http://www.septemberclues.info/
Television is - and has always been - a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
The power of TV-imagery was the driving force behind the 9/11 deception.
Whenever a major news event is reported by the mainstream media, it will invariably be illustrated with photographs or videos in order to convey to the public some visual impressions of the event. Undeniably, the imagery connected with any given news story enhances our emotional relation to it. The way we relate to news imagery has an almost hypnotic effect on our psyche: we have come to consider the visuals of any given news story as proof of that news story’s authenticity. This is truly a ‘weak spot’ of our brains’ readiness for critical-thinking. Thus follows, unfortunately, that to challenge the authenticity of a catastrophic event shown on Live TV is way beyond what most people are willing to contemplate. However, the time has come for everyone to call television by its most appropriate, military-sounding name: "Weapon of Mass Distraction".
 |
The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that ‘weak spot’ of ours. We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time – understandably so, as the sheer horror of the proposed imagery generated a wall of outrage and fear – thick enough to discourage any critical review of it. In hindsight, we can only wonder why so few questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks. The picture at left shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio. (see my audio analysis in September Clues E)
|
WHAT TELEVISION VIEWERS SAW ON 9/11
The 9/11 TV imagery (of the crucial morning events) was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie. It featured for the most part what were meant to be “chopper shots” of the smoking towers - and very little else. The sum total of “Action Shots” (“Planecrash” and “Tower collapses”) amounted to little over 30secs of the entire morning's TV broadcasts ! Needless to say, much as the rest of the animation movie, none of these “Action Shots” depicted any sort of reality. Now, it may be difficult for many to understand why the 9/11 plotters needed to fake even the tower collapses; yet this was undoubtedly the most crucial aspect of the entire operation - and needs to be fully understood in its plain logic: The unprecedented WTC demolition job was far too risky an affair to be shown on LIVE TV - (or to let any amateur cameraman capture it on film). The 9/11 conspirators had no intention whatsoever to offer such a "pyrotechnical" spectacle to world scrutiny - just imagine how unspeakably foolish this would have been. Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed - and no real footage exists of that brief event. Thankfully - for all normal people of this world - the 9/11 planners hired a poorly skilled animation crew : in their efforts to simulate reality, their crass 'artistry' and countless mistakes provide ample and repeatable proof of the trickery - forever engraved in the TV archives.
These images are an intolerable insult to human intelligence :
A REAL PLANE CRASH ?___________________________A REAL SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE ?
WHY FAKE THE NEWS BROADCASTS ? The 9/11 TV broadcasts were designed to ‘sell’ a fictitious terror attack to the world– by replacing the real-life events of the day (the WTC demolitions) with fake imagery. The official story was quite surreal - as were the TV images of the day and the preposterous tale of 19 kids roundly outfoxing the US Air Defense. It is essential to judge with one's own eyes the broadcasts actually aired by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN.
WHAT ABOUT THE "AMATEUR" VIDEOS ? All the other videos (endlessly replayed on TV) were released only later. They have all been extensively analyzed by scores of video analysts; each and every video snippet of "amateur imagery" [BELOW] has been methodically dissected and compared - and empirically proved to be nothing else than computer-generated fabrications.
HOW WERE PRIVATE VIDEOS IMPEDED ? In order for the 9/11 TV-deception to succeed, full visual control of the Manhattan area had to be in place. The existence of EMP/HERF technology is undisputable: only the hypothesis of it being used on 9/11 remains unverifiable. It is, however, a reasonable postulation supported by a series of electronic blackouts which occurred in NYC that morning. In any event, the logic of using EMP/HERF holds water and effectively explains the ruse with disarming simplicity: NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed: thus, the imagery aired by the TV networks feared no comparison and was passed off as reality.
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
Since the core of the 9/11 operation relied on airing fake imagery on TV (to simulate the real-life events of the day), it would be only logical to assume that a solid infrastructure was in place to ensure 'success'. To be sure, the news media has been caught red-handed many times in the past, shamelessly airing outright fake news. This time, however, more sophisticated safeguards were necessary in order to control and impede any inconvenient private footage being captured - most embarassingly leaking out and exposing the hoax. Here, we will look at some technology which conceivably could achieve these goals. Admittedly, addressing this issue requires some level of speculation - yet one may well presume that this operation would have put to good use the most advanced technology available.
