It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RARE VIDEO - Proof TV Blacked Out During Flight 175 Crash.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


I think it's more like an interference from a radio transmission, like when you operate radio gear near a tv set. A short burst of radio wave, possibly to send a signal or perhaps a blip of interference as the plane came so close. It could be anything but my moneys on interference of some kind like this.




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Can someone confirm the use of RF jammers during Controlled demolitions?

Upon listening to the static, it does not sound natrual and has a motorized sound especially when slowed down, not to mention the explosions that can be seen at tower one at that exact moment.

Using RF jammers during radio controlled detonation of explosives?


Consider how 'jamming' actually works and you'll realise it's a very very bad idea. Jamming radio signals is done by transmitting a powerful wide spectrum signal that swamps the weaker 'normal' signals making them unreadable.

If you study the technology of analog TV transmission you'll find the video is carried on an AM signal with the FM audio on an adjacent frequency with a fixed separation from the video frequency. Separation is fixed so that your TV can actually find the sound transmission. The separation is about 4MHz (not sure of the NTSC standard) so 'jamming' the audio is virtually impossible without affecting the video at the same time.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
As to that 'motorised' noise, is it possible that they were using a portable camera with an inbuilt videotape recorder as many networks do to avoid the loss of transmission back to headquarters (usually via satellite uplink these days)?

Sorry about all the ordinary explanations but there's only a conspiracy in this evidence if you really want there to be one.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
It depends on station enginers. They can block any sound and the video portion will still run. Yes, there were jammers available to block radio(sound waves) but not video (light waves).



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
It depends on station enginers. They can block any sound and the video portion will still run. Yes, there were jammers available to block radio(sound waves) but not video (light waves).

At the broadcast station they employ a loop to delay incoming live signals by about 5 seconds so they can mute or beep out any offensive language before it goes to air. It's a regulatory requirement in a lot of countries.
That's why one of my suggested possibilites was along those lines IE If the audio was muted to kill explicit language the auto-levelling in subsequent processing would make any background electrical noise more prominent.

Those jammers for audio waves are called earplugs btw


I'd like to know how a jammer can discriminate between audio and video when it's modulated on an RF carrier.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
A Geologist friend of mine told me that right before they blast the rock they JAM ALL tranmittors ,c.b's, Radio, Tv within a 2 km radius to ensure that no trucker or WalkieTalkie does not accidently detonate the explosive while workers are near.

He said they Jam UHF/VHF/AM/FM during the arming of the explosives and during detonation.


Do you not remember the Tv screwing up when a vaccuum is turned on or a power drill? Same concept but larger.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
I think you'll find it's a matter of excluding strong transmitters from the immediate area because they have the potential to set off electric detonators by induction. Transmitting a strong wide spectrum RF signal (jamming) would do the same thing with risk of premature detonation. That's why you'll see a sign like 'blasting in progress - switch off all radio transmitters' at the checkpoints surrounding a blasting area.

The very high power transmitting tower on top of WTC1 would make it extremely hazardous to wire up anything with an electric detonator in the vicinity of the WTC.

The next time you hear electrical interference on analog TV have a close look at the screen for 'snow' which is white speckles. They will tell you the frequency and the width of the interference pulses if you work out the size and rate in comparison to the TV scanning rate. 60Hz NTSC signals use 525 lines per frame and 30 frames per second with interlacing so each scan line takes about 63 microseconds to cross the screen from left to right.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd like to know how a jammer can discriminate between audio and video when it's modulated on an RF carrier.


Once again ".....radio(sound waves) but not video (light waves)"



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd like to know how a jammer can discriminate between audio and video when it's modulated on an RF carrier.


