Implosion World: Were demolition comes alive

[vincent_vega_lives]

Otherwise known as government shills :eyes:

http://www.implosionworld.com

Read Implosionworld's paper on the World Trade Center Collapse's... http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[vincent_vega_lives]

1. 8 August 2006

Industry guy addresses MANY of the issues talked about here. Obviously posed to the site by the "Inside Jobers" as the language looks familiar.

Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc., Rancocas, NJ.

www.protecservices.com

If this isn't the definitive source of answers to your CD questions, nothing is.

[mirandapriestly]

2. This has "been done"

I think the conclusion was that he is a government contractor in some capacity and therefore is not an unbiased source. I remember looking him up and finding that he has government contracts.

old post featuring the verbally abusive OCT hero "Jazz" (which still shows up as "Ignored" on my screen, lol- I bet she/he had a laugh at how long she was able to last here before getting banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=106251&mesg_id=106251

[Bolo Boffin]

4. You need to stop relying on the Internet

Government contractors created it and maintain it.

Among all the "authority" fallacies out there, this surely takes the prize. Is there any institution in America that you couldn't trace back to the government somehow or another? I hope you don't ever go to the library, because, you know, government. I hope you don't go to the grocery store, because you know, they usually collect sales tax, and get health inspections, and have to comply with labor laws...

You don't have to listen to anything Protec says because they're a government contractor...LOL! Don't let your beautiful mind get polluted with anything a government contractor says...

[mirandapriestly]

5. "government contractor" means he is paid by them

that is a direct conflict of interest and very relevant. your point, re: the internet is a bad analogy.
People have been fired/threatened for coming out about 9-11. it is very relevant to this case and my point is rock solid.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. What do you think "conflict of interest" means?

It certainly doesn't mean "dismiss out of hand" like you're doing.

It means the person bears closer scrutiny - conflict of interest will naturally come up in every human affair. It doesn't mean there's a plot, necessarily.

So what, besides this appearance of a "conflict of interest", do you have against the Protec summary? What specific point they mention can you demonstrate to be a lie told in the interest of propping up the government's story? You will go a long way towards demonstrating a conflict of interest IF AND ONLY IF you can show that the people are lying. Then you have a "crime" and the motive to go with it.

But if nothing that Protec says is a lie, then the "conflict of interest" is shown to be a false concern.

So get cracking! Get that beautiful mind of yours in action, and SHOW ME THE LIES. Then I'll follow the money with you.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Who exactly is THEM?

It sounds just a little paranoid to claim that the ENTIRE Guvmint is in on the grand conspiracy. How bout the post office, FDA, Park Service?

[mirandapriestly]

69. Look at the list to see who "them" is, it's right there

Oh, yes, we're "paranoid" that's another of your gems.

[MervinFerd]

10. Rock solid and very sharp.

Can't you see that you are refusing to even read any source or authority that does not advocate your conspiratorial world view?

No. Silly question.

[mirandapriestly]

3. Look at the list of "clients"

http://www.protecservices.com/clientele.htm

They include federal and state government agencies as well as defense contractors, what do you suppose would happen if he were to say 9-11 was a demolition? please!
It's also interesting to note that his list of clients is about 5 times bigger than the last time this came up (repayment for services rendered? I don't think NASA was on there before...)

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. But did you read it (n/t)

[LARED]

8. You may have a point

The list of clients is pretty long. I would not risk my business publicizing nonsense. I know if I was hiring an engineering firm that posted 9/11 crappola similar to "work" found in the internet advocating CD, I would seriously question the capabilities of the organization to provide solid technical work.


One the other hand if I was looking for an organiztion using faith based science, well ...........

[MervinFerd]

11. But, did you read the report?

No. Didn't think so.

So, how do you know you can dismiss it?

[MervinFerd]

12. A strange absence of comment to this one. nt

[mirandapriestly]

13. The author has a conflict of interest, end of story,

There is nothing to comment on beyond that.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery have a conflict of interest.

Any person making money off of their particular 9/11 CT has a conflict of interest. It is in their interest to prop up their story in any way.

So who can you trust, miranda? Who can you trust?

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Not the 9/11 commission, that's for sure. Have you read that tripe?

[LARED]

16. The 9/11 commission did not address the collapse

This paper does.

