| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Basement explosions; A question about William Rodriguez story | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 15 2009, 11:06 AM (1,075 Views) | |
| noeffects | Sep 19 2009, 10:56 AM Post #51 |
|
irrelevant... changed your mind yet about "wires" ? |
 |
 
|
| Alfie | Sep 19 2009, 11:34 AM Post #52 |
|
noeffects You know I never had a problem with the possibility of explosives being set off by wireless transmission. But with that scenario you have to have a detonator controlled by a wireless receiver for each charge. How many of those, or even fragments thereof, were found at the WTC site ? What is irrelevant about me pointing out that real CD's are very noisy ? The truth movement seems to me to be all over the place as to what was used to demolish the WTC buidings. Thermite, thermate, nano one or the other, super one or the other. It now seems to have gone full circle with conventional explosives plus thermite/thermate whatever, so noise is relevant. |
|
|
|
| oquestionador | Sep 19 2009, 06:19 PM Post #53 |
|
No Booms = no explosive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFDGZvxVzXE Edited by oquestionador, Sep 19 2009, 06:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 19 2009, 07:56 PM Post #54 |
|
I'm not ignoring anything.
I've considered it, and in my opinion the reasons given aren't unbelievable.
Agreed. Especially if they're in a skyscraper that is either hit by a plane loaded with fuel, or they decide not to evacuate a building while fires burn virtually unopposed on several floors for up to seven hours, with a severely compromised sprinkler system, and little water available for the firefighting effort. I would definitely recommend evacuating the building: seven hours should be more than enough time. (Incidentally, the NIST reports did come up with many recommendations for changes and improvements to building codes in the light of their investigations.)
In your opinion, why are the reasons given not credible?
Not quite high speed, it was seven hours before the building collapsed. Once a chain reaction starts, it's difficult to stop, so I disagree that the speed of the collapse (after it had started) was amazing. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Oct 4 2009, 09:37 PM Post #55 |
|
Only problem with radio receivers in the towers. How did they they work, if even the FDNY's 900 mghz ragios had a hard time working above ~20th floor?? Too much aluminum around the towers, which blocked the signal. Most remote-detonators work on a frequency much lower than high-dollar communication radios. MUCH higher!! |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 6 2009, 11:47 AM Post #56 |
|
Frequency isn't the issue, Beantown. It's signal strenght, for one, for second, I wouldn't consider you a credible witness for the capabilities of radio detonation technology. Consider that a) IUD (improvised explosive devices) encountered by the military every day in Afghanistan and elsewhere use remote detonation, something as simple as a cell phone. b) nobody _ever_ said that conventional technology was used. c) you're not an expert on demolitons, remote detonation or otherwise. Third, FDNY had already lodged numerous complaints (and I believe a lawsuit) against mayor Giuliani about the issue of the FDNY radio system, esp. about how NYPD got new equipment (that was able to handle the rigors of an urban landscape with less degridation). Your argument is invalid, much like most of the rhetoric you pass off for evidence. Burden of proof is on you for that statement. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Oct 8 2009, 08:29 AM Post #57 |
|
So, if signal strength is the issue, what would the FDNY's problem be?? Oh, that is right, they COULDN'T GET A DAMN SIGNAL IN THE TOWERS!! It wasn't a matter of frequency, its that they DIDN'T FREAKING WORK!! The SIGNAL was TOO WEAK!! So, if high-dollar radios such that FDNY had WOULDN'T WORK, without the REPEATER turned on, how did some tiny little detonator, (Mind you, that was NEVER found, not even ONE) even work?? What powered it??? Oh, and yes, I do have some related experience. I was EOD for the military for quite some time. Ok, they used cell phones. How did the cell phones stay powered for so long?? Who put them there?? Why did nobody notice them being planted. Obviously you have no clue how the IEDs in Iraq work. |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 8 2009, 11:39 AM Post #58 |
|
Generic arguments don't phase me dude. Seriously, if you're going to argue against a commentary, you at least should go after the crux of it instead of picking off the low-hanging fruit. I didn't say that they must have used cell phones, or that the FDNY had awesome stuff and even their awesome stuff sucked when presented with the majesty of skyscrapers. In a nutshell, what my point was is that you cannot disregard the wireless detonation simply because most wireless det. equipment couldn't handle the scope of 110 stories. What I am saying is that we cannot assume that conventional methods are the only way to travel. There is any number of methods to accomplish said goal, basically all you need is something to signal a component to complete a circuit. For all we know, they had it wired into the networks or the phones, people can be creative, hence the IED's in the Middle East and Afghanistan. And with the "Who put them there? Why did nobody notice them being planted?" Argument, seriously dude. Don't you think if I knew that, I would tell you? We could have been done with this years ago, just point the finger at "Bob Smith" and call it a day. Yup. Bob Smith planted them explosives. His fault. All done. Seriously, shut up, you're embarrassing yourself. As far as IED's in Iraq, no, I don't particularly know all that much about them. I know from listening to the news that they've used cell phones to detonate them, but seeing as how I really don't want the FBI busting down my door claiming I know how to make bombs, I really don't know how to make bombs. BTW, does EOD class teach about controlled building demolitons? |