Why don’t we have a single authentic video of the crucial 9/11 events? Firstly, there are many indications that a blanket evacuation of Lower Manhattan took place after the first "plane" strike at 8:46AM. Few people were likely left dwelling around snapping pictures. In any circumstances, the chances for anyone capturing a clear image of an unexpected, sky-diving 550mph+ object are extremely slim. These factors alone drastically reduced the probabilites of undesired image recordings in the area. Nevertheless, one must assume that the 9/11 military-backed operation would have required no less than a 110% "safety level". It should also be safe to say that the perpetrators relied on top-end military technology. Thus, we may formulate a plausible hypothesis - based on the known objectives which had to be met.
 |
If total visual control of the wider Manhattan area was a top priority of the 9/11 psyop, it would have been essential to impede any authentic footage to be captured in NY that morning. Electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF or HPM) is routinely used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics. Read about it Dawn of the E-Bomb [NEXT POST]. Conceivably, this technology was used to prevent any private footage being recorded throughout the limited (102min) time-window in which the defining 9/11 events took place (from first "plane" strike to last tower collapse). To be sure, the research into this field has long been a top military priority: with this in mind, we may reasonably consider that this well-tested technology was employed on 9/11. It is, all in all, a hypothesis grounded in logic and (military) common sense.
|
Do we have any indications from the day that may back-up this hypothesis? Indeed, we do: it is a well-known fact that thousands of electronic devices malfunctioned - or blacked-out altogether. As many as 4 important electronics-related disruptions were reported in the 9/11 aftermath :
- 1) : all New York cell phones
- 2) : the firefighters' NYFD radio-transmitters
- 3) : the WTC’s internal communication system
- 4) : the Port Authority's transmission repeater on top of WTC5
These disruptions caused quite some controversy - and were explained away with claims such as:
- 1) : “the NY cell phone network was overloaded”
- 2) : “the NYFD had faulty radios/was confused over new T-R channels”
- 3) : “the WTC intercom wiring was damaged by the crashing airplane”
- 4) : The Port Authority simply denied that their equipment malfunctioned.
The official explanations for these four serious and (apparently) unrelated disruptions, all seem appallingly contrived. Now, even though EMP/HERF beams can be calibrated to disrupt a specific Hz range, one may reasonably surmise that some ‘bleed’ may have occurred - thus affecting more than the targeted videocamera circuitries. In any case, an electromagnetic "storm" would keep any private cameras from operating. Only special cameras shielded in protective faraday-cages would function.
----------------
|
|
testimonies
Letter from Quentin (aka youtube user Qmorsol) - Sept.16,2009
Hello, Simon
My apologies for having been MIA for so long. Sorry man. After returning from vacation in July I took an even longer break from the internet...cuz I needed it ;O. (I might have succumbed to a little paranoia...but anyway it's all good) I told you I'd provide you with as much detail as I could regarding my cousin's camera issue on that day...
My cousin Stephen's PVDV401 Cam failed to turn on but assumed it was the battery; he blames Panasonic for "making unreliable shit". But it was in the charger for more than 4 hours the night before. So he claims to had been somewhere on Broadway heading North when it happened. The incident actually happened closer to the second hit - before 9 am (this info he just gave me in an email). He did not immediately think of pulling out the camera until he approached as close as possible the WTC for a better view. He pulled it from his bag only to struggle with it for a bit, releasing the battery then hooking it again, he did this several times - checking everything else he knew to check - to no avail. (Mind you, he had been bringing his new camera to work almost everyday and never encountered a problem with the power).
At this point he says one cop approached him aggressively because he wasn't moving fast enough or whatever (something interesting that I guess helps support your hypothesis : Stephen claims a rather fast evacuation was in effect minutes into the event, people being directed out of there in a jiffy - being pushed up Church St and Broadway). The group in the area questioned why the 'accident' would warrant such an aggressive evacuation on the ground. He had given up on the cam - looking around to see if anyone was filming but saw NO ONE at it. He joked to me he would've tried to snatch someone's cam... just his dark sense of humor. He also says he saw trails of ground fire from afar as he was leaving the area. He was kinda happy to get the fuck out as he was having major runs all morning.