Don't you have anything to say about the paper? It pokes major holes in CT theories.

[mirandapriestly]

27. analogies are not your strong point

[MervinFerd]

21. Have you read the paper?

The most basic intellectual curiosity would require that.

If there is bias, you can reveal it to us.

[HamdenRice]

17. Don't you even know how to spell "where"???

stunning. just stunning.

[LARED]

18. Must be a cognitive deficit. Or

maybe a simple error.

Edit: correct simple error

[Make7]

19. Actually, he does.

He used the word "where" just the other day.

vincent_vega_lives wrote:

Not the top of the tower...the point of collapse...where the debris originates from.

I guess the "were" in the subject line of the opening post could have just been a typo. However, the following example would be very difficult to explain as simply being a typo:

HamdenRice wrote:

You must not know very much about marshall law. I guess I may be one of the few DUers has actually lived in country under a kind of marshall law. It's not what most Americans imagine.

   -snip-

If you are expecting marshall law to be like Pinochet's Chile as depicted in Missing -- that's just the movies or maybe the truth about an extreme regime. But basically we are living under marshall law. Most of us just don't know it or won't face it.

Don't you even know that the word is spelled "martial"???

stunning. just stunning.

- Make7

[SidDithers]

20. Stunning is right...nt

Sid

[HamdenRice]

22. Doesn't even know the difference between spelling and diction

stunning. just stunning.

[LARED]

23. Thanks for clearing that up

LOL :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Make7]

24. HamdenRice: "sorry for the mispelling in the earlier post"

 

HamdenRice wrote:

More specifically, we already legally meet the definition of martial law (sorry for the mispelling in the earlier post). There are various kinds of unfreedom in political systems: martial law, states of emergency, military dictatorship. Martial law simply means that military law supplants or displaces civil law courts.

That was from your next reply in the thread with your "marshall law" post.

Doesn't even know the difference between spelling and diction

stunning. just stunning.

- Make7

[HamdenRice]

25. doesn't even understand the difference between

a serious post and sarcasm -- unless I guess sarcasm smilies are on. stunning, just stunning.

[Make7]

50. Are you saying that you knew 'vincent_vega_lives' could spell "where"?

And you responded to ask him if he could anyway?

Nevertheless, I feel that it is of the utmost importance to reply to a post simply to point out someone else's minor spelling, grammar, punctuation, and/or diction error(s) - even when the intended meaning was perfectly clear.

I had thought you would at least agree with that much.

- Make7
Oh, by the way, I'm being sarcastic.

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. Yes I typed it quickly

Cant edit subject lines.

Too bad thats teh only thing you incredible intelect cud grasp to critisize.

Sad.

[freedom fighter jh]

26. Most of the essential points in this piece can be debunked.

1. The towers' collapse did not look *exactly* like conventional controlled demolition, in that they started too high up in the buildings.

Maybe not, but so what?

Conventional demolitions work from the bottom up, yes, to get the bottom of the structure out of the way so that the top can fall straight down. And because that's the way it's always been done and there is no need to change.

No need to change, that is, unless you are trying to make the controlled demolition look like it started at a higher floor. Nowadays we have computers. Could not computers time the charges to explode just right so that they could start near the top but still knock the bottom out of the way on time? Then there would be no need for the demolition to start from the bottom.

2. The towers did not fall so straight down as they appeared to do.

Their destruction did not look exactly like a controlled demolition. How does this show that it was not in fact caused by explosives?

3. What looked like plumes and squibs was really just air being forced out.

I don't know much about this. Does anyone have anything to offer?

Whatever you make of most of these points, the hypothesis that something other than airplanes caused the towers to collapse is about as strong as its *weakest* supporting argument. I do believe that some of what looks suspicious to those who do not believe the OCT may in fact be consistent with the OCT. But there is so much circumstantial evidence that discounting some of it can still leave a compelling argument.

4. When witnesses thought they heard explosions, they may really have been hearing general crashing noises.

Maybe. In my experience, the explosion testimony is usually brought in to counter the OCT assertion that if there had been explosions, there would have been witnesses. Here are your witnesses. But they were just confused, and what they heard was not really explosions? That makes sense if you start from the assumption that there were no explosions. But really, who is to say? Since there are witnesses who believe they heard explosions -- and they are, as far as I know, unrefuted by any reasoning except that they couldn't have been explosions because there were no explosions -- it is not fair to say that if there had been explosions there would have been witnesses.