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Oct 8 2009, 01:03 PM Post #59 |
|
They did replace all the wiring in the Towers after the 1993 Bombing. So they could have used the abandoned system and/or added in anything they needed. |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Oct 8 2009, 01:59 PM Post #60 |
|
DoYouEverWonder At least the truth movement recognises that there is a problem with alleging that offices with security and thousands of employees have been rigged for cd without anyone noticing. But the suggested ways round it are sounding increasingly bizarre. I have even seen it suggested that the towers were built with explosives in situ. Your suggestion of 1993 is midway. This was the first year of Bill Clinton, so are you suggesting that the plot began with him and was progressed by Bush/Cheney ? If so, what was Bill Clinton's motivation ? A huge hurdle with trying to push the installation of explosives back into the past is their shelf-life. If you have a look at this article :- http://www.feem-europe.org/FrontOfficePublic/LoadPdfMenuArticles/FEEM_TB3.pdf You will see that there is nothing there, explosives, detonators or cords, with a shelf-life greater than 5 years. If you try to install explosives long before the event you obviously risk the explosives deteriorating and becoming unstable so that you have a premature explosion and there is the 24/7 risk that they will be discovered with any routine maintenance, new cabling, plumbing etc, not to mention the dogs. I cannot believe that explosives were installed in 1993 and left for 8 years. |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 8 2009, 09:07 PM Post #61 |
|
Preposterous, bro. I don't think that anyone in 1993 was planning for an event 8 years down the road when they replaced wiring and redid the networks, ect. Demo communications doesn't necessarily mean that someone put in an extra cat5 wire and said "for demolition use only". And the argument about the lack of access to install said demolitions is absurd as well. The vast _vast_ majority of the people that used the towers were regular 9-5 joes. Security doesn't necessarily mean that nobody has access. If someone is on the list, especially for "routine maintenance", you could feasibly get anywhere in a building, especially in maintenance areas and non-office spaces. Contractors, sub contractors, network crews, ect... they all could go anywhere they wanted. Let's not mention the numerous closed elevators and maintenance areas in the months leading up to 9/11. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Oct 8 2009, 09:37 PM Post #62 |
|
You sure make a lot out of a little. Where did I say anything about when and/or where explosives were placed in the Towers? If you understand how the buildings were put together, most of the work could have been accomplished weeks before the attack. But that's because there was no need to 'wire' the entire building. I only mentioned the re-wiring work, because so many Official Myth believers like to claim that you couldn't wire the whole building for explosives, when in fact they had re-wired the whole place just before the attacks. Plus, if you had ever been inside the WTC, you would know how easy it was to perform any work you needed to do and for the most part no one would even notice. 1. There was lot's of empty space that wasn't under lease. 2. The mechanical floors where low traffic areas and it wouldn't be unusual to see someone doing 'mechanical' work there. 3. People were working on the building all the time, so office workers would be use to people coming in to 'fix' things or to do remodeling. |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Oct 9 2009, 08:16 AM Post #63 |
|
I agree with you that many contractors and sub-contractors must have been going in and out in connection with maintenance, re-wiring, alterations whatever. But, does that not mean that any rigging for cd could have been spotted at any time ? |
|
|
|
| Duffman1013 | Oct 9 2009, 01:51 PM Post #64 |
|
It might have been. Myself not being intimately aquainted with demo equipment (conventional or non-conventional), it would be wrong of me to say that there was no way it could have been seen (the key isn't being seen necessarily, it's being identified as demo equipment. I don't know what would be used, nor how it could be hidden/disguised/camoflaged, but I'm not going to disregard it as a distinct possibility. I do remember watching an episode of Mythbusters where they blew up a cement truck with bags of an explosive (I'm not saying this is how it's done, just a possible idea). It wouldn't be that difficult to have said explosive powder in say, a quikcrete bag, or some other type of inconspicuous container. I don't know what could be used to bring down buildings the size of the towers, but its a reasonable assumption that such equipment could be disguised fairly easily (especially with the general confusion of materials and such in a renovation/construction site). |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
10:36 PM Dec 1
