1999 replies to this topic

[Wandering]

RaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Wandering and Stundie.

Do you refute that the industry calls Blanchard an expert?  Remember the industry is the one that qualified him as an expert in Controlled Demolitions.  So you mean to tell me that the industry of controlled demolitions as a whole think that this man has no clue what he is talking about?

No. The word expert is subjective. For example, many people commentate, watch, record and write blogs about MMA. They are considered 'experts' in MMA. Do they step in the cage and fight? No.  Are they called experts? Yes. Do they have that real world experience of being a fighter? No.


Your and your friends logic is that because they write a blog and watch alot of UFC they are an expert UFC cage fighter.

Blanchard is like an expert swimmer who has never gotten in the pool.

RaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

As far as the sounds of explosions and the eye witnesses, you both agree that other things may have cause the sound of explosions and there could be a possibility that the witnesses were mistaken. Yes?

Yes, as far as I'm aware we both do. Do you admit there is the possibility that those sounds are explosives and the witnesses were not mistaken?

Edited by Wandering, 03 May 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

We aren't talking about the fall of a "6 storey upper block" and neither did Bazant. The section that you are referring to in the Addendum of his 405 paper compares the ratio between the horizontal and vertical dimensions in a hypothetically smaller upper block, and the example he gives is 3 stories, not 6. So you've doubled his hypothetical number...

It states, "3 to 6" in this version of the paper.

And it doesn't matter. Even assuming a 3 storey block, the calculation shows that the mass will overload the lower columns. That is, until Bazant adds the note that it will not overload the lower columns once the upper block acts as a flexible, rather than rigid, body.

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Plus, this was only the second bullet out of two. Did you read and understand the first bullet?

The first bullet is concerned with the safety factors which are much higher in the uppermost floors. This is nothing to do with the specific point I'm making (see below).

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

This second supposedly fundamental point of yours is equally irrelevant because the upper block in the north tower was, at a bear minimum, 12 stories deep (plus the roof and the antenna).

No, it is quite relevant because it highlights the difference between a rigid/flexible block. This is the specific point I am making - the two are not "essentially" the same.

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Obviously the antenna broke and a chunk of it fell outside the building footprint. There are a lot of ways this can happen. You think that the entire roof needs to fully rotate in order for that to occur? You can't envision it breaking loose from its moorings impacting with the roof as it falls, breaking into multiple pieces, and having a chunk of it bounce outward in the direction of the initial tilt?

It's all so vague, in the way of "it just did". There is no explanation.

How did the antena break with no additional rotational/inertial forces?
How did it bounce near 100m from its starting point by halfway through collapse?
The antena piece fell down and hit the roof which was moving in the same direction (therefore no great force in coming together)... then bounced so hard it penetrated the huge volume of debris, stopped just at the edge of the cloud, and began to rotate down?

Show me.  Like the orange line?



That's one heck of a "bounce" for a lump of steel.

Look at the rotation of the antena in the video - it didn't bounce there, it is pivoting; attached to something.

And whilst that one section bounced, the rest of the antena didn't feel like also bouncing that day?

And that is more sensible than this (orange line again): -



You know the upper block did not continue to rotate (which fits the visible antena movement, timing and location perfectly) like this because you want to instead imagine an inexplicable "bounce"?

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 03 May 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

No. The word expert is subjective. For example, many people commentate, watch, record and write blogs about MMA. They are considered 'experts' in MMA. Do they step in the cage and fight? No.  Are they called experts? Yes. Do they have that real world experience of being a fighter? No.
Blanchard is like an expert swimmer who has never gotten in the pool.

Putting that in perspective, there is a valid reason why people come from around the world to him for advanced swim training.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Just because they thought they heard explosions doesn't make it so.
Read on

And just because an internet warrior thought he knows better, doesn't make it so either!!

[RaptorBites]

Wandering, on 03 May 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

No. The word expert is subjective. For example, many people commentate, watch, record and write blogs about MMA. They are considered 'experts' in MMA. Do they step in the cage and fight? No.  Are they called experts? Yes. Do they have that real world experience of being a fighter? No.


Your and your friends logic is that because they write a blog and watch alot of UFC they are an expert UFC cage fighter.

Blanchard is like an expert swimmer who has never gotten in the pool.

Quote

An expert ( Audio (US) (help·info), also called cognoscente^[1]) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study.

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

You are correct.  Being called an expert IS subjective.  Based on the definition of expert, Brent Blanchard does fit the description, maybe not STUNDIES, but in the dictionary (don't worry, you can check the definition in websters and its basically the same thing) Brent does posess the extensive knowledge in a particular area of study (Controlled Demolitions).

So are you both willing to drop the argument about the question of Blanchard being called an expert?

Wandering, on 03 May 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Yes, as far as I'm aware we both do. Do you admit there is the possibility that those sounds are explosives and the witnesses were not mistaken?

I will follow along with both theories.  However, I have not seen any evidence of controlled demolition and the sounds of explosions could be anything.  Do we have video or audio evidence off all the sounds heard on that day?

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

It has already been shown that Brent Blanhard is a demolition expert.

So how many building as Brent Blanchard demolished to warrant the title as one of the top demolition experts in the country?

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Research the background of Brent Blanchard and you will see why he is one of the top demolition expert in the world.

So how many buildings did he demolish to earn that accolade??

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

It takes a demolition expert to write from such a position that relates to the explosive demolition industry.

Well I'm sure you can show us the many buildings which he has imploded then can't you??

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

In case you want to know more about Brent Blanchard's company, go here.

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

I'm aware of his company website, now where does it state that protec actually do the demolitions and not just monitor them??

[Dis Pater]

Q24, on 03 May 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

It states, "3 to 6" in this version of the paper.