Once again ".....radio(sound waves) but not video (light waves)"


But it's all modulated onto an RF carrier wave (electromagnetic radiation) regardless of whether it's audio, video or even data. Radio is not transmitted via audio sound waves unless you live close enough to a very loud rock concert but then it wouldn't be radio would it? Light and audio are converted to electromagnetic energy by transducers like microphones and CCDs (charge coupled devices) in order to prepare them for transmission on a carrier frequency.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Why would light waves (video) be included in a RF (radio frequency) jammer? They are two different types of energy waves. If we could see and hear with only ears or eyes our brain would not need both. Our DNA could eliminate expressing one or the other for lack of necessity.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I could write an essay on how TV and jamming works but I believe it would be a waste of time - I don't need to google for it but I suggest a basic knowledge of the principles of transmitted signals would help to determine if this evidence is actually evidence of anything, which I believe it isn't.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Odd, in the middle of the lost tv transmission during the impact, 'explosions' can be seen on the North tower( right of the timecode)



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
EC-130 cargo psyops planes can effectively do that type of interference, as can any other ground or air vehicle with the same tech. EC-130 can do a lot of blocking and interjection - radar, radio, telephone, satellite, cable, etc.


I just stumbled across this thread. I usually don't read any of the 9/11 stuff.

So, you're sure that EC-130 Psyops can do that? Just jam the audio signal and not mess with the video?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
So, you're sure that EC-130 Psyops can do that? Just jam the audio signal and not mess with the video?

Only if you live in a world where standard analog TV video signals are transmitted on light beams separate to the audio as suggested up there somewhere


Unless the spyplane actually demodulated the composite signal, fiddled the audio, remodulated and re-transmitted the signal at a power that swamped the original signal. The big question is for what purpose?

It was hardly a blackout.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by OrionStars
EC-130 cargo psyops planes can effectively do that type of interference, as can any other ground or air vehicle with the same tech. EC-130 can do a lot of blocking and interjection - radar, radio, telephone, satellite, cable, etc.


I just stumbled across this thread. I usually don't read any of the 9/11 stuff.

So, you're sure that EC-130 Psyops can do that? Just jam the audio signal and not mess with the video?


They can if all they desire to do is RF jamming. Video waves will not be affected.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
They can if all they desire to do is RF jamming. Video waves will not be affected.

I know I'll regret it but:

Please explain how you believe video is transmitted wirelessly to your TV set and how the method differs from the transmission of the accompanying audio content.

Just interested in how you think it works



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Can people turn down their TVs and still see a picture? I have TVs I can do that. People have never had a picture and no sound on TV or vice versa? I certainly have and did not touch the remote or buttons on the TV.

Light and sound are not the same waves.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by OrionStars
They can if all they desire to do is RF jamming. Video waves will not be affected.

I know I'll regret it but:

Please explain how you believe video is transmitted wirelessly to your TV set and how the method differs from the transmission of the accompanying audio content.

Just interested in how you think it works


Where did I say that? I said light and sound are not the same waves. RF is radio frequency/sound not light.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Where did I say that? I said light and sound are not the same waves. RF is radio frequency/sound not light.

Round & round we go


Agreed - light and sound are different things

But, in your own words & without a google search, how are they different when transmitted as a standard analog TV signal?

You see it is on topic in the context of this thread as only through a lack of basic understanding of the technology could you suggest the audio was deliberately obscured with no affect on the picture by using some sort of remote jamming of the signal in real-time.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The real blackout was the complete lack of coverage of the whole event.Think about it- there are exactly 5 network shots of the second hit- HUH!>!?!?- An airliner crashes into a skyscraper in NYC and there is exactly ONE news helicopter in the air filming as the second "plane" hits? BS- pure BS If you are here in the USA- watch your local evening news tommorrow- you will see swarms of choppers converge on every fender bender, house fire, and cat stuck in a tree. But we are supposed to believe that all the "News" choppers in NYC except ONE decided that an airliner smashing into the WTC was not worthy of getting their newschopper in the air? Oh- but lets see- they caught the second impact with four more cameras on the ground.....PUHLEEEEEZE! A dead crackwhore turning up in an alley gets more video taken than that. There should be DOZENS of very high quality videos of the events -instead we have a handful of complete crap blurr images passed off as "coverage" of the biggest news story EVER! The LACK of coverage is the most overlooked aspect of media complicity in 9/11. The fact that the video we were shown is FAKE is the reason- more angles= more chances for errors in the magic show to be noticed.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join