Originally posted by Lumos
How is a detonator that requires transmission of a specific code to trigger, possibly on a non-civilian band, susceptible to random civilian EMR? It's not. It's laughable. Still.

Depending on the design of the detonator (and don't forget it would be at least 4-5 years old) it could still be susceptable to EMI like any electronic device unless adequate precautions are taken place.
If it caused problems in a later stage of the circuit to the main receiver and decoding section then it could still trigger the device.
The WTC will have been a buzz of EM activity in itself, it will have had cell phone stations, that TV mast, cellular phones and PMR radios being used by the residents, stray RF from Microwave ovens, microwave links, wireless networking, fluorescent lights, motors, etc
All with the potential of causing problems...

ValHall

Lumos
In case explosives were incorporated within the building from scratch, the detonators could've been installed in the weeks prior to 9/11, that's the most I was estimating.

So, since you won't come out and pick a timeframe for the placement of the demolition charges, am I to infer from your previous post that you are choosing a "few weeks" prior to 9/11?

...

Ingenious inferrance. Reading comprehension would've worked, too.

ValHall
And, yes, if they were rigged to electronic detonators they would be susceptible to accidental detonation.

How? I asked a specific question in that context already, didn't read that either? How would random EMR on civilian bands be able to input a specific code on non-civilian bands?

ValHall
I'm not pulling authority. I'm telling you I know more than you on this, apparently, because you're making some statements that aren't correct. And because of my experience I know they're not.

I'm not pulling authority. I'm just saying that I know better. Because I've been working with detonators for years. Never mind that I will not attempt to delve into specifics, which we might actually discuss. Just accept that I know better, kay?

Laughable^2

ValHall
And apparently you've made the decision to call names instead of doing research. So be it.

I thought if I called you "tool" you would ignore me. Well. Again I ask: Where is your research? I've just seen you invoke authority as of yet, repeatedly. So be it. Tool.

AgentSmith
Depending on the design of the detonator (and don't forget it would be at least 4-5 years old) it could still be susceptable to EMI like any electronic device unless adequate precautions are taken place.

Yes. Adequate precautions. Of course those could not possibly have been taken.

In an industrialized urban landscape, the atmosphere is abuzz with EMR, still integrated circuits, such as computers, EMR receivers such as TV and radio, etc. work fine. Only circuits to trigger detonators, they are critically endangered, I tell you. Put a piece of metal in the atmosphere and you can observe enormous voltages induced by the omnipresent EMR. In fact, it's conspicuous that people don't just harness this enormous energy instead of buying it off companies.

Hilarious how you collectively cling to this straw. But no, Agent, you're seeking the truth, no doubt. Why else would you constantly hang around here?

Originally posted by Lumos


I thought if I called you "tool" you would ignore me. Well. Again I ask: Where is your research? I've just seen you invoke authority as of yet, repeatedly. So be it. Tool.

Nah, I'm sticking with this to see if you actually ever do any research versus just making inaccurate statements - which I've now pointed out a number of times. Did you notice Agent Smith actually linked to some information that could support your theory?

For the third time: Where is your research? How come you failed twice to answer this:

Lumos
How would random EMR on civilian bands be able to input a specific code on non-civilian bands?

How were my statements inaccurate? "How" implies an actual argument, including facts, not just unsubstantiated reference to your alleged expertise, that'd be the "That" domain. Capiche?

Originally posted by Lumos
For the third time: Where is your research? How come you failed twice to answer this:

Lumos
How would random EMR on civilian bands be able to input a specific code on non-civilian bands?

How were my statements inaccurate? "How" implies an actual argument, including facts, not just unsubstantiated reference to your alleged expertise, that'd be the "That" domain. Capiche?

I just gave you your evidence and your still carrying on?
When I said all I would have to do is endorse conspiracy theories to make them null I thought I was joking.

When you've got your electronics and radio qualifications, we can have an adult conversation on the effects of EMI in electronic circuits OK?
But seeing as I found you your precious detonators which have all the characteristics required I don't really see it's an issue

But I'll repeat it again, in an electronic circuit you have seperate modules if you like which carry out different tasks, if the EMI triggers a later stage in the circuit then the codes and receiver frequencies become redundant.
Look at it like this, if you have an electronic lock with keypad entry and rip it apart, then trigger the locking circuit manually bypassing the keypad itself, then it is useless right? EMI affecting a later part of the circuit would do the same thing, right?

