1999 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

So because this 11 year pushes the button, it makes him a demolition expert too??

But, you posted the following message!

Quote

Stundie, on 29 April 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

But you need experience of demollishing a building to be an expert in demolishing buildings..

As far as I'm aware, Brent Blanchard has no experience in demolishing building.

What's up with that?! More on Brent Blanchard that you were unaware of.

Quote

Brent Blanchard

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.

http://www.implosion...om/history4.htm

And, you said that Brent Blanchard wasn't an expert on demolition. How hilarious that you would make such a claim about a person wno is one of the top demolition experts in the nation without checking his background!!

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 May 2012 - 08:25 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

He may have push a button and demolished a building. However the fact is that he has never planned or rigged a building to explode. That is not what Protec or Brent Blanchard do.  

Here is what protec do...
http://www.protecser...om/Services.php

Lots of monitoring, recording audio and video but no actual experience of planning and rigging buildings.

But, you missed this about Brent Blanchard! It has been posted before but somehow, you tend to overlook certain things, and perhaps you did, but in case you missed it, check it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Blanchard

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, ...Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent Blanchard

Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services in Rancocas Woods, New Jersey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, you've claimed that Brent Blachard wasn't a demolition expert, which once again, shows that you have a lot to learn about the demolition process and the people involved in that process.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 May 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Explosion about 5 seconds in, firefigther turns around to where the sounds coming from.

But, there was no explosion. Just because someone says that there is going to be an explosion doesn't make it true in the end. Here again, you took his comments out of context because they knew the building was going to collapse based on the amount of damage observed. Since there was no explosive evidence found in the wreckage or heard, seen, nor detected on local sensors, it goes to show that you did in fact, take his comments out of context.

He was responding to the fact the building was going to collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives. If it was found that he was involved in planting explosives in WTC 7, he would have been placed on jail and shown all over the news waves.

If you are going to blow up a building illegally, chances are, you are not going to admit it on live camera for the whole world to hear. Such an admission would place you under the jail and have the prosecutors licking their chops because your admission is world news.

[DONTEATUS]

Hey Sky ! Long time no Hear !
Are you still at this ? WTC is really needing a Face Lift !  There actually about to Top off the Tower. I cant wait to Go to N.Y and See it and the Memorial ! maybe we need to plan a trip and get Col. Warren to Go too !
justDONTEATUS

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 01 May 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Hey Sky ! Long time no Hear !
Are you still at this ? WTC is really needing a Face Lift !  There actually about to Top off the Tower. I cant wait to Go to N.Y and See it and the Memorial ! maybe we need to plan a trip and get Col. Warren to Go too !
justDONTEATUS

Yepper, I am still here waiting for some folks to show us the explosive evidence, but I  guess the sun will burn out by then. I will be paying a visit to NY eventually, but the colonel will be paying a visit to New York next month for a book signing appearance.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

stundie said:

So because this 11 year pushes the button, it makes him a demolition expert too??

But, you posted the following message!

stundie said:

But you need experience of demolishing a building to be an expert in demolishing buildings..
As far as I'm aware, Brent Blanchard has no experience in demolishing building.

What's up with that?!

More on Brent Blanchard that you were unaware of.

And, you said that Brent Blanchard wasn't an expert on demolition. How hilarious that you would make such a claim about a person wno is one of the top demolition experts in the nation without checking his background!!

Why don't you just tell us how many building he has imploded to earn this title of one of the top demolition experts in the nation??

And how comes your expert disagrees with experts who have experience in actually demolishing buildings.

Quote

Van Romero, PhD, a demolitions expert,
current vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, and a former director of the Energetic Materials
Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech which studies explosive
materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures, said on the day of the attacks that, "My opinion is,
based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade
Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that
caused the towers to collapse."

In the interview, Romero goes on to say that the "collapse of the
structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish
old structures.  'It would be difficult for something from the plane
to trigger an event like that,' If explosions did cause the towers to
collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of
explosive, he said. 'It could have been a relatively small amount of
explosives placed in strategic points,' Romero said."
"'The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in
each of the towers', he said"  (9/11/01  Albuquerque Journal, Olivier
Uyttebrouck)

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

That was the logic of Stundie, not mine   After all, he did  post this:



Now, that's hilarious!! Like I said before, I don't know how you missed that, but then again, there are many things you have missed!



Now, for the record for all to see and read, the question that I pose to you is this:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert on the demoliton process?  Yes, or no.

No......

Now.....how man buildings has Blanchard demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts??

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

But, there was no explosion.

Yes there was, blanket denial makes you look desperate and frankly silly, but some people have no shame do they.

I tell you what Internet warrior, if it is not an explosions, then you tell us what it is?? Because we are here again, you going on your crusade of self deception, thinking that you know better than the people there when the reality is, you don't.

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Just because someone says that there is going to be an explosion doesn't make it true in the end.

What the hell are you talking about??...

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Here again, you took his comments out of context because they knew the building was going to collapse based on the amount of damage observed.

