9/11 Documentary

[mash man]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

its a good thing you know everything about everything

[TechnoWeenie]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

its a good thing you know everything about everything

It's not like I have multiple FCC licenses, and know WTF I'm talking about..... right?

[the drillbit]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

Hmmmm ya, except rc devices are used all the time ... can unshielded/unencrypted receivers be set of by stray rf signals? Sure I will agree with that , however to say they are NOT used is far from the truth.

[mash man]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

its a good thing you know everything about everything

It's not like I have multiple FCC licenses, and know WTF I'm talking about..... right?

true.... FCC licenses = explosives expert

[TechnoWeenie]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

Hmmmm ya, except rc devices are used all the time ... can unshielded/unencrypted receivers be set of by stray rf signals? Sure I will agree with that , however to say they are NOT used is far from the truth.

They're not commonly used...

Better?

:-p

Liability when handling explosives is not something most companies wanna just take a stab in the dark with. If there's .0001% chance of a premature detonation, they don't wanna take it. The cost of a lawsuit (not to mention human life) from just one accident, could bankrupt the company, even WITH insurance.

[TechnoWeenie]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

its a good thing you know everything about everything

It's not like I have multiple FCC licenses, and know WTF I'm talking about..... right?

true.... FCC licenses = explosives expert

Expert? No.

[the drillbit]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

Hmmmm ya, except rc devices are used all the time ... can unshielded/unencrypted receivers be set of by stray rf signals? Sure I will agree with that , however to say they are NOT used is far from the truth.

They're not commonly used...

Better?

:-p

Liability when handling explosives is not something most companies wanna just take a stab in the dark with. If there's .0001% chance of a premature detonation, they don't wanna take it. The cost of a lawsuit (not to mention human life) from just one accident, could bankrupt the company, even WITH insurance.

Nope.... it's pretty common actually

[RENCORP]

From an ex holder of both fused and electrical blasting tickets - RF can and does pose a threat to any garden variety blasting operation. This is why signs are posted to turn off radios a substantial distance from any active blasting operation.

Just blasting caps and wire tied together for a shot create a giant fricking antenna. So - if charges are set, and a real antenna is rigged to a firing switch hooked up to the correct voltage electrical source wired to a big shot involving hundreds of time delayed blasting caps wired in parallel series, or, if each series had it's own switch, or if each individual cap had an RF switch tied to a lithium ion battery, you will get a guaranteed kaboom.

That is a fact. hell, if the Taliban can do a remote detonation with RF toy car guts and controllers tied to a nine volt battery, how hard do you think it is for a team of experts to quickly wire up a building for controlled demolition ? Well, shucks, it is done all of the time across the country legitimately. Take a look at controlled demolition done to remove buildings legally. Now, take a look at WT 7 going down - no plane, no fire, no fuck all.

Golly, how similar the process is.

[APA]

[TechnoWeenie]

If someone does know about demolition than I would love to hear why wires are needed to detonate explosives and why they can't be detonated via remote control.

You can. They're NOT used because of safety reasons. Stray RF could potentially trigger an explosion. HOWEVER, there are ways around it. like using an encrypted or coded signal to operate the switch. Even with RF present, it wouldn't set off the explosive without receiving that code.

It's quite simple, actually. Just not used, because of the aforementioned safety concerns.

Wires work, they're safer, and cheaper.

I've installed non-coded wireless receivers to control different things, and it's not uncommon for the devices to seemingly operate by themselves, as RFI has switched the devices on. Coded wireless receivers and corresponding transmitters solve that issue.

Hmmmm ya, except rc devices are used all the time ... can unshielded/unencrypted receivers be set of by stray rf signals? Sure I will agree with that , however to say they are NOT used is far from the truth.

They're not commonly used...

Better?

:-p

Liability when handling explosives is not something most companies wanna just take a stab in the dark with. If there's .0001% chance of a premature detonation, they don't wanna take it. The cost of a lawsuit (not to mention human life) from just one accident, could bankrupt the company, even WITH insurance.

Nope.... it's pretty common actually

In the civilian world?

That's news to me.. It's been a while, so I could definitely be wrong...

[RENCORP]

Hey, that is not a jet plane strike fire, or a jet fuel caused fire - so how did that little pussy fire take the whole building down, starting at the ground floor, not the 7th, 9th, or 12th floor ?

Not to mention - what started those fires ?

[the drillbit]

not as common in explosive quarry work, however... civilian uxo work, LE bomb squad work, most commonly is fireworks displays, however keep in mind RCIED's (as well as any other trigger for that matter) is not just limited to the middle east...

[H2obouget]

So clearly the lesson that we should take away from this is that the multi building collapse at the World Trace Center resulted because the Architect, who was a freaking idiot and built buildings that could not hold up to a structural fire (build 7), much less being hit by airplanes (1 &2), built building that just simply fell apart under the flames. But he was smart enough to build the buildings so that, when they failed...they would fall straight down giving way to their own weight in such a way as to appear to free fall.

Once is an accident
Twice is coincidence
Three times.. it's intentional.

[kf7mjf]

So clearly the lesson that we should take away from this is that the multi building collapse at the World Trace Center resulted because the Architect, who was a freaking idiot and built buildings that could not hold up to a structural fire (build 7), much less being hit by airplanes (1 &2), built building that just simply fell apart under the flames. But he was smart enough to build the buildings so that, when they failed...they would fall straight down giving way to their own weight in such a way as to appear to free fall.

Once is an accident
Twice is coincidence
Three times.. it's intentional.

Shit, there are ships that can't use the Panama canal too. I bet the Bushilluminatinfoilgroup is responsible for that too.

[kf7mjf]

Hey, that is not a jet plane strike fire, or a jet fuel caused fire - so how did that little pussy fire take the whole building down, starting at the ground floor, not the 7th, 9th, or 12th floor ?

Not to mention - what started those fires ?

Flaming debris? Crazy guess.