So he gets home (at his girlfriend’s apartment) tosses the Panasonic down safely and didn't feel the need to test the cam until giving it another charging session hours later. The power indicator flashed on and off each time he put the battery in, one time it stayed on a few seconds - it just didn't give any juice to the camera. Anyhow, 3-4 hours later it was fully charged again. At first it stalled, powered-on-off, then worked fine! He gave it a little punch out of aggravation, especially after seeing all the 'amateur footage' emerging in the following days …"
I don't know how much this helps you, but that's his account of his experience. I meant to ask you before, are you going to need some kind of digital signature :o ?
Quentin
Now, I didn't ask Quentin to provide a digital signature of his letter, knowing full well that it wouldn't help convincing anyone questioning Quentin's sincerity/legitimacy. I, for one, have no reason to do so. You are free, of course, to do so - and even suspect that I made up this letter myself. Let's face it: until we have a real 9/11 courtcase with people submitting testimonies under oath, there is no way to get around this problem. By the way, if you wonder why Quentin's cousin didn't contact me firsthand, Quentin explained in a separate mail that his cousin didn't want to have anything to do with 'crazy conspiracy theories'- and that he was a Bush fan...
-------------------------
Here is another testimony to camera failure which I have bumped into. Unfortunately, this person never came back to me as I asked for more details about his/her experience on 9/11:
Message from "SassyMami"-youtube user - october 2009
"My camcorder at the time wasn't perfect and I don't know if it was momentarily powering on and off due to some defect. The litte red button on it would get stuck sometimes, or not work."
----------------------------------
Here is a third testimony of an electronic dysfunction - although this time concerning a VHS recording of the TV broadcasts of 9/11. I am adding it to this list even though it concerns a fairly different matter. Suffice to say, lots of strange things happened regarding video-capture issues on 9/11:
Message from 'Aliendear'(youtube user) - december 2009
Simon,
This was at home, on my vcr. On a Symphonic 4-head Hi-Fi VCR. In several states away from NYC. I was recording the various networks. When all was said and done, there was nothing on the tape. Just Snow.
I do not make a mistake when recording programs. The vcr is one-touch recording. I've recorded documentaries, TV shows, news, game shows. None have failed to record. But on 9/11, all the various news networks I recorded came up blank. There was nothing but snow on the video tape. And I had rewound it to several spots to make sure I was recording, or to look over an event. This Symphonic records a superior picture. But on 9/11, it was nothing.
------------------------------
The next one also an interesting comment, from yet another perspective, still related to electronic disruptions - (all the way from Florida!). What on Earth was going on that day in the US ether?
From the 'Daily Paul' website - http://www.dailypaul.com/node/120138
Message submitted by Maeve - on Sun, 01/17/2010 - 19:55
I was in FL when 9/11 happened. We had no cell, landline, or internet service for nearly an hour. The TV still ran, but communications were cut off. I remember that very clearly.
======================================
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake ...”Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing 'airplane' images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released - inexplicably - as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight”:
|
================================
|
|
|
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION N°4:
Q: “What about the thousands of eye-witnesses in Manhattan ?”
A: There is no denying the existence of a large amount of eye-witness testimonies reported by the mainstream media - and even by more credible, independent sources. The vast majority refer to the sightings of the 2nd event at WTC2 - while strikingly few refer to the 1st event at WTC1. With this in mind - and permitting that witness reports might be a reliable source of information - we should concentrate on the available witness reports.
|
Of course, eye-witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, particularly in the case of brief, rapidly unfolding events. In spite of this commonly-accepted fact, many people seem to be strongly attached to what (they perceive) was reported by "thousands" of eye-witnesses in Manhattan. A key question should be raised: Did most people report a “large passenger airliner?” The firm answer to this is: No.Of those people who provided details of the object they saw, the majority reported anything but a large airliner. I submit below a cross-section of such testimonies: Of course, this selective list is only meant to get an idea of the variety of the 9/11 eye-witness reports – and is not intended to establish any conclusive proof. However, it goes to show that there was no general consensus on what precisely hit WTC2 :
SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:
A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson
A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR... |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment