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.
You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...
Originally posted by Conundrum04
Defcon, I would like to know why you purposely tried to mislead adjay into thinking that a building collapsed in S.C. due to truss failure.
Charlston Sofa Super Store
The Charleston Sofa Super Store fire occurred on June 18, 2007, in Charleston, South Carolina, United States, in which a flashover and structural collapse contributed to the deaths of nine Charleston firefighters.
Despite efforts to confine and extinguish the fire, it continued to spread into the structure and ignited furniture in the showroom, growing more quickly than the few operating hose lines could control before additional water could be applied to the fire, however efforts to stretch and begin operating additional hose lines continued[4][3]. At 7:41 p.m. the showroom area of the store experienced a flashover while at least sixteen firefighters were still working inside. The flashover contributed to the rapid deterioration of the structural integrity of the building, leading to a near-complete collapse of the roof just minutes later. Many of the firefighters caught in the flashover were unable to escape and were trapped under the collapsed roof and shelving weakened by the fast-spreading fire. Several calls for help were made by trapped firefighters and efforts to rescue them were commenced. These efforts proved unsuccessful. By the time the fire was brought under control, nine Charleston firefighters had lost their lives.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
defcon5, I'm pretty careful about what I post on these forums. I don't have a bad habit of breaking the rules. If I did I would hear about it from the moderators. This is just typical of your style of agument. You can sum it up in one phrase, "no foundation in fact".
Originally posted by ipsedixit
"no foundation in fact".
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.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
IF you want to comment on the associations, memberships, or any other PERSONAL LIFE/PERSONALITY aspect of anyone you must source the connection and then explain how and why that connection is valid and germane to your point.
Originally posted by defcon5
No sir, you are in fact the one who is wrong, let me explain.
The frequency controls how much electricity is generated in the wire, not that there is electricity generated in the wire. Something with a frequency of 1 will not induce as much current to flow in the wire as something with a frequency of 100K, but both will induce a current. The reason being due to the lines of flux that are cutting the wire, the more rapidly that it occurs the more current produced in the wire, but both induce a current.
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
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by adjay
Here's your misleading 10,000 Watts cell phone example, for clarity.
I never said that it had to be a cell phone which generated that much wattage, I just requoted your table. As truthers tend to do you only want to show the numbers that fit your story, instead of all the numbers. This could be a high wattage cell tower test unit, such as a friend of mine had in his car to test cell sites, and driving 560 feet away in the street it could induce a voltage. You’re the one who assumed it has to be hand held.
Originally posted by defcon5Originally 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 defcon5
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.
I believe that there is a phone called a brick phone which is a hand held phone that is made for use on boats, and operates at a higher wattage then a normal cell phone. How about satellite phones, what type of wattage do they output?
Originally posted by defcon5
Shielded cable is wire wrapped with layer of other wire, and as such is substantially thicker then normal wire and harder to bend.
Originally posted by defcon5
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
You also assume these things. Anyone trying to execute such a plan have to assume several of them as well. They would never attempt it because there are to many factors which could go wrong, and they would be caught red handed.
Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by defcon5
It's not an insult, I'm sorry if you took offense. My statement mentions the word "see", as all it takes is a look to see how buildings are demolished in a controlled way, some examples are here of earthquake destruction and controlled demolitions. It is my opinion, if you cannot see the blatant similarities, that you are in fact kidding yourself. I'm not calling you anything, and you have every right to your own opinion.
Danny Jawenko is a controlled demolitions expert, and he was unaware of a third building falling that day. He says "absolutely" that it is controlled demolition. He even consulted the building plans, after being told it was building 7 that came down on 9/11 next to and after WTC1 and WTC2, and concluded it could not possibly have been brought down by fire. And reaffirms it was controlled demolition, and confirms the "pull it" term is in fact a controlled demolition term.
I had typed out a longer post, but the internet swallowed it. (not a conspiracy!)
Originally posted by coughymachine
Originally posted by albie
There is witness testimony from firefighters who were in the building well up to before it fell.
What was the latest any firefighter was actually inside Building 7. How many were there at that time, and can you identify them and link to their testimony please?
Out of interest, do you know what time Larry Silverstein made the 'pull it' comment and to whom?
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden
Originally posted by albie
Jowenko also said that the twin towers was brought down by the planes alone. No bombs needed.
Do you trust him on that one?
If not, then he can make mistakes. Which calls into question him saying building 7 was demolished by bombs.
You can't have it both ways.
Hayden is also quoted as saying:
By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Originally posted by indierockalien
First of all, why would Giulliani choose an "unstable" building to house a reinforced emergency center?
Originally posted by indierockalien
And your own story conflicts itsself. Either the building collapsed from the "huge gash" and the fires... or it collapsed from truss failure. Which is it? It can't be both, because then
Originally posted by indierockalien
You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...
Originally posted by indierockalien
It's a hard thing to accept as truth...
I'm sorry, but it's true. We've been had, defcon. We've been raped and murdered bigtime by the hand that keeps us so "free".
It is time to accept this, for it is a fact that even the laymen are starting to grasp their minds around. For you to continue trumpeting out this... frantic propaghanda.... that you are posting here, it is an insult to YOUR intelligence.
Originally posted by indierockalien
You are grasping onto a false hope in the validity of your love for a country that can do no wrong to the extent of murdering its own citizens and staging a "war on terror" to get the American people behind a right wing capitalist assault, both on the economies and religious foundations of the MiddleEastern world...
Try using Google video and studying controlled demolitions. WTC7 fits the exact profile of an outstandingly perfect controlled demolition example. I'll bet some CD contractors WISH they could do that clean of a job. "Natural" failures due to excessive damage just happen to fail in a perfect CD fashion? Get real. Seriously. Like you said, defcon5, this IS a world of gravitational forces and physics.
Originally posted by adjay
I am not wrong.
The amount of induced emf is proportional to the rate of change of flux linkages (with the conductor (flux linkages = number of turns x flux)). Something with a frequency of 1Hz could easily induce more current than something with a frequency of 100KHz. The power of the device in question is a factor here, if you don't believe me on this check this paper again to consult the tables.
Originally posted by albie
Try using Google video and studying controlled demolitions. WTC7 fits the exact profile of an outstandingly perfect controlled demolition example. I'll bet some CD contractors WISH they could do that clean of a job. "Natural" failures due to excessive damage just happen to fail in a perfect CD fashion? Get real. Seriously. Like you said, defcon5, this IS a world of gravitational forces and physics.
What about the leaning and bulging that the firechiefs saw well before the building collapsed? How do you make that happen?
It seems to me you judge too much on the shallow side of witness statements "It LOOKS like". Means nothing.
Until you realise that fact you are basically saying nothing to us.
Originally posted by pc is here
Why did it fall? select one;
1. it got tired and wanted to nap
2. the wind blew it over
3. it committed suicide
4. someone exploded it
Originally posted by albie
Now, this debunks the whole idea that there was never any firefighters in building 7.
Conspiracists say that when Silverstein says this " I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”
He was talking about blowing the building. But he wasn't. He was talking about the rescue operation.
Consider the context of that sentence. He's talking about lives. How does blowing a building up save lives? No, but pulling rescue workers out of a building that was already showing signs of leaning over, then it makes sense.
...f the building was cleared by 2:00 p.m.; and if the Chief Officer then discussed ‘the FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires’ with his command officer; then the fire department commander could not have informed Silverstein ‘that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire.’ until after the building had been evacuated.
Originally posted by pc is here
Why did it fall? select one;
1. it got tired and wanted to nap
2. the wind blew it over
3. it committed suicide
4. someone exploded it