. However, the effectiveness of any particular lead bag depends on the intensity and electric potential of the X-ray generator, the lead's thickness, and the film speed. If you use a lead bag, check with the manufacturer for the effectiveness of their products with airport X-ray devices. The inspection process may be triggered by a lead bag on the scanner screen. In a typical airport surveillance situation, the baggage may be pulled aside for additional inspection.

Consider shipping unprocessed, unexposed or exposed film through an expedited carrier, but first check with the carrier to determine what package examination procedures they are using.

Be polite, helpful and patient. Please remember that security personnel are trying to protect the traveling public.


"Be polite, helpful and patient. Please remember that security personnel are trying to protect the traveling public."
Yeah sure - but beware: Terrorists may still smuggle explosives on board - in their underwear! :lol: :lol: :lol:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby hoi.polloi on January 5th, 2012, 8:21 pm

No, my sense is that Simon didn't have this explanation at the ready. He suggested it to me with some tentativeness and it took some time before he became more open to talking about it. At least from my perspective.

So I don't think it's "official conspiracy theory" to suggest that HERF or EMP or something like it was used to prevent real pictures. In fact, since we don't know anything about the technology I think we can assume that - if it was used - we wouldn't know what it is.

I can tell you one remarkable story about analog film. My friend claims to have started taking pictures of the World Trade Center towers after a "first explosion" and he lent the pictures to a friend but they never returned to him.

Let me speculate about this. If he's not confused (he might confuse television with reality) and if his story is true, I suppose the perps had a way of taking aerial infrared imagery of all of New York. They could then follow anyone whose behavior appeared to be "picture taking" and learn more about them through surveillance. Eventually they would work to individually acquire all of these people's images.

In an operation like 9/11 where contradictory evidence could mean a sooner end to the hoax, I think they wouldn't mind employing all their spies and grass-type agents to get every last bit of real evidence and destroy it.

Since the 9/11 propaganda was released slowly, if steadily, I think it's safe to speculate that they had a prerogative to do this. On the other hand, I don't think many people would have had SLR cameras. I guess my friend is either confused, lying or a true rarity.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Tufa on January 5th, 2012, 11:41 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:So I don't think it's "official conspiracy theory" to suggest that HERF or EMP or something like it was used to prevent real pictures. In fact, since we don't know anything about the technology I think we can assume that - if it was used - we wouldn't know what it is.

You shall make a difference between the machinery that produce the field, and the field itself. I am just merely talking about the field, its properties being known for many decades.
I completely refuse to accept any part of this kind of "unknown" technology or weapon arguments!

hoi.polloi wrote:Let me speculate about this (...) I suppose the perps had a way of taking aerial infrared imagery of all of New York. They could then follow anyone whose behavior appeared to be "picture taking" and learn more about them through surveillance. Eventually they would work to individually acquire all of these people's images.

This would be your honest opinion? It is just for fun, right!?


hoi.polloi wrote:In an operation like 9/11 where contradictory evidence could mean a sooner end to the hoax, I think they wouldn't mind employing all their spies and grass-type agents to get every last bit of real evidence and destroy it.

This is actually a major point in the 911 propaganda, along with the thought that many people cannot keep a secret, NIST reports must be true, the 911 commission was independent of the Government, and that any small part of evidence should turn the boat upside down.

Not so, a little picture would make a difference only for us, who know what it would mean and understand its significance. If the picture is much different compared to the TV version, the TV versions (several) are already contradictive and strange enough.

This issue, that you all have some relative or friend, and they was close to but could not come though with a picture --- I have heard that before somewhere?
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Tufa on January 5th, 2012, 11:48 pm

To Simon my response is that "older" equipment had a problem with film, but "newer" scanners are OK. That they told me in 1996. The Apollo researcher's made experiment on films; possibly we can obtain the level of radiation that was used? (2000-Percy, What happened on the Moon)

The question was: Will people be sick if they are radiated enough to destroy a film in their camera?
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 5th, 2012, 11:57 pm

Dear Tufa,

So let me get this right:

1: You don't believe electronic jamming of digital camera equipment is technically possible? The spymodex device is a fraud?
2: You don't believe the perps would have used everything in their power to impede private images being captured?
3: You don't believe film rolls can be destroyed by X-ray scanners - as KODAK warns consumers of on their website?

Thanks for responding to these 3 questions - so that we can proceed nicely and progressively in our discourse.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby hoi.polloi on January 6th, 2012, 12:48 am

Tufa, there are actually logical statements contained within my posts, but you seem to "hear" what you want to hear and respond to something I didn't say.

Tufa wrote:You shall make a difference between the machinery that produce the field, and the field itself. I am just merely talking about the field, its properties being known for many decades.


