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.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
And that would be left up to the owner, wouldn't it defcon5, in cloud cuckoo land?
Originally posted by ipsedixit
some of the people regurgitating the same old Bush droppings in these threads are actually students getting paid by the line to perpetuate certain absurd lines of thinking. Just a thought.
Originally posted by Jeff Riff
"If the 'truss theory' were true then the force of the plane's impact would have knocked the inner core backwards, this would have crushed numerous trusses on the opposite side of the building and sheared off a massive number of truss connecting bolts.
Originally posted by adjay
I would expect you to find it very difficult, considering he is a professional demolitions expert and you are not.
Originally posted by adjay
Blasting site safety signs are no proof that using a mobile phone can set off a charge. Radio frequencies used by mobile phones are very high, between 380 and 1990 MHz. I believe the minimum safe distance for a ~1W mobile phone and blasting circuitry is ~3M
Originally posted by defcon5
It has nothing to do with the frequency that the phones use, which is why I posted links to what I was referring to. It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone inducing a current in the wiring to the system. If you are not familiar with Electromagnetic inductance, then I suggest reading my link above, or doing a web search on the subject. Again it is posted at work sites using demolitions that you cannot use your cell phone within a certain radius of the work site, and the fact that cell phones are not IS is the reason why.
If there is a choice, use the higher frequency bands (450-470 MHz) for mobile transmitters. RF pickup is less efficient at these frequencies than at the lower frequencies.
Guide to radio frequency hazards
there have been authenticated cases in which detonators were prematurely initiated by RF transmission to the detonator wires. Subsequent investigations revealed that the instances would not have occurred if proper safe distances from the RF sources had been maintained.
If the electric detonator wires are located in a strong RF field (near a transmitter that is radiating RF power), the usually insulated but unshielded leg wires or circuit wires will act as an antenna similar to that on a radio or TV set. This antenna will absorb RF energy from the transmitter RF field and the electric current transmitted to the detonator wires will flow into the detonator. (See
figure 1.) Depending on the strength of the RF field and the antenna configuration formed by the detonator wires and its orientation, sufficient RF energy may be induced in the wires to fire the electric detonator.
Mobile radios and cellular telephones that transmit RF energy must be rated as a high potential hazard because, although their power is low, they can be brought directly into a blasting area. (See figure 4.) Transmitting pagers also need to be considered.
Keep mobile transmitters away from blasting areas. If transmitters are allowed on or near the
blasting area, a strict policy must be set to ensure that the transmitters are always turned off. This
precaution should be followed no matter what frequency or energy (watts) the transmitter employs.
CB radios and cellular telephones should not be operated by anyone on the property during blast hole loading operations.
450-470 Mhz Public Use cellular, Automobile telephones above 800Mhz:
Watts - feet
5-10
10-20
50-40
100-60
180-80
250-90
500-120
600-140
1000-180
10,000-560
Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
1 Do you believe the downing of building 7 was planned by the alleged "terrorists"?
Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow[/
2 Do you believe anyone gained from the collapes of building 7 or any of those companies listed in building 7?
Originally posted by defcon5
Did you not read my post above about how the SC fire department lost 10 members due to a fire in a truss structure similar to WTC7, which collapsed in 30 minutes?
Charlston, SC firefighters battled their commercial fire in a light-weight truss constructed commercial structure that failed in just 30 minutes!
if building 7 fell due to fire and damage then why didnt the Marriott Hotel do the same?
Originally posted by defcon5
I have schooling in Computer engineering, which required basic electronics, solid state devices and so on, so don’t give me this stuff that I don’t know what I am talking about.
Originally posted by defcon5It has nothing to do with the frequency that the phones use, which is why I posted links to what I was referring to. It has to do with the RF Signal of the cell phone
Originally posted by defcon5So if the wattage is high enough on the device the distance can go all the way up to 560 feet.
Originally posted by defcon5In addition, phones vary in wattage according to their make, model, age, and use. A phone that someone owns to use on a boat, which requires a strong signal to reach a tower, will have a much higher wattage then a normal phone will, by way of example. You cannot just decide that someone will not have a stronger phone, especially when they are working in a tower that might require a stronger signal to break through the steel building structure to get a signal.
Currently most cell phones are only 250 milliwatt of power ( 1/4 watt). In the old days ( a few years ago) the Bag Phone was king and they used to put out 3000 milliwatts or 3 watts of power.
Originally posted by defcon5Also, you should know that when you shield cable it makes it much less pliable, much thicker, and much harder to install in a hidden fashion.
Benvenuto made the point that the electronics on the aircraft were very well-shielded
Originally posted by defcon5
As to the topic, and the reason why they might have checked with him; it could simply be a matter of making a decision that since life was not at risk, was it worth bottling up the fire fighters to continue to fight a fire in which the damage was so great that cost of repair would be greater then the cost of letting it fail, and building a new building.
[edit on 12/13/2007 by defcon5]
Originally posted by adjay
RF = Radio Frequency, your own statement disproves yourself here, despite acting like I need to educate myself!
Originally posted by adjay
Here's your misleading 10,000 Watts cell phone example, for clarity.
Originally posted by adjay
I really can decide that nobody would be walking around WTC7 in a boat! Please provide links of common cell phones with more than 10W transmitting power.
Originally posted by adjay
you can achieve up to 80% reduction in RFI if so required.
Originally posted by adjay
Baseless, and wrong. They are less pliable than normal cable, not much thicker, and make no difference to difficulty of installation, hidden or not.
Originally posted by adjay
· You do not know what circuit was used, or how much current would trigger
· You do not know if the circuit was shielded
· You do not know where the circuit was, or how close anyone could get to it
· Considering the above, you have no idea how close the cell could trigger it
· You have no proof that it even can trigger it
· You have no idea how powerful any cell phone was that day
· You assume the charges were placed way in advance
· You also assume an electrical and wired trigger circuit
Originally posted by ipsedixit
defcon5, let me repeat, this is not the sort of thing that is going to be mulled over by a building owner and a fire chief. There are numerous other interests involved, not the least of which are the interests of the NYPD.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
One of the reasons you are not getting a lot of respect on this thread is that you don't seem to have a lot of understanding of things that you are presuming to teach us all about.
Originally posted by defcon5
You have a bad habit of breaking the rules on here about not attacking people; I don’t understand why you continue to get away with it. In truth the truth movement has been caught in more blatant lies then any other group on the 911 subject.
[edit on 12/14/2007 by defcon5]