If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

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...




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

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?




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
No he didn't Val, he even attacked me in another post in which I talk about disinformation. He is convinced that I work for the government, it's a shame I don't because with his attitude all I would have to do is start endorsing all conspiracy theories and they would suddenly become null and void.

Listen son, I actually do have a background in radio communications and I am aware of what EMI can and can't do. What you're saying is all very well, but it does not take into account the close proximity of the sources to the electronics (detonators). Your example is thinking of the sources being blocks away, I'm talking about literally a matter of feet. Do you understand electronics? If not, pay attention and you might learn something.
In an electronic circuit there is potential for interference at various points if precautions are not taken, having a specific trigger frequency with even a digitally encrypted code means jack if the design allows stray EMI to cause the circuit to trigger at a later stage.

However, in doing some research, guess what I found? Looks like you're in luck sadly as I came up with this:





Electronic Detonator (ESK3)

The transmitter COMBIFIRE and both receiver types (RU2 and FAE) support the firing of bridgewire detonators and the ignition of electronic detonators ESK3 alternatively.
The electronic detonator ESK3 is the result of the newest development in the area of military electronic detonators.

The greatest advantage of this detonator type is its safety against any stray currents, radar radiation or other electromagnetic interference (EMI) and its safety against misuse. It cannot be fired simply by a battery or other electric sources.

This safety characteristic is achieved by the necessity of a special code in addition to energy.
www.dynitec.com...


Looks like as it was derived from military technology, then it would easily have existed 5 years ago.

Christ oh mighty, I tend to look at a lot of things from a skeptical viewpoint, but now I have to do the work for you as well? Come on, your slacking..



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

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...



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

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..



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Ah well, busted


Guess I'll need another job now.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
From Ron Vandebeek, laboratory manager of the Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory, in Nepean, Ont. Will someone who does this for a living, and manages an explosives lab be good enough for you, or are you so convinced of your superiority that even this won't be good enough?


A blast usually consists of one or more charges, each initiated by a detonator. In the case of electric detonators, the wires are connected using extension wires (the blasting circuit) so that the blaster -- the person setting off the blast -- is safely removed from the actual site.

The blasting circuit can behave like an antenna, much like the antenna for a radio, and can convert electromagnetic waves into electrical current. If sufficient energy is created, the detonator(s) can function. A number of factors need to be considered: the length and arrangement of the detonator and extension wires and their relative angle to the waves (efficiency as an antenna); the power of the transmitting device; the distance between the transmitting device and the blasting circuit; and the frequency that is used by the transmitting device.



The AM and FM radios in cars are receivers and do not constitute a hazard. Cellular phones pose a unique problem in that when they are turned on but not in use, they are interrogated several times per hour by a cell transmitter to determine whether they are within the range of the cell and if they are on. A cell phone that is turned on replies and this may pose a hazard. Accidents have been attributed to transmitters being too close to the blasting circuit.

www.cilasse.com...

If that ain't good enough for you, then it's your problem.

[edit on 1/29/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what?











there is waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much observable evidence that points towards controlled demo to dismiss it because people think it seems like it would be difficult for them to set it up.

no matter how much any of you claim you know about explosives and traditional controlled demo i can say with certainty that NONE of you know jack about high tech covert military explosives. even if you were in the military. and even if you do know about them you sure wouldn't be allowed to talk about them on a conspiracy site or anywhere for that matter.

we have the largest military/intelligence in the world with by far the largest budget many many times over and one of the things they really really concetrate on is blowing stuff up.

therefore your research is pointless because obviously you will find nothing in this regard.

and therefore any direct replies to the OP of this thread would HAVE to be nothing but pure speculation.

this much we can all be 100% certain as fact.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join