Since your English is really quite difficult for me to understand, please make it clear what you are saying. You are commanding me to distinguish between technologies I know little about? I mentioned nothing about "machinery that produce the field". By the time I finished reading your last disappointing post just now, I was almost pretty sick of you putting words in my mouth. It was bad enough you were twisting Simon's words for no reason. You're not God - nor are you "Ozzy bin Oswald" with his "kneel to me" posts. Shape up dude.

I completely refuse to accept any part of this kind of "unknown" technology or weapon arguments!


That's absolutely fair - yet we have no real imagery. Who knows how that was accomplished? Do you? Why are you suddenly so angry with us about speculating about it? Have you - like so many other of Simon's friends/fellow researchers - decided to "snap" now? Where have you been, by the way?


Tufa wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:Let me speculate about this (...) I suppose the perps had a way of taking aerial infrared imagery of all of New York. They could then follow anyone whose behavior appeared to be "picture taking" and learn more about them through surveillance. Eventually they would work to individually acquire all of these people's images.

This would be your honest opinion? It is just for fun, right!?


This is definitely merely for fun. Don't get excited that I am saying I think I know how it was done.



Tufa wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:In an operation like 9/11 where contradictory evidence could mean a sooner end to the hoax, I think they wouldn't mind employing all their spies and grass-type agents to get every last bit of real evidence and destroy it.


This is actually a major point in the 911 propaganda


Really?! Point me to an official conspiracy theory that makes the point that all real evidence was destroyed. I don't think your English is working for you right now. You are responding in a confusing manner and you seem to be worked up in order to cause some kind of paranoid and deliberate miscommunication. Stop and think about what you are writing. If you are saying a point of the official story cannot possibly be used for speculation because it so much as shares words with it, then you have to really reconsider what you are "hearing" in what I type.

Are you referring to the brief cases where "real imagery" was taken from a gas station near the Pentagon, clearly a story meant to endorse the idea that the official imagery is real? It would help if you distinguished between our speculations and the official conspiracy theories. But I am starting to see you are not so interested in making that clear. Are you "Tufa"?

Consider the difference between these two sentences; I will make it easy for you by highlighting the word difference:

Probably all 9/11 imagery was destroyed. vs. Probably all official 9/11 imagery was destroyed.

Use your brain.

Tufa wrote:a little picture would make a difference only for us, who know what it would mean and understand its significance.


This "sentence" doesn't make sense, Tufa. Are you trying to say, "it would be really great if we found a real image."

Don't you think that we agree?

This issue, that you all have some relative or friend, and they was close to but could not come though with a picture --- I have heard that before somewhere?


I am not sure where you heard it. Tell us. You darn well spit it out if you have any connection to someone with a story like mine if you're going to play the credibility game with me now. I am an American. I have encountered and I am friends with a number of people who think they know what happened but none of them knows. Why would you even need to throw that spurious comment in there since I never asked anyone to trust me and I've made it clearer than clear that I don't trust the story myself. Cripes. Second of all, your lumping "you all" with a personal, third-hand story from me that you don't believe is offensive to the highest degree.

I hope that you are just trying to get "hot and bothered" about us because you missed excitement in your life. I genuinely do not understand any use to anything you have said except where you have doubted speculation ... which we do too!

Take a chill pill and get back to us when you want to make some sense.

Saying "I want real images!" is by no means a useful addition to our research. So start your own forum or blog or whatever and produce something instead of lashing out at Simon's fairly reasonable speculation that there was some kind of electronic jamming on 9/11.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby whatsgoingon on January 6th, 2012, 1:04 am

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on May 24th, 2013, 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 577
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby hoi.polloi on January 6th, 2012, 1:09 am

The name "Tufa" was connected to an allegedly "real" person that sent Simon a DVD of cool research among other evidence of being sort of real - even if Simon was very fishy about him at first. Now I am not so sure. Now it's just gotten insane. If he's still legit, he needs to take a serious break from this place.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby whatsgoingon on January 6th, 2012, 1:34 am

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on May 24th, 2013, 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 577
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby fbenario on January 6th, 2012, 2:43 am

whatsgoingon wrote:As an aside, I had a bot-ish style person email me tons of questions about my research in the real world. I decided after reading those 10 questions, which made no sense, that they must have been generated by some computer program or the person that wrote them was on amphetamines or something.

I received the same as a private message here about 3 months ago, and decided to delete the private message capability from my posts here.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby Tufa on January 6th, 2012, 6:55 am

hoi.polloi wrote:The name "Tufa" was connected to an allegedly "real" person that sent Simon a DVD of cool research among other evidence of being sort of real - even if Simon was very fishy about him at first. Now I am not so sure. Now it's just gotten insane. If he's still legit, he needs to take a serious break from this place.

No, I am still here! I also appreciate that, especially you hoi.polloi, take effort of keeping up a high standard of writing on the forum. The "Real" issue; Simon have some on this, and you may call me on the phone at any time.

