What Did He Really Say? - a survey, page 4


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 12:24 PM by Djarums
Couldn't tell you about Citizen Band radios. Last I checked they were more Unit to Unit type things used by truck drivers to keep from falling asleep. I wasn't aware of stationary repeaters being used for those.

If you meant the radios used for Emergency frequencies, yes, there were repeaters for the Emergency frequencies up there as well. And in numerous other places too. The problem with those radios was too many people talking at the same time, and the fact that it was a crappy outdated system.

Not sure what the sarcasm was all about there buddy... no one said they run through the same towers, (radio stations, broadcast television, public and private radio transmissions, cell phones, etc all had antennas on that roof) I was discussing the cell phones specifically. Being that I've responded to all of your issues with respect and taking you seriously, I will expect that you'll do the same and not invent things I didn't say.

Note: For those who need the clarification... FDNY's emergency radio transmissions are broadcast over a VHF (very high frequency) channel. Each area has its own channel for normal operations, manhattan, brooklyn, queens, Bronx/Staten Island share one, and there's some citywide channels as well. NYPD uses UHF (ultra high frequency) channels instead, with generally two or three precincts per channel and numerous specialty channels. These are in NO WAY related to Citizen Band radio. Throughout the city there are repeaters, generally atop large buildings that assist in increasing the range of transmission to include the whole city instead of 4 city blocks as it would be without them. When a repeater goes down, you lose range in that specific area.


[edit on 5-15-2005 by Djarums]


reply posted on 16-5-2005 @ 10:56 PM by HowardRoark
here is a pdf of the NIST report on WTC 7

The status of the sprinkler systems is the focus of a NIST investigation not all of the findings have been released. however it has been reported that the tower collapses damaged the water mains and power systems, both of which are necessary for a properly operating sprinkler system.


reply posted on 17-5-2005 @ 06:47 AM by TheShroudOfMemphis
Originally posted by Djarums
It seems like people are fighting over the term 'pull' which means 'leave a building' and also means 'demolish a building', depending on who your talking to.


You are the first person who seems to comprehend this point. However, you should also try to comprehend the fact that in FDNY terminology (which is indeed the frequency the transmission in question went over) the first definition is the proper one.

They simply do not use the term in your latter definition. Facts are facts.

The statement in question was by FDNY staff. They do NOT use the term to refer to demolition, they use it to refer to clearing the scene.


That's true and i'm the first person to admit that he's probably meaning this term towards the fire fighters on the video and not admitting he had the building brought down.

But, i still think they 'pulled' the building in the other scense just from other anomalties surrounding why and how that building came down. The video just happens to be referencing the same termonology used in bringing down a building

I seem to be the only person that thinks it's possible there would be deliberate implosion devices in the WTC towers for worst case scenario saftey measures, ie. not having the buildings topple over NY. I think they could always bring those buildings down but on the day, that ability was used wrongly. The towers fell in the wrong order and they fell to early. WTC 7 was wired to come down also as it was used on the day and probably in the leadup. If there's evidence in that building then it's easier to bring it down than try to secure it. It had less damage than other NON-Silverstein owned buildings that still stand today, it had no reason to come down to begin with and comparing it with similar buildings in a controlled demolition, it looks virtually identical.

I know thats only considered speculation but it's really only a small piece in a huge puzzle anyway. It doesn't have to hold 100% to void any other links spanning the last 30 years that have us where we are today.

I'm open for better reasons but there's no doubt this government was working hard on 9/11 to get their 'new perl habor event'.


reply posted on 17-5-2005 @ 05:56 PM by dh
Perhaps Philip Berg's RICO complaint will gain some results:
www.911forthetruth.com...
See contents of pdf

Or perhaps we might be helped by learned journals

mparent7777.blog-city.com...

"DID BUSH KNOW ABOUT 9/11 IN ADVANCE?
Get the current Special Issue of The Journal of Psychohistory on what Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, with explosive evidence from seven new books showing how the FAA was told to ignore all the appeals from air controllers to intercept the hijacked planes, how audio tapes and photos were destroyed that pointed to collusion by the Bush team, how Rumsfeld has said 9/11 was "a blessing in disguise", and much more. Just email your postal address to psychhst@tiac.net and you'll get a full year (4 issues) of the Journal at half price ($29), starting with this special 9/11 issue. "


[edit on 17-5-2005 by dh]

[edit on 17-5-2005 by dh]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags