1834 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

How about in the thousands?

Thousands? hahahaha!

Maybe you should check out what Protec do.....cause they don't do demolitions. Hahahaha!!

http://www.protecser...om/Services.php

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Ever wondered why Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority in demolition implosions?

No, because he isn't.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Listening to the video, how many buildings has Brent Blanchard demolished. Why do demolition companies around the world come to Brent Blanchard for advice and information on demolition imiplosions?

Why don't you tell us?

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

They did not hear explosions that were attributed to explosives and figure out why I posted the fact there were no explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area and think for a minute, what that means? I know the answer because I have seen, heard, and felt the blast waves of real explosions.

What are you blathering on about here? It's not even coherent!

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993? No! Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 and WTC2 in 2001? No!

So why are you claiming that there is no seismic evidence of explosives in 2001 when there were none back in 1993? lol

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Since explosives were not attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993, figure out what that means.

No need to figure out what it means.

If the explosions took place in a quarry or burried within the earth, then you might have a point.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

And, if you look at a photo of the steel columns in the 1993 blast, not one steel column was destroyed by the huge bomb. How many monitors did Protec. Inc. have in the general area in 1993?

If only they had used fire, those columns would have been wax.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Nope, because you debunked yourself by the very fact you failed to follow-up on the rest of the story regarding explosive blast waves and Brent Blanchard's bio.

You failed to provide any evidence of Brent actually demolitioning a building in all that spam you posted. Hahahahaha!

Not sure which part you don't understand but Protec don't do demolitions, the clues is in the fact they are a documentation service.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 03 February 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Thousands? hahahaha!

Maybe you should check out what Protec do.....cause they don't do demolitions. Hahahaha!!

http://www.protecser...om/Services.php

Common sense dictates that only demolition experts occupy the positions that Brent Blanchard have held. Apparently, you are unaware that Brent Blanchard has held multiple positions that required a demolition expert and look what you posted.

Quote

So why are you claiming that there is no seismic evidence of explosives in 2001 when there were none back in 1993? lol

Because no bombs were responsible for the the collapse of the WTC buildings and in 1993, the bomb was not attached to the steel columns of WTC1. What have I said about the flow of bomb blast waves around steel columns?

Quote

If the explosions took place in a quarry or burried within the earth, then you might have a point.
If only they had used fire, those columns would have been wax.

Fire can affect steel columns in the same manner, but you didn't know that because you have never worked with steel, but I have. Now, what have I said about throwing 4130 steel sheets into an oven in order to soften the material for fabrication purposes?

Quote

You failed to provide any evidence of Brent actually demolitioning a building in all that spam you posted. Hahahahaha!

On the contrary, he has demolished thousands of buildings, which is why he is a leading world authority on demolition implosions.

Quote

Not sure which part you don't understand but Protec don't do demolitions, the clues is in the fact they are a documentation service.

You don't seem to understand that Protec, consist of engineers and demolition experts.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 February 2013 - 11:17 PM.

[skyeagle409]

[skyeagle409]

implosionworld.com

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint
By Brent Blanchard
August 6, 2006

"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

"The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skyscrapers Then and Now

The World Trade Center towers remained standing immediately after the planes hit because weight no longer borne by damaged columns was transferred to the giant truss on the roof. The subsequent fires eventually weakened the steel in remaining columns and the truss, but the delay in the collapse gave many people -- an estimated 20,000 -- time to escape.

www.pbs.org/wnet/innovation/print/essay1.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steel doesn’t have to melt in order for it to fail. The fire from the jet fuel burned out in five or ten minutes, but the force of the impact blasted the content of the towers to one side, and ignited it. It was this fire that led to the structural failure.

Both PBS and one of the cable channels did programs on the failure of the towers. The weak point in the structural design was the connecting point between the floor joists and the vertical columns. One end had 5/8? bolts, the other had 3/4?. The heat of the fire caused the floor joists to sag, which caused the undersized bolts to fail. The vertical columns depended on the floor joists for lateral stability — and when they went, the columns blew out.

The tower that was hit last failed first for two reasons — mainly, the plane hit lower in the tower, so there was more weight above the damaged section; the damage was also more off center — when it fell, the upper tower started to tip just before it collapsed.