I also appreciate that our discussion have interested several other researchers.

And now:
simonshack wrote:Dear Tufa,

So let me get this right:
1: You don't believe electronic jamming of digital camera equipment is technically possible? The spymodex device is a fraud?
2: You don't believe the perps would have used everything in their power to impede private images being captured?
3: You don't believe film rolls can be destroyed by X-ray scanners - as KODAK warns consumers of on their website?

Thanks for responding to these 3 questions - so that we can proceed nicely and progressively in our discourse.


My answers is as follows (please demand an even more detailed explanation, if you or anyone else would need it!):
The spymodex device, no it is not a fraud, but it only block the TV reception of a receiver that read the radio signal from a radio-transmitting camera. Details: You cannot block a transmitter, only a receiver. The device cannot destroy or block a recording camera. It is no more dangerous than an ordinary cell-phone. So, Simon, your big picture of a transmitter, above, it is not at all what I try to discuss.

On 2. it is a big Yes! But there is a limit to everything.

No 3. is also OK, film do get destroyed by X-ray or gamma radiation. The special low-dose X-ray meters, commonly used when working with radioactive material, include a mirror/reflector and some heavy plate that receive the radiation. Another way is to receive the radioactive particle in a transparent crystal, where the energy will be converted into light, and then receive the flash on film; mirrors surrounding the crystal to route the flash until it reach the film.

But the point was: Can you irradiate a road, straight on, and erase more or less completely an ordinary film inside a camera, without injuring the photographer? It is a question of the X-ray levels!

It is also OK to destroy a camera by a military EMP pulse. But you cannot destroy the recorded film in the cassette, so you apply a pulse each 3 seconds or so. That is OK. And a local radio broadcast is very easy, as demonstrated.

The problems get into the details, as different electronics will have different resistance. Let's look at this again (list in decreasing sensitivity):
  1. All sorts of devices that have an attached antenna (external, internal) are very sensitive as there is a conductor that concentrate your EMP pulse, or field, directly into the electronics (transmitter, receiver). Some antennas may/can have lightning protection (MV transmitter antennas) that can possibly help.
  2. All sorts of devices that have an attached cable of any sort or kind, such as a cell phone charging or a tripod Joe who connected his camera to the charger; all sort of mains powered devices.
  3. And on three we have battery powered devices with no cables attached. These will be insensitive to the applied field, unless that wavelength is comparable to the device size, or the size/length of the detail inside that will be our receiving object.

Next problem is that, by chance or luck, some cameras may be resistant the the applied field/pulse. If the camera/environment happens to be at a node of the field, the level can be 1/10 or lower at this spot. So, if you have your military equipment, you just merely screw up the power, say 100x to be on the safe side?

And it is only here, at this point, that I have a question: the active operating length from the transmitter can be 4x as long for other more sensitive equipment, compared to a battery camera. So if you KILL the camera; and here I think of a vantage point far away like New Jersey, you indeed will have problems massively with other ordinary electronics of any kind.

And that's why I find the arguments of "Jamming" -> no pictures, and a day later the camera is OK again, I am so sorry, but I find it absurd. It is not that easy. I much prefer some other explanation!

I wish to add, that I have no problem of any kind if I am wrong on this. I have one of these cameras and can investigate any result that we might find.

----------------------------
hoi.polloi have some thoughts:
hoi.polloi wrote:Have you - like so many other of Simon's friends/fellow researchers - decided to "snap" now? Where have you been, by the way?

I have been busy on other matters. I got a bit tired on the "Breivik" after 1500 posts, and the 9/11-2011 was real terrible from SVT.

hoi.polloi also write about being "offensive to the highest degree"; my criticism should be limited to the task on topic, and I got a bit carried away! Sorry!

hoi.polloi wrote:So start your own forum or blog or whatever and produce something instead of lashing out at Simon's fairly reasonable speculation that there was some kind of electronic jamming on 9/11.

No, sorry. I don't find Simon's speculation reasonable. No matter how hard I think, I can get it to work!

I wish to, in general terms, excuse me for the very long posts. It take some writing to pinpoint exactly what I mean.
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby hoi.polloi on January 7th, 2012, 10:53 pm

Well I am also sorry for becoming cross with you. The last thing we need on this forum is in-fighting.

The reason I am impatient is because Simon is so succinct by comparison. I am sure if you have a good explanation it will come about eventually.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby simonshack on January 8th, 2012, 9:06 pm

*
STEVEN ROSENBAUM'S $3MILLION ARCHIVE OF 9/11 "AMATEUR FOOTAGE"

There may be one easy way to find out just how the 9/11 planners impeded any genuine, private footage to be captured or/and to prevent any such footage to leak out to the public: ask Steven Rosenbaum.