This passage is interesting: "The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were senstive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibtration events." Does what they say about a detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns not apply as well to an *impact* powerful enough to defeat steel columns? Something, obviously, defeated those steel columns. Why is it that a detonation would have transferred energy that would have been detected, but whatever it is that they believe in fact destroyed the columns was not?

5. thermite/thermate: I have no answer (Anyone? Do you?) because I don't know enough.

6. The steel was not immediately shipped overseas.

So what. It was not treated as evidence. The FEMA study was done by volunteers trying to scout out pieces at Fresh Kills landfill. By the time they got to it, most of it was in fact one.

The paper itself says, "According to al parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project . . .." The same treatment as demolition debris for evidence of the crime of the century? Why am I trying to refute a paper that is doing such a good job of undermining its point?

7. WTC 7 was not demolished.

There is no other possible explnation for the way WTC 7 fell. If it were damaged by tower fallout, perhaps it would collapse -- but not with all columns failing at once and everything falling symetrically.

This paper does not address some of the main reasons to suspect controlled demolition: the speed at which the towers and WTC 7 fell (to my knowledge the only known instances of buidlings falling at nearly free-fall speed without help from explosives) and the lack of a full explanation for how the core columns failed. Perhaps those things are outside of the scope of the paper. But they still stand.

That "Chuck Jones" comment got me. It shows that these guys are treating the controlled demolition theory with the serious appropriate to a Road Runner cartoon.

[mirandapriestly]

28. the air being forced out is always a good one

Like how many 1000's of square feet of compressed air forced out, but it only comes out of one tiny window? LOL if it was air being forced out, then it would be uniform across the whole floor AND it occurs many floors from where the current "floor collapse" main many instances. The coincidence theorists know this is bullshit, they just want us to waste out time going over the same phony "debunking" again and again. Controlled demolitions can be initiated from the top OR bottom, that is one of the first things I learned. This guy is either stupid or intentionally being dishonest.

[petgoat]

29. Right. When I first saw the photos of the squibs I assumed they

were photoshopped hoaxes. Then I told myself it was air forced
down the elevator shafts and out corridors to one or two windows.

And then I had to admit there was no explanation but explosives.

The dust is a big one too. Collapsing floors will eject air, but they
won't eject dust, because the concrete isn't pulverized until the ceiling
hits the floor--and by then, all the air in that floor has been expelled.

Put a soda cracker in your hand and clap the other hand down on it. Does
cracker dust poof all over the room?

[LARED]

33. Mr/Ms Petgoat

Collapsing floors will eject air, but they won't eject dust, because the concrete isn't pulverized until the ceiling
hits the floor--and by then, all the air in that floor has been expelled

You know better yet you consistently ignore the wall board, drop ceilings, and insulation as sources of dust. We know these are major element of the dust via sampling.

Why?

[petgoat]

40. wall board, drop ceilings, and insulation

Those are sources of dust as picture frames, telephones, photocopy machines,
and bookshelves are sources of dust.

They are not pulverized until the upper floor hits the bottom floor, and by
then there's no more mechanism to expel the dust.

Look: your left hand is the bottom floor, your right hand is the upper floor.
Put a soda cracker in your left hand to represent the concrete ballast on the
floor. It also represents the drop ceilings, drywall, andinsulation. Clap
your right hand down on the left. Does soda cracker spray out all over the room?

[LARED]

41. Your perception of the collapse indicates

you believe the floor remained largly intact as the fell onto the next floor?

[petgoat]

42. You believe it didn't? The video evidence is that it went

floor by floor by floor. If it didn't, you'd think that the collapse would very
soon become asymmetrical, generating toppling forces.

FEMA says they were 22 ga. steel floor pans with 4" of lightweight concrete on them.
I don't think the concrete was reinforced or was structural. It was just ballast so
the floors wouldn't be springy.

[LARED]

43. You did not answer the question

Of course it collapsed floor by floor. But did the floor remain intact until they hit the next floor? You seem to think so.

[petgoat]

48. "did the floor remain intact until they hit the next floor?"

There's no reason to think it didn't.

Partial collapses, because they are less likely to break
through the lower floor, would tend to peter out so that floors
collapsed all at once.