On Nova, the engineer that designed them said that he knew they were coming down from the moment they were hit — they were not engineered to take that.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

On the cable channel (Discovery? History?) they reported that the fireproofing on the structural steel was substandard. It had been replaced up to the 50th floor or so, but the upper floors were essentially unprotected.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 February 2013 - 11:30 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Common sense dictates that only demolition experts occupy the positions that Brent Blanchard have held.

Common sense doesn't dictate your logical fallacy I'm afraid.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Apparently, you are unaware that Brent Blanchard has held multiple positions that required a demolition expert and look what you posted.

Apparently, you are still unaware and failing to admit that although Blanchard may have held multiple positions that required a demolition expert, that he or his company have never performed a demolition.

I like how you have worded this, you've gone from "Blanchard being a demolition expert".....to...."he has held multiple position that required a demolition expert?" Nice logical quantum leap there Skyeagle.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Because no bombs were responsible for the the collapse of the WTC buildings and in 1993, the bomb was not attached to the steel columns of WTC1. What have I said about the flow of bomb blast waves around steel columns?

What you have said makes no sense whatsoever!

If bombs were used on 9/11, then just like the bombs in 93, they wouldn't be recorded on seismic equipment, making your point invalid.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Fire can affect steel columns in the same manner, but you didn't know that because you have never worked with steel, but I have.

So what you are saying is that if the terrorist back in 93 had used fire, the WTC would have collapsed??

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Now, what have I said about throwing 4130 steel sheets into an oven in order to soften the material for fabrication purposes?

Why bother with an oven? lol Just chuck some kerosene on it and it will soon be soft enough for fabrication, but becareful, it might cut the steel.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

On the contrary, he has demolished thousands of buildings, which is why he is a leading world authority on demolition implosions.

So why can't you post us some evidence that he has ACTUALLY demolished THOUSANDS of buildings? Because his company profile doesn't say he demolishes buildings, it says he documents demolitions.

I know you are struggling with the concept of documentation and demolition, but there is a massive difference.

skyeagle409, on 03 February 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

You don't seem to understand that Protec, consist of engineers and demolition experts.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a demolition company and a documentation company, so here is Protec Company Profile to help you distinguish the difference between the two.

Quote

Protec Documentation Services is recognized as an international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services.

Nothing about demolishing buildings in there I'm afraid.

[Stundie]

Here is the link you provided skyeagle....http://www.protecservices.com/Services.php

Lets take a closer look and see if Protec or Blanchard actually perform demolitions.

Quote

Protec Engineers and technicians possess more than 40 years' experience studying ground vibration and its effect on structures.  Our firm provides critical documentation and monitoring services by integrating local and regional regulations with practical field experience.  We are constantly developing new monitoring technology, data-gathering, and reporting systems to ensure you have the jobsite data you need, right when you need it.

Protec provides a full suite of reliable consulting and field services, including:


Vibration Prediction:

Protec's custom-developed software programs allow our Engineers to convert your work plan into a reliable predictor of vibration levels prior to the start of site activities.  In addition, Protec's supporting database-research team has access to thousands of vibration records from previous projects, which can be used to provide empirical vibration data recorded under similar or identical conditions.
Protec's Vibration Prediction Study can save untold time and expense by helping establish appropriate equipment and methodology prior to site mobilization.


Vibration Monitoring:

Protec has the experience and versatility to develop and implement cost-effective monitoring programs custom-suited to any jobsite.
Our Engineers integrate many factors such as site logistics, type of (and distance to) adjacent liabilities, regulatory requirements, federal vibration standards, and budgeting goals in recommending the most effective program for your project.
Using state-of-the-art field seismographs and supporting specialty equipment, Protec measures vibration via two primary methods:

a) With on-site technicians, who can operate and reposition instrumentation throughout the day as your work progresses.  An on-site Protec technician also serves to visibility establish that an independent third party is monitoring vibration (which itself has been shown to reduce nuisance claims), and the technician can address local resident's inquiries in a knowledgeable and congenial manner.
With continuously-monitoring field seismographs.  This involves the installation of multiple instruments at critical locations around a jobsite, which record site data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and can be remotely accessed by Protec or our client at any time.  Protec configures these units to instantly contact our offices (or client's site supervisors directly) if elevated or unusual levels are detected.  This instant notification can help initiate discussion and mitigation before small issues potentially turn into large ones.
Both monitoring methods include the development and submission of Protec's formal Vibration Monitoring Reports.  With Protec you will always have a record of jobsite vibration.


Structure Inspections:

Establishing the condition of nearby structures and educating property owners about those conditions is a critical component of any risk-management plan.
Protec inspectors document the condition of adjacent properties and liabilities before and after your project. These inspections reduce unsubstantiated claims and serve as a powerful public relations tool for showing project officials, neighboring residents and business owners that you stand behind your work and take your reputation seriously.



Claim Investigation & Legal Testimony:

Protec doesn't just drop raw data in your lap…our experts can help resolve potential issues by providing consultation and data interpretation long after a project is complete.
We know that inquiries or claims can arise months or even years after a project concludes…which is why Protec remains nearby with the experience and background to help determine whether claims are the result of jobsite activity, environmental changes or other unrelated causes.
Protec works with all available data and provides valuable assistance in helping avoid costly legal disputes.




Additional Services:

In addition to our core services, Protec offers a complete line of associated measurement and documentation services, including:


Settlement Monitoring & Measurement Systems:

• Crack Gauge installation and monitoring
  
• Tilt Meter installation and monitoring
  
• Strain Gauge installation and monitoring

Horizontal-Vertical Control Point Surveys
Noise Monitoring:
Protec technicians use state-of-the-art Cirrus portable noise monitors to document regulatory compliance and investigate complaints related to jobsite activities. Protec also develops noise monitoring plans to ensure jobsite activities comply with local ordinances and/or jobsite specifications.


Pre-Construction Video & Site Photography:
In the New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore region, Protec inspectors perform right-of-way video documentation using field production vans to provide detailed overviews and descriptions of pre- and post-construction conditions.

Protec employs the latest advances in high-resolution technology and GPS tracking to establish exact jobsite details, and our custom-developed data-indexing system assures easy access to specific site locations.
In addition, Protec performs pre-, progress- and post-construction/demolition project photography using the highest-resolution equipment available.  Our experienced photographers are Tunnel, Track and Confined Space Certified with over a dozen transit agencies in the NY-NJ-Phila metro area, please call for more details.

No, I'm right, there is nothing in there about Protec or Brent Blanchard performing actually demolitions.
Only someone who is delusional would think that Protec actually do demolition based on this company profile cause it's says sod all about performing demolitions themselves.

Edited by Stundie, 04 February 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

That's rich Sky--your claiming common sense.

Your posts here and your position here absolutely defies common sense.

Further, Stundie has just posted Protec's own words in describing their mission and functions, proving your claims about them and demolition to be utterly unfounded and false, like some of the pictures you  post here.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 04 February 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Common sense doesn't dictate your logical fallacy I'm afraid.

On the contrary, common sense refuted your false claims.

Quote

Apparently, you are still unaware and failing to admit that although Blanchard may have held multiple positions that required a demolition expert, that he or his company have never performed a demolition.

On the contrary, he has performed thousands. What did the video say? Did you call his company? Remember,Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority on demolition implosions.

Quote

I like how you have worded this, you've gone from "Blanchard being a demolition expert".....to...."he has held multiple position that required a demolition expert?" Nice logical quantum leap there Skyeagle.

'

Considering that demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard for expert advice and detailed data information on demolition implosions, what more is there to say? What you have said makes no sense whatsoever!

Quote

If bombs were used on 9/11, then just like the bombs in 93, they wouldn't be recorded on seismic equipment, making your point invalid.
So what you are saying is that if the terrorist back in 93 had used fire, the WTC would have collapsed??

Apparently, you have no idea what you about.

Quote

Why bother with an oven? lol Just chuck some kerosene on it and it will soon be soft enough for fabrication, but becareful, it might cut the steel.

Why use kerosene when an over is available?

Quote

So why can't you post us some evidence that he has ACTUALLY demolished THOUSANDS of buildings?

I already have. You missed it because you are not in the habit of adding 2 + 2 together correctly.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 04 February 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Nothing about demolishing buildings in there I'm afraid. [/font][/color][/size]

On the contrary, Protec, Inc., is the world-leading company consist of building engineers, technicians and demolition experts and look what you posted.

And, Brent Blachard, a demolition experts, is a leading world authority on demolition implosions.

Quote

Protec, Inc.



Protec Documentation Services is recognized as an international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services. Our exceptional reputation has earned us the responsibility of overseeing many of the most challenging high-profile construction, demolition and blasting projects ever undertaken, and we look forward to putting that experience to work for you.