Image

This is a brief overview of the guy - and his activities since 9/11:

Mr. Rosenbaum’s pre-9/11 company, BNN TV, employed over 80 people and occupied five floors of a Fifth Avenue building in Manhattan. The proud slogan of his company was “BNN TV Changes the Way Stories Are Told”. His clients included CNN, CBS News, MSNBC, HBO and Court TV. The studios were equipped with state-of-the-art AVID video editing equipment - the sort of which you only find in major Hollywood studios.

As the story goes, in the days following 9/11, Steve put up posters and fliers in NYC and placed an ad in The Village Voice “urgently requesting images that captured the attack, its aftermath and the mood of the city”. That effort seems to have worked out nicely. His 1,700 video clips of 9/11 constitute, he says, “the largest archive of my now dormant television production company, Camera Planet”. His website tells us that 76 people contributed to these “500 hours of videos”, which are owned by Mr. Rosenbaum and his wife, Pamela Yoder (no mention is made whether or not he paid these 76 people for their precious footage).

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/nyregion/30archive.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

In other words, Steven Rosenbaum claims to have collected 500 hours of 9/11 amateur footage - from amateur videographers who would have willingly handed over their 9/11 footage to his new Camera Planet company - so that he could set up a big, nice archive of 9/11 amateur footage! Later, as Camera Planet went bankrupt, he allegedly put this 9/11 archive up for sale - for a mere $3 million. Do you think I'm kidding you? Check out this 2005 piece of the New York Observer:

http://www.cameraplanet.com/divisions/i ... server.pdf
(When the company was in dire straits last winter, Mr. Rosenbaum attempted to sell off his vast
library of 9/11 footage valued at $3 million. So far, there have been no takers.)


Does anyone here have $3 million to spare? Perhaps we could relieve Mr. Rosenbaum of his dire burden? :P

I trust everyone on this forum will be familiar with the numerous, horridly low-res video clips of purported 9/11 footage infesting Youtube - carrying the Camera Planet logo. Taken together, and providing you have watched/compared them all, anyone should be able to see that they are nothing but an assembly line of animations created in a digital 3D environment and are, all in all, just a crude series of computerized animations - slightly rotated & retargeted at will. The purpose they serve is, of course, to convey the illusion that many different private citizens shot these videos in reality.

So let's ask Mr. Steven Rosenbaum if he can supply us with a list of the alleged 76 authors of these "amateur videos", shall we?


*****
Edit to add: Rosenbaum's state-of-the-art video production company CAMERA PLANET (with its 80 employees) is now 'mysteriously' defunct. And guess where Mr Rosenbaum is employed now? That's right, at the National Memorial & Museum of 9/11 at 'Ground Zero' - as a 'curator and spokesman' for the place...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bomAlFwKqt8
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby diagonal2 on July 13th, 2012, 1:43 pm

If a hobbyist can make an EMP jamming / disabling device, just IMAGINE what the perps could have done with the amount of funding they have...
diagonal2
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: June 22nd, 2012, 5:46 pm

Re: Electronic Jamming on 9/11

Postby rick55 on August 9th, 2012, 3:26 pm

simonshack wrote:*
STEVEN ROSENBAUM'S $3MILLION ARCHIVE OF 9/11 AMATEUR FOOTAGE

I trust everyone on this forum will be familiar with the numerous, horridly low-res video clips of purported 9/11 footage infesting Youtube - carrying the Camera Planet logo. Taken together, and providing you have watched/compared them all, anyone should be able to see that they are nothing but an assembly line of animations created in a digital 3D environment and are, all in all, just a crude series of computerized animations - slightly rotated & retargeted at will. The purpose they serve is, of course, to convey the illusion that many different cameramen shot these videos in reality.

So let's ask Mr. Steven Rosenbaum if he can supply us with a list of the alleged 76 authors of these "amateur videos", shall we?


The Camera Planet Archive is actually available for viewing right now! I'm watching clips I've never seen before. After reading SeptemberClues and this forum for the past few weeks, it's very interesting to watch many of these clips again with the hoax in mind... it's a whole new "experience" and I recommend it to everyone here. Here's a link to a particularly longer compilation. Many people are seen talking on cell phones at 16:00+ with no apparent problem after the presumed first plane hit. An obviously contrived witness at 17:00 says "what's goin on?" "why's everyone running"... as the camera pans up to see the building smoking.

This is a far smoother review than going to youtube and the experience of the illusion is quite convincing in a way. It's fun to pick out the "bloopers", similar to the old tv blooper show that Ed McMann used to do of regular TV and outtakes. We could compile The 9/11 Reality Show Bloopers... Here's the "master clip reel". I've never seen many of these fabricated clips before!

http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.n ... -Clip-Reel
rick55
Member
 
Posts: 86
Joined: August 7th, 2012, 3:15 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 2 guests