[LARED]

64. Your kidding, right?

I really don't know how to respond. You can't possibly believe that. Can you?

[petgoat]

70. You're kidding, right?

You can't possibly believe I can't believe that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. The floors were held together by the carpeting

doncha know? :silly:

[DoYouEverWonder]

99. Actually, the floors were made of steel pans

with 4" of concrete aggregate poured in.

[vincent_vega_lives]

100. I know

You forgot to mention that they were 5" thick in the core area. What's your point?

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. It is the location of the squibs that is significant

They were not random but very symmetrical and in specific locations, that coincide with the points in the buildings that would have to be knocked out, in order to bring the building down in a controlled manner.

The squibs go across the mechanical floors and single puffs come from the middle of individual floors. Large sections of the building were split in half.

How the buildings fell also minimized damage to the streets and surrounding buildings, since most of the debris from both buildings fell east into the big open plaza. Gee how convenient.

Also, the debris pile from the towers is surprise ly shallow. In the footprint of each tower is most of the steel. The aluminum with big sections of the east perimeter walls, mostly fell into the plaza. The steel being heavier didn't go very far. Most of what fell on the surrounding buildings, was the heavier dust and aluminum cladding. The rest of the building, people and contents turned to dust and blew away.

[LARED]

32. Ever hear of ventilation systems in buildings

You know where all the nice cooled or warmed air get pumped around to maintain comfort.

How about the possibility that people are intentionally ignorant?

[petgoat]

39. "ventilation systems in buildings"

Right. They always terminate in big ducts right next to isolated windows.

And they always have "piston rooms" where collapsing floors can pump air right
into the ducts. :sarcasm:

[LARED]

44. Seriously do you have any clue

how a building is constructed? How all the mechanical and electrical systems are installed or function?

[petgoat]

45. Seriously I do. nt

[LARED]

46. If you do, you do not seem able to understand how

the lower "squibs" could simply be dust exiting a HVAC duct or chase.

[petgoat]

47. That's right, I don't. There is no mechanism for compressing the

air in the ducts and delivering it to isolated plenum boxes far below the region
of the observed collapse.

[LARED]

53. Are you familiar with the concept of path od least resistance

for fluid dynamics?

[wildbilln864]

59. found it

my mistake, sorry!

[petgoat]

63. Spare us the dimestore socratism. nt

[LARED]

83. Translation

You still don't get it.

[AZCat]

84. That's not necessary.

The air doesn't have to travel all the way to the outside. Instead, a pressure wave travels through the ducts much faster than the air would be pushed. "Isolated plenum boxes" or not, the pressure wave is going to reach them.

[Kingshakabobo]

65. Can you explain YOUR theory of how the dust billowed out the windows?

I mean, I understand you think there were squibs. ...but were THEY placed directly in front of the windows? Where were they placed that so much dust blew out the windows? A shape-charge on a steel support causes all that dust? What caused the dust?

[wildbilln864]

66. maybe it was ...

the shattered concrete and drywall, etc when alledged charges went off?
:shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

67. I'm trying to picture a scenario, in which.....

.....said dust gets blown directly out a window in a "shaped-charge" situation.

I mean, wouldn't the charges be placed in one of two places?

Either the exterior support columns? In that case, we would see the actual explosions and NOT smoke billowing out windows.....


Or.....interior vertical support structure? In that case, we would see, maybe, some busted windows but NOT a large volume of smoke PUSHED out windows.

[petgoat]

30. Welcome to DU, jh!

:hi:

[freedom fighter jh]

60. Thanks, petgoat

I've been following your posts for a while. I love reading them. Yours and DYEW's.

[mirandapriestly]

31. The towers were bottom to top, but three times; top down, as I recall

IOW, they were divided into three sections, then demolished bottom to top (ie: conventional) on each section, starting with the top section. There used to be a web site that slowed down the demolition and showed this. You could see where the detonations started near the bottom of the top third of the building ( near the "impact"/initial explosions, then up to the top. This happens in 3 sections which gave the appearance of a progressive collapse, PLUS it had the advantage of being able to appear to start at around the area that was supposedly where the original injury occurred. I'll try to find the web site tomorrow, it's probably in the archives.