Obviously these detonators have adequate shielding in place to stop this.

Maybe if you spent less time fantisising that you've outsmarted a COINTELPRO CIA operative when really you up against a 26 year old with too much time on his hands who suffers from megalomania then you would find these things for yourself.

meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
n.
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Yep that's me alright...

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Smith, it's not your opinion that's authoritative for my opinion, I rely on science, logic and observables. Amusing that you think I'd just be your negative, megalomaniac.

You know, there was no need to dig up links to existing hardware, as my argument was based on science and logic. It's no surprise that these principles were applied in this detonator. In order to disprove the possibility of such a device, you would have simply had to dispute the grounds on which it was based, which you apparently couldn't.

You know, son, I have a background in physics, so I know what EMR can do, as well. Why didn't you use your grand knowledge to debate my then hypothetical detonator?

Originally posted by Lumos
Smith, it's not your opinion that's authoritative for my opinion, I rely on science, logic and observables. Amusing that you think I'd just be your negative, megalomaniac.

You know, there was no need to dig up links to existing hardware, as my argument was based on science and logic. It's no surprise that these principles were applied in this detonator. In order to disprove the possibility of such a device, you would have simply had to dispute the grounds on which it was based, which you apparently couldn't.

You know, son, I have a background in physics, so I know what EMR can do, as well. Why didn't you use your grand knowledge to debate my then hypothetical detonator?

Is there something the matter with you?

I POSTED YOUR BLOODY DETONATOR ABOVE - YOUR FRAKKING EVIDENCE!

Christ and people wonder why I have an attitude problem, I can't work in these conditions...

The ESK3 is a bridgewire detonator. The bridge is the component that gives added safety factor against unintentional detonation by stray energy sources. But it still requires an exclusion zone. The dynitec webpage does not give specifications for the ESK3 (i.e. exclusion zones) so what needs to be determined is if the ESK3 has tighter exclusion zones than

10 foot exclusion zone for such RF devices as cell phones, walkie talkies, etc.

50 foot exclusion zone for larger RF devices

160 foot exclusion zone for 1 Mhz, 1000 w transmitters

which are typical for bridgewire detonators.

Since the antagonist in this play refuses to do his own research, I'll email dynitec and ask them for the specifications to the ESK3. And I'll share what I get back.

Between the two people demanding you put some proof to your assertions, you just might get some where...without a stitch of effort on your own part.

Well, that was telling. Answering my posts before I even submit them. So, I was right on. Not surprisingly.

PS: The "third time" post was directed at Valhall, obviously.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Lumos]

Originally posted by Lumos
Well, that was telling. Answering my posts before I even submit them. So, I was right on. Not surprisingly.

That's not even possible!? Looking at the order they are posted and the time stamp shows that..

Well, no matter what the timestamp says. I said I was well informed on EMR and called you a megalomaniac only after you incorporated both into your uber-timely response, which showed up right above my post after I submitted it.



So can we now bury the arguement that detonators couldn't have been installed for at least two weeks before 9/11? Safely?

No actually you're not yet.

At this point we're still where we were only some one else took the liberty to look electronic detonators that are still susceptible to errant triggering sources.

10 ft, 50 ft and 160 ft are insufficient safe distances when you're talking about rigging electronic detonators in an office building.

Originally posted by Lumos
Well, no matter what the timestamp says. I said I was well informed on EMR and called you a megalomaniac only after you incorporated both into your uber-timely response, which showed up right above my post after I submitted it.

Yeah right..
I've got a camera watching you right now *yawn*

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

LUMOS
Obviously you are here to orchestrate CONFUSION, DISTRACTION, and HYPNOTISM to the weak here on ATS.
End of story.

VALHALL & AGENTSMITH
Your logic and rationale have easily revealed "LUMOS" for what he/she/them is.
No need to continue to waste time with these tactics.
(the name 'lumos' --> )

[edit on 1/29/2006 by theBLESSINGofVISION]

[edit on 1/29/2006 by theBLESSINGofVISION]

Ah well, busted

Guess I'll need another job now.

No worries, I'm still going to post the response on the ESK3 specs when I get it. I emailed the company right after I posted saying I would.