And it doesn't matter. Even assuming a 3 storey block, the calculation shows that the mass will overload the lower columns. That is, until Bazant adds the note that it will not overload the lower columns once the upper block acts as a flexible, rather than rigid, body.



The first bullet is concerned with the safety factors which are much higher in the uppermost floors. This is nothing to do with the specific point I'm making (see below).



No, it is quite relevant because it highlights the difference between a rigid/flexible block. This is the specific point I am making - the two are not "essentially" the same.



It's all so vague, in the way of "it just did". There is no explanation.

How did the antena break with no additional rotational/inertial forces?
How did it bounce near 100m from its starting point by halfway through collapse?
The antena piece fell down and hit the roof which was moving in the same direction (therefore no great force in coming together)... then bounced so hard it penetrated the huge volume of debris, stopped just at the edge of the cloud, and began to rotate down?

Show me.  Like the orange line?



That's one heck of a "bounce" for a lump of steel.

Look at the rotation of the antena in the video - it didn't bounce there, it is pivoting; attached to something.

And whilst that one section bounced, the rest of the antena didn't feel like also bouncing that day?

And that is more sensible than this (orange line again): -



You know the upper block did not continue to rotate (which fits the visible antena movement, timing and location perfectly) like this because you want to instead imagine an inexplicable "bounce"?

I don't know if this video gives you a better idea regarding the antenna falling.If you have seen it and dismissed it then just ignore this post-collapse  starts around the 1m 40 second mark.

[Stundie]

RaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Wandering and Stundie.

Do you refute that the industry calls Blanchard an expert?

Who in the industry calls him an expert? Protec, the company he runs??

RaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Remember the industry is the one that qualified him as an expert in Controlled Demolitions.  So you mean to tell me that the industry of controlled demolitions as a whole think that this man has no clue what he is talking about?

I'm sure he's a very knowledgeable man but I wouldn't class him as an expert considering he has never demolished a single building.

RaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

As far as the sounds of explosions and the eye witnesses, you both agree that other things may have cause the sound of explosions and there could be a possibility that the witnesses were mistaken. Yes?

Of course, I have never argued any different.

RaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Just because you find it unrealisitc that so many people may be wrong about the description of what they heard does not discount the fact that the sounds they heard may be something other than demolitions.

An just because you find it unrealistic that so many people might be right about the description of what they heard, does not discount the fact that you have no evidence that they heard something other than demolitions.

Its just your opinion, where it's just my opinion backed up by the evidence.

[Q24]

Dis Pater, on 03 May 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I don't know if this video gives you a better idea regarding the antenna falling.If you have seen it and dismissed it then just ignore this post-collapse  starts around the 1m 40 second mark.

Thank you for the video, it's a new one to me, but it doesn't appear to show the antenna after the initial tilt and drop out of view.

[RaptorBites]

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Who in the industry calls him an expert? Protec, the company he runs??
I'm sure he's a very knowledgeable man but I wouldn't class him as an expert considering he has never demolished a single building.

Did you bother reading my post above?  Post # 1401

Quote

An expert ( Audio (US) (help·info), also called cognoscente^[1]) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study.

Seems like the definition of being considered an expert is based on Knowledge OR Ability.

He does not need to have demolished a building to be considered expert if you want to be technical with it.  He just needs to have the knowledge.  Your perception that he has to have had to demolish a building to be considered an expert is your definition not the "accepted" definition.  So technically his opinions on the matter ARE considered expert opinion.

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Its just your opinion, where it's just my opinion backed up by the evidence.

Evidence of what?  Explosives were used?

I am sorry but I go with evidence based on fact, and the fact is no evidence of explosives used.  Granted, I will give you that the many witness accounts of sounds of "explosions" where heard, but it is all circumstantial with no evidence to back it up.  If you want to call that evidence then by all means, however I would not consider it fact if there is no evidence to back it up.

Is that okay with you?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

And just because an internet warrior thought he knows better, doesn't make it so either!!

It does in this case based on my own experience in war zones where explosives were used.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

So how many building as Brent Blanchard demolished to warrant the title as one of the top demolition experts in the country?

Did the video say anything about Brent Blanchards experience in the demolition of  thousands of buildings? Perhaps, that is why demolition companies around the world call upon him for assistance.

Quote

Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert

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.

Brent Blanchard, a demolition contracting expert with Protec and who worked at ground zero, said the tower collapses were only superficially similar to a controlled demolition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protec Documentation Services, Inc.
Company Overview:

Demolition Contractors, Building Inspection Equipment, Environmental Monitoring Development, Engineering Failure Investigation or Forensic Services, Documentation Services, Inspection Services, Structural Investigation, Vibration Measuring or Monitoring or Analysis or Metering Services, Dangerous Structure Demolition

http://construction....08073/900504644

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 May 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Well I'm sure you can show us the many buildings which he has imploded then can't you??
I'm aware of his company website, now where does it state that protec actually do the demolitions and not just monitor them??

It takes an demolition expert to run such a company and it takes a demolition expert to write on the demolition process, all of which has Brent Blanchard's name written all over it.

[RaptorBites]

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

It takes an demolition expert to run such a company and it takes a demolition expert to write on the demolition process, all of which has Brent Blanchard's name written all over it.

Also

Quote

An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study.

Brent Blanchard qualifies based on that alone.

Quote

Definition of EXPERT



1
obsolete : experienced

2
: having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience


link: http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/expert

Now, lets take the word "Experience" just to drop it down a little further.

Quote

Definition of EXPERIENCE



1
a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation

2
a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity

link: http://www.merriam-w...=0&t=1336076906

To me he is more than qualified to be considered an expert.  Sorry for the redundancy but I hope this makes sense now.