[freedom fighter jh]

61. Would love to see that, Miranda, tx n/t

[mirandapriestly]

71. I'm looking, but in the meantime you can kind of see here

how it works on the top. The detonation flash is near the bottom of the top third and explosions start below then it comes down on top of that. You can also see how the "jets" precede the collapse a good ways.
I'll keep looking for that, I had forgotten all about it.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

[mirandapriestly]

72. Another. you can see it's not really "top to bottom"

This is just the top third, but you can see that the explosions/detonations/flashes (note the initiating flash in the corner) all happen near the bottom of the top third then it falls into that.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/newsouth/WTC-2%20from%20south_a.mpg

[freedom fighter jh]

85. Yes, that tower failed at the point of impact, around the 85th floor

Once it broke away and started falling, there were no more huge internal forces on it, so you have to wonder why nothing was left of it in the end but steel pieces and dust.

[vincent_vega_lives]

88. No more huge internal forces

:wtf: are you talking about?

[freedom fighter jh]

89. The explanation for what happened further down

is that the upper floors exerted so much weight.

I see that I made an error, and that those huge forces were never really acting in the top part, even before it broke away. But still: If it was the impact of the upper floors on the lower floors that caused the lower floors to fail, to the point of shattering steel columns and pulverizing concrete, then what was it that shattered steel and pulverized concrete in the top section, which did not have higher floors crashing into it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. Ok lets talk forces

First, prior to the collapse there is the potential energy stored in the building which is the mass of the building * the acceleration of the force of gravity (determined by the height).

This is held in 'friction' so to speak by the structural integrity of building.

When the structural integrity at the point of aircraft impact damage and fire failed, it converted all of the potential energy of the building above that point into kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is dumped into the floors below in the form of momentum. This energy dump works in equal and opposite directions. So as the top part collapses the lower floors, it grinds itself down from the point of impact up.

[freedom fighter jh]

92. OK, let's talk physics

First, the potential energy stored in any part of the building is the mass of the building times the acceleration of gravity TIMES the height of that part of the building.

When the structure at the failed at the point of aircraft impact, the potential energy above the point of impact began to be gradually converted to kinetic energy. It could not all be converted until it reached the ground. After it has fallen one floor, its kinetic energy is equal to its mass times the acceleration of gravity times the height of one floor, about 10 feet.

The impact forces are equal and opposite, but I don't know what you mean by "energy dump." Your assertion (if I read our correctly) that the top part grinds itself down by impacting on the lower floors is implausible. If all that potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy, what is the source of this grinding energy?

[vincent_vega_lives]

93. Hence the reference to height

Regarding "energy dump", a clumsy way of discribing P (momentum). The upper 20 floors "dump" kinetic energy into the lower floors. That energy does the destructive work in both directions . The source of "grinding energy" IS momentum.

Think of it this way. A moving train hits a stationary train on a single track. The moving train has it's massive engine at the rear pushing empty boxcars. The engine represents the force of gravity in this analogy. The stationary train is just made up of empty boxcars. Assuming the engine does not derail, and is moving at speed, it the boxcars will be destroyed simultaniously in both the stationary and moving train until only the engine is left.

[freedom fighter jh]

94. Tweaked Metaphor

The train has no locomotive; instead each car on the train has its own little engine: gravity, just as you say.

You say the moving car is moving "at speed." What does that mean? The moving car has had the one boxcar's worth (one floor) of distance to accelerate through before it hits the boxcars. Or maybe not even that; the piece that fell may still have had some connections pulling it into place after it had started to give way. So here is this big moving train moving at, at most, about 8 meters per second. It hits the stationary train and starts that moving, overcoming that "friction" you referred to earlier. Then those little engines kick in and accelerate everything, and meanwhile all this grinding is happening and all the boxcars get destroyed. So the energy put out by those engines was enough to overcome friction (destroy the structure), grind all the cars down to nothing (shatter the steel and pulverize the concrete) and still acclerate the once-stationary train (the falling pieces of building) to at least half the speed it would have obtained if *all* the energy from the engines had gone into accelerating it. Oh, and there was still energy left over to shoot pieces of the cars into the windows of houses near the track.

[vincent_vega_lives]

95. I was afraid of that

that's the thing about taking a metaphor too far.

"Moving at speed" as obviously a locomotive would have difficulty accelerating at 32 fps/s.

What's your point. Are you saying the part of the building above the collapse point should have remained intact?

[freedom fighter jh]

98. I'm saying you're expecting too much energy from the top section.

The problem with your metaphor (and why I had to tweak it, and yes what I did was a stretch but the metaphor wasn't right without it) is the same as the problem with your reasoning: You need to respect conservation of energy. The top piece that broke off was moving slowly, yet you assert that it had enough energy to break through the next floor, damage itself, and keep going almost unimpeded.

[vincent_vega_lives]

101. Moving slowly?

Even at a fraction of G, 50,000 tons moving has and enormous amount of P behind it. Once in motion, it would take A LOT to stop it. A single' floor's strength wasn't going to do it.

yet you assert that it had enough energy to break through the next floor, damage itself, and keep going almost unimpeded.

Absolutely. 4x load safety factor is regarding a "static load" and does not take into consideration impulse force.

[vincent_vega_lives]

87. Looks to me that the building is in motion

prior to the "jets".

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. Here's a sight that has some very good videos of the collapses

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/feedback/

The site focuses on analyzing the audio tapes for evidence of explosions. Most of the audio analyis is very technical and over my head, but the site has a great collection of videos.

The way the building were dropped was from the top first, then the middle, then the base. Usually buildings are brought down by blowing out the base first, but with buildings as tall as the towers, that would not have been a good idea. Also, by dropping the top first, the curtain of debris coming down, covered up the next section so the visual evidence was obscured.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. Refreshing that you actually read it.

The demolition experts answered specific questions.

Ahh none of your points "debunk" any of their explanations. What you do are bring up additional questions.

"Debunking" is stating facts that contradict other stated facts. You state none.

[MervinFerd]

38. Actually, I think he just read the section headings.

That's an improvement over several others.

But not much.

[mirandapriestly]

91. It's the same phony "debunk" crap that shows up everywhere

All of that has been disproved at one time or another , I think you know that.
It's designed for people who haven't followed much so that they will say "oh here's an "expert" who says we have nothing to worry about - good", then they will dismiss any "conspiracy kooks" in the future because an expert told them everything was ok. It doesn't matter if it's all bullshit, most people won't know that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. No "debunk" means to present facts to refute false facts

This is simply people who ACTUALLY KNOW somthing about controlled demolition answering quesions regarding a topic that the questioners know absolutley NOTHING about.

[freedom fighter jh]

62. couple of points I forgot yesterday

The paper also (1) questioned whether it was possible to get access to the places where explosives would have to be set, and (2)commented that the detonators would need a lot of luck to set the explosives on the right floors.

Regarding (1), remember that most of the towers' weight was borne by the core columns. In addition to columns, the cores house elevators, stairwells, and utilities, but no office space. There may have been access to the core columns via the elevators.

Regarding (2), explosives could have been set on every floor, or on every second or third floor. If explosives were used, they must have been used on many floors.

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. Sounds like these guys went to the Senator Bill Frist

School of Video Diagnosing.

Mr. Blanchard is not an unbiased investigator. Taking down big buildings is a very small world and these companies directly and indirectly depend of government contracts or government approval for any project they ever hope to work on. Unfortunately, since his livelihood depends upon being in the good graces of assorted government agencies, he certainly is not going to come out with anything controversial.

Second, Blanchard does not have expertise in crime scene investigations. Yet, he states that the purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar supplemental catalysts causing the collapse of WTC 1,2 & 3.

There is no indication that Blanchard collected and analyzed any of the dust, debris and/or metal to look for chemical traces of explosives. Nor did he have any of the steel analyzed and it seems all he has are his own visual observations.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. I'd be careful with that charge, DYEW.

Have you examined anything about the collapses but videos and pictures?

And what about the equipment they had set up to monitor other projects in Manhattan? That evidence formed a large part of their answer; do you think they were qualified to interpret that?

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. Instead of issuing warnings

why don't we stick to discussing the article? You seem to have a need to censor people?

In regards to the these portable field seismographs, that just happened to be a two other construction sites somewhere in NYC, I would assume they were not designed to pick up ground vibrations very far beyond the construction site. Manhattan does sit on granite after all.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. My, you do like to fling the outrageous charges around, don't you?

Me censor people? I don't possess the means or desire to censor anyone.

So now you've smeared Protec baselessly with a Bill Frist brush while subject to the same charge yourself, and now my pointing that out is me trying to censor you? Does that even make sense?

Why don't we stick to discussing the article, instead of you flinging charges around?

Your assumptions about the devices are nothing but assumptions. The data from the seismographs fits in with the reading from other seismographs - they all show a distinct lack of explosives signatures for all the collapses that day. Mealy-mouthed assumptions about their design capabilities doesn't cut it. Bring back some facts to deal with the facts Blanchard has given.

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. If the writer is going to present himself has an 'expert'

and post his work to the internet, then the writer and his work deserves to be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It is okay to be critical of everyone who questions the OCT, but dare to criticize someone who publishes a very flawed piece of work to support the OCT is not?

BTW: If you continue to make your baseless accusations and insults to me, then I will discontinue this discussion.

In regards to Protecs seismographs, yes you are correct all we can do is make assumptions since the writer does not present enough information of data to do much else. If he is going to make these claims then he needs to back them up by documenting the equipment he used and publish the readings.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. This is what you did.

You characterized Blanchard's paper as a product of the "Bill Frist School of Video Analysis."

His paper is based not just on video and photographic evidence, but on seismographic evidence, talking to witnesses who were there and who worked the site for weeks after, and many other sources of evidence.

Whereas you yourself have only had access to video and photograph analysis, much like Bill Frist in the Schiavo affair.

Do you deny this?

I don't understand why you think flippant, mischaracterizing, and possibly hypocritical statements you make shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. We are after truth here, are we not?

So you don't like how Blanchard interprets his seismographs. If you were presented with the raw data, would you be able to interpret it? Do you have experience with seismographic equipment, portable or otherwise, that would potentially falsify Blanchard's years of experience with them?

How about the rest of his paper? Do you think his statements about the 9/11 collapses rest solely on the seismographic data? Why don't we discuss some of that instead of chasing a controversy you kicked off with a flippant, ill-concieved remark?

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. There is no way to know how Blanchard

interprets his seismographs, since he doesn't present any information about even the most basic elements of these readings.

He doesn't tell us the type of equipment he used. He doesn't even tell us the locations of these sites. He says one was in Manhattan and one is in Brooklyn. Are we talking Flatbush or Coney Island?

In regards to the rest of his paper, you state that 'His paper is based not just on video and photographic evidence, but on seismographic evidence'? Are you sure you haven't misspoken?

Blanchard claims to have been given access to 1000's of photos from Ground Zero and that his company just happened to have an array of TV monitors, for recording news coverage of planned demolitions, and that he recorded every news channel from just after the first plane hit the WTC until WTC7 fell. I don't know how you could say his report is not based on video & photographic evidence?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. I didn't.

I said it was "not just" based on video and photographic evidence.

Not just. This means that I said his report is based on photographic and video evidence. It also means that I said it was based on a lot more evidence than "just" video evidence, unlike Bill Frist's "diagnosis" of Terry Schiavo. And even the volume of video and photographic evidence Blanchard relies on puts him in a different category of Bill Frist's reliance on a single video of Terry, by at least three or four orders of magnitude.

I said, "not just." You even quoted me as saying "not just", and then you stated that I said something entirely different. I am not impressed with your ability to interpret what is in front of your face.

Much like I'm not impressed with Bill Frist, having lived in his state for almost ten years.

[DoYouEverWonder]

68. Please forgive me

I misread your post.

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. You have to understand the psyche at work here Bolo

The armature demolition "experts" that inhabit DU will need to discredit the authors of this report. It CANNOT be allowed to have any credibility. They absolutely MUST be "government shills" or "Bill Frist investigators".

The alternative is unacceptable as it contradicts their precious "facts" regarding their analysis on controlled demolition.

[DoYouEverWonder]

75. Well, if you don't want CTers to read and criticize

your 'expert's' work, then don't post it here.

BTW: How does being a demolition expert, qualify someone to present themselves has a crime scene investigator. He may be an 'expert' at conventional demolitions, but I see nothing in this report that shows he had the ways and means to declare there was no evidence of explosives. That statement alone is rather silly, since just the planes blowing up should have left plenty of 'explosive' evidence.

Second, his so called scientific report has more red herrings then Carter's got liver pills.

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. I don't care if you criticize experts

I just find it interesting.