I'm taking his quotes out of context am I?? lol

Oh I'm sorry, i didn't realise that when someone says...
"Oh boy, did you hear that!"...what they actually mean is that..."Oh boy, did you hear than crane snapping/elevator slamming!"

"The whole things about to blow up!"... what they actually mean is that... "The building is about to collapse based on the damage observed!"

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Since there was no explosive evidence found in the wreckage or heard, seen, nor detected on local sensors, it goes to show that you did in fact, take his comments out of context.

None found in the wreckage cause you said yourself, they never bothered looking for it and there is plenty of explosions heard such as the video I posted, numerous eyewitnesses.

It would help if you could show us that I took his quotes out of context, but you can't.

You have this hilarious belief that when you say something, you think it automatically becomes the truth.

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

He was responding to the fact the building was going to collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

He was responding to the fact the building was going to collapse, but according to him..."The whole things about to blow up!"

Which might have something to do with explosives, seeing as explosives are often used to blow things up.

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

If it was found that he was involved in planting explosives in WTC 7, he would have been placed on jail and shown all over the news waves.

hahahahahahahaha!!! Lets step into la-la land where you reside shall we!!

Whoever said that this guy was involved in planting explosives?? Did I make that suggestion?? i think the answer is a no, but keep on fooling yourself otherwise.

How can you be taken seriously when you create the most absurd arguments??

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

If you are going to blow up a building illegally, chances are, you are not going to admit it on live camera for the whole world to hear.

Yeah because this guy would have planted the bombs and then hung around warning everyone that the building is about to blow up.....

skyeagle409, on 01 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Such an admission would place you under the jail and have the prosecutors licking their chops because your admission is world news.

An argument such as this should send you to a mental institute.

A man warns people that the building is about to blow up.

Skyeagle thinks the man has planted the bombs!!

You are like a Stephen Colbert of the debunking world except you take yourself seriously, a good job I and others don't though!

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

No......

Now.....how man buildings has Blanchard demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts??

First of all, let's start here and listen very carefully to the voices and understand to what it being presented.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

What's up with that?!

None found in the wreckage cause you said yourself, they never bothered looking for it and there is plenty of explosions heard such as the video I posted, numerous eyewitnesses.

Yes, what is up with that?

You have said that in order for someone to be a demolition expert, they must demolish a building, so do I need to go back and repost what you had said? Then, you changed tactic, which I caught right away in regards to your response because you must have done a search and found out that you were incorrect after all. Here's another video.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 May 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[skyeagle409]

<p>

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Yes there was, blanket denial makes you look desperate and frankly silly, but some people have no shame do they. I tell you what Internet warrior, if it is not an explosions, then you tell us what it is?? Because we are here again, you going on your crusade of self deception, thinking that you know better than the people there when the reality is, you don't. What the hell are you talking about??... :blink:I'm taking his quotes out of context am I?? lol

What you need to do is to read this report.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Quote

He was responding to the fact the building was going to collapse, but according to him..."The whole things about to blow up!"

Which might have something to do with explosives, seeing as explosives are often used to blow things up.

You need to watch another video.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 May 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Yes there was, blanket denial makes you look desperate and frankly silly, but some people have no shame do they.

Considering that you have yet to present any bomb evidence in the collapse of the WTC buildings, what more is there to say?!



,

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 May 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[RaptorBites]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Considering that you have yet to present any bomb evidence in the collapse of the WTC buildings, what more is there to say?!

Let's be fair Sky he has provided evidence, unfortunately he cannot qualify the witnesses making the statements that they heard demolition explosives.  Therefore, his so called evidence is moot till he can provide qualification.

On the flip side, if the Industry considers Blanchard an expert in controlled demolitions, then his statement regarding Blanchard not being an expert will need to be taken up to people that work in the industry.  Till then, if he is qualified by the industry he works in as an expert, then by golly, he's an expert.

I do not understand how hard it is to understand that.

Edited by RaptorBites, 02 May 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[skyeagle409]

RaptorBites, on 02 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Let's be fair Sky he has provided evidence, unfortunately he cannot qualify the witnesses making the statements that they heard demolition explosives.  Therefore, his so called evidence is moot till he can provide qualification.

On the flip side, if the Industry considers Blanchard an expert in controlled demolitions, then his statement regarding Blanchard not being an expert will need to be taken up to people that work in the industry.  Till then, if he is qualified by the industry he works in as an expert, then by golly, he's an expert.

I do not understand how hard it is to understand that.

I heard that!! And, people come to Brent Blanchard for information and advice on demolitions.

Quote

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site.

http://sites.google....rostomean"demol

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 May 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

First of all, let's start here and listen very carefully to the voices and understand to what it being presented.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=A7-He9IfXes

How about answering the question for a change??

How many buildings has Blanchard rigged and demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts??

Dodging is not going to make it go away!!

Edited by Stundie, 02 May 2012 - 10:50 PM.