Industry Memberships:

Protec and its Engineers and Field Representatives are active members of the following organizations:

• National Demolition Association (NDA)
  
• Institute of Explosive Engineers (IEE)
  
• International Society of Explosive Engineers (ISEE)
  
• Utility & Transportation Contractors Association (UTCA)

Those facts CLEARLY, exposes the weakess of your claims, or should I say, your position.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 February 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 04 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

That's rich Sky--your claiming common sense.

Why of course!!

Quote

Your posts here and your position here absolutely defies common sense. Further, Stundie has just posted Protec's own words in describing their mission and functions, proving your claims about them and demolition to be utterly unfounded and false, like some of the pictures you  post here.

On the contrary, the experiences of its employees are entrenched in expertise regarding the demolition process and look what you posted! You might want to review the following information.

Quote

http://www.implosionworld.com/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline),Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

Is it any wonder then, why demolition companies around the world come to Brent Blanchard for advice, and detail data information regarding demolition implosions?

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 February 2013 - 07:49 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 04 February 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Lets take a closer look and see if Protec or Blanchard actually perform demolitions.

Question is: Did you review that video that indicated the number of demolitions he has been involved in? Second question for you; Is Brent Blanchard a leading world authority on demolition implosions? Yes, or No.

I will be waiting for your answer for all to see.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 February 2013 - 08:06 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 02 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

It's odd that some think fire can cut through steel. Just sit and think about it for a moment. Surreal.

Of course fire cannot cut steel.  Nobody said it did.  Other than further websites spouting illogical nonsense, NOBODY has claimed steel melted.

Insaniac, on 02 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

If fire was so useful to demolitions teams, they wouldn't use Thermite. They'd just walk in with flamethrowers and torch the place.

Then again, why do demolition companies still stick with conventional shape charges instead of thermite?  I mean let's all be honest here.  Thermite was able to destroy 3 buildings without having to bother with the months of prep work such as taking down interior walls, removing obstructions, cutting non load bearing beams, charge wiring, etc.  

Apperantly thermite is much easier to use effectively, probably cheaper, and doesn't require detonation and is quiet.  

Of course I am being sarcastic.....

Insaniac, on 02 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

The reason they don't do that is probably because it doesn't work. The fire would take too long. You'd need something like Napalm or *drumrolls*... Thermite! *ba dum tish*

Do you understand how the WTC towers were built?  Here's a small hint for you. There is a reason why the truss method was used instead of the conventional web method.  Trusses were used in order to provide more interior office space as it allowed the central core columns to be connected to the outer structural columns without requiring a connecting column in between.  This gives the floor more spacing without sacrificing rooms for support columns, maximizing potential profit from the tenants looking for large open spaces.

Trusses are not hard steel I beams and are made lighter and obviously thinner.  Go check out your local warehouse and see how trusses are built and used.  

Now, try this little test.

Take a steel pipe and heat it in the center with a match.  Does it sag?  No.

Now take a paper clip and straighten it out, light a match under the center, does it sag?  Yes.

Well...that is a simple explanation for the differences between using steel made I beams in a web design and steel trusses.

[Babe Ruth]

Raptor

On the contrary sir, live people at the site described pools of molten metal.  Photos of such metal were taken and have been shown here at UM.  Indeed, even Swanny acknowledges that, though he opines that it could be aluminum and not steel.

I tried to enlist his help in validating his theory about that, but he was not interested in validating the theory by probability and proportion, or by volume or weight.

You do not know and cannot prove how much time was used in prepping the buildings for demolition.  Neither can I.  We both speculate.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 04 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Raptor

On the contrary sir, live people at the site described pools of molten metal.  Photos of such metal were taken and have been shown here at UM.  Indeed, even Swanny acknowledges that, though he opines that it could be aluminum and not steel.

I tried to enlist his help in validating his theory about that, but he was not interested in validating the theory by probability and proportion, or by volume or weight.

You do not know and cannot prove how much time was used in prepping the buildings for demolition.  Neither can I.  We both speculate.

BR.

Pools of molten metal is to be expected.

Of course swanny cannot validate his theory that it is molten aluminum, as nobody made any scientific investigation to the make up of the pools of molten metal.  I honestly don't blame him.

Neither can the truthers validate that it was molten steel without testing it.


It is all speculation.

People were working in those buildings up until the time of collapse.  CD companies take months gutting buildings to prep for a demolition.  Did any employee that worked that day notice interior gutting going on all floors?