They are not investigating a crime. It is their opinion based on years of demolition expericence. Readers can take it or leave it on those grounds.

since just the planes blowing up should have left plenty of 'explosive' evidence.

Just when I think Ive seen everything. Ahhh no the planes blowing up would not have left plenty of 'explosive' evidence. You clearly know not what you are speaking of.

[DoYouEverWonder]

77. The planes didn't explode?

They didn't damage the building?

How to tell whether or not damage to a particlar pieces of steel that was the result of the explosion caused by the plane hitting the building and the fuel blowing up or from something else is the question. But to say there is no evidence of explosives seems a stretch to say the least, unless of course you've joined the 'no plane' school of thinking?

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. Its pretty fucking clear.

Unless you are claiming the aircraft were laden with chemical explosives? There is a HUGE diference between the detonation of chemical explosives and a Fuel 'explosions'. They don't have the velocity to damage steel beams.

YOU claimed the planes should have left plenty of 'explosive' evidence. That is idiotic.

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. Since when can you tell

the difference between a piece of steel that was damaged by the explosion from the airplane crash, has opposed to a piece of steel damagaed by a chemical explosive, without doing a chemical analysis?

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. Not claiming anything of the sort

I am talking about this statement:

but I see nothing in this report that shows he had the ways and means to declare there was no evidence of explosives. That statement alone is rather silly, since just the planes blowing up should have left plenty of 'explosive' evidence.

You seem to be insinuating that since the planes 'exploded' there would be explosive evidence. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Obviously vaporized fuel will ignite on impact. To call that 'explosive' evidence, as you imply, is erroneous however.

[petgoat]

81. One of Huffschmid's videos talks about the fireballs, making the

point that they don't exert explosive pressure the way explosions do.
He says that the fire is all at the surface and that you can actually
run into a fireball and find it cool in the center.

[vincent_vega_lives]

82. Well I wouldn't recommend trying that anytime soon

But yes, the velocity of the expanding gas is the key.

[hack89]

86. The difference is ...

explosives are a high pressure event hence "high" explosives that destroy with a violent shock wave. High explosive also do not generate large amounts of flame (Hollywood not withstanding) so there is not much thermal damage. So the evidence of high explosives are twisted and fractured steel due to the shock wave with little fire damage.

In the WTC you have a large cloud of atomized fuel exploding in a low pressure event. The resultant fireball is a much more diffused reaction because the fuel filled such a large volume before igniting. So the evidence of a fuel explosion is the lack of twisted and fractured steel due to the absence of the shock wace with lots of thermal damage due to the fireball.

[MervinFerd]

102. NO REBUTTAL. None. The report is true and factual. QED.

In case some of you are new to rational discussion, "rebuttal" means finding actual flaws in logic, contradictions of established facts, or provision of contrary expert opinion of comparable authority.

Calling the authors names does not count.

[MervinFerd]

103. Still waiting for that rebuttal. There isn't one, is there?

That's what I thought.

[MervinFerd]

104. Waiting.. ... ...... .. ... .

O' the tedium.

[MervinFerd]

105. NO REBUTTAL. None. The report is true and factual. QED.

Come on guys.

At least try to disguise some name-calling as rational discussion.

Or just repeat unsupported claims over and over.

[MervinFerd]

106. Still waiting for a rebuttal.

And not expecting one.

[MervinFerd]

107. That rebuttal is still missing!

QED.

[vincent_vega_lives]

108. No they shot their wad

Their rebuttal consisted of calling the author a "Government lacky" and left it at that.

[MervinFerd]

109. Yep, wad shot. Viagra needed. nt

[MervinFerd]

110. QED nt

[MervinFerd]

111. No rebuttals. None. Not any. Wad Shot. Viagra needed. nt

[MervinFerd]

112. Bump. Just for the embarrassment value.

[vincent_vega_lives]

113. I haven't even bocked anyone

So that certainly aint the excuse.

[Kingshakabobo]

114. .

kick

[MervinFerd]

115. Bring on the Viagra!

[MervinFerd]

116. I'm prescribing Levitra. More time to 'get up' a response.

[G Hawes]

117. Still no rebuttal it seems

i'm a bit surprised.

[MervinFerd]

118. New thread, no rebuttal. What's stronger than Viagra?

[MervinFerd]

119. bump.