Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

WTC7


  • Please log in to reply
1999 replies to this topic

#1411    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

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?

I know I am.

Please try not to follow your friends tactics as they do not impress many people. In case you hadn't notice (obviously you haven't) Stundie has given credit to Blanchard for being knowledgeable in the area of demolition, as do I. However, I am knowledgeable in MMA yet I am not an MMA fighter, as Blanchard is knowledgeable in demolition yet he does not demolish buildings.

An outside perspective is always different to being in the middle of the experience.

Many of the quotes supporting Blanchard that have been posted refer to him being an expert in the field of demolition. This is very different to being a demolition expert. Many of the quotes supporting Blanchard have also been provided by his own companies.

Blanchard may be considered an expert in the field of demolition, that does not make him an expert at demolishing buildings.

What do you think of this question Stundie proposed as I can see both of you have conveniently ignored it:

View PostStundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

In otherwords, you need a building demolishing and you have 2 guys.....

Person (A) whose makes a living and has previous experience of planning, rigging and demolition buildings.
or
Person ( B) who monitors and watches demolitions but has no experince of planning, rigging and demolition buildings.

Whose the expert and more importantly, who you going to call?


Is it A or B? I know who I would be calling the expert and who I would be calling to demolish my building. Perhaps this question will just be ignored once more.

How many times is it now Stundie? :rolleyes:





View PostRaptorBites, on 03 May 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

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 has posted alot. Do you skip over all of them? The one with the firefighters/officer at the phone is quite a good one. Interesting you are not willing to write down that you admit there is a possibility of explosives. You kind of admit it in a round-a-bout way but I can see that the idea seems to scare you. A common occurrence with devotees of the official story.

Edited by Wandering, 03 May 2012 - 11:59 PM.


#1412    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I know I am.
Great!

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Please try not to follow your friends tactics as they do not impress many people. In case you hadn't notice (obviously you haven't) Stundie has given credit to Blanchard for being knowledgeable in the area of demolition, as do I. However, I am knowledgeable in MMA yet I am not an MMA fighter, as Blanchard is knowledgeable in demolition yet he does not demolish buildings.

Both you and Stundie questioned his expertise in Controlled Demolitions.  As I have already proved that being an expert in any field requires Experience.

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


In case you missed my above post.

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

An outside perspective is always different to being in the middle of the experience.

You are correct.  Both you and Stundie were discrediting Blanchard because he is not considered an "expert" by your definition.  Just because you do not see him as being an expert because he has not demolished a building, does not discount the fact that is IS AN EXPERT by definition.

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Many of the quotes supporting Blanchard that have been posted refer to him being an expert in the field of demolition. This is very different to being a demolition expert.

Being an expert in demolition does not make you a demolition expert?  We playing word games?

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Many of the quotes supporting Blanchard have also been provided by his own companies.

So now we are stooping to stating that Demolition Companies that employ the Company that Blanchard works for are supporting his theory due to favortisim?  Thats grasping at thin air.

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Blanchard may be considered an expert in the field of demolition, that does not make him an expert at demolishing buildings.

So being an expert at demolishing buildings means you need experience in demolishing buildings.

Have you missed my quoted definition of "Experience?"

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

What do you think of this question Stundie proposed as I can see both of you have conveniently ignored it:

Is it A or B? I know who I would be calling the expert and who I would be calling to demolish my building. Perhaps this question will just be ignored once more.

How many times is it now Stundie? :rolleyes:

Of course I would employ the company that actually does the work.  Blanchard's company does not demolish buildings so why would i ask them to do something that they simply do not do as a company.

Still does not detract from the fact that Blanchard's "expert opinion" would not be considered expert.

View PostWandering, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Stundie has posted alot. Do you skip over all of them? The one with the firefighters/officer at the phone is quite a good one. Interesting you are not willing to write down that you admit there is a possibility of explosives. You kind of admit it in a round-a-bout way but I can see that the idea seems to scare you. A common occurrence with devotees of the official story.

And yet neither of you have been able to provide evidence of explosives other than audio interpretation of what sounds like demolition explosives (can you tell the difference based on audio off a video?).  Again you have also stated that yes there was a possibility that they can be wrong OR they can be right.  Where's the proof of explosives?

Let's be fair here.  Stundie's comments of late have been very condescending due to the name calling with "internet warrior" and what not.  Lets be fair, we are all internet warriors as we are all trying to prove what is true and what is not.  Once he can get over himself and stop sounding condescending (granted this is the internet and he may not be attempting to sound as such) I will take his posts a little more seriously.

Edited by RaptorBites, 04 May 2012 - 01:02 AM.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1413    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:56 AM

View PostQ24, 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.
Still irrelevant, but feel free to bring it up if you find him referring to 12 stories in the same way.



View PostQ24, on 03 May 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

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.
I agree that the first point is regarding safety factors, but I disagree that it has nothing to do with your point.  Your point hinges on an interpretation of a portion of Bazant's paper.  It obviously doesn't mean what you think it means because otherwise Bazant would have predicted the survival of the buildings.




View PostQ24, on 03 May 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

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?

http://www.freeimage...loads/h5drh.jpg

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): -

http://www.freeimage...loads/iygiy.jpg

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"?
There are many ways that the section of antenna could have arrived where it did.  I'm not going to waste any time or energy marking up photographs to try to guess how it got there.  It got there how it got there.

The key point here is that it got there and that it wasn't attached to the roof when it did.  If the roof fell outside of the building footprint as you still seem to believe, you tell me, where is the damn roof?

Posted Image


Edit to add this video:




Maybe you can find the roof in this video somewhere?  There is something falling there to the left of the antenna section, and I'm not sure what it is.  Another chunk of the antenna?  A chunk of the roof?  Wall section?

Edited by booNyzarC, 04 May 2012 - 04:02 AM.


#1414    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:57 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Still irrelevant, but feel free to bring it up if you find him referring to 12 stories in the same way.


I agree that the first point is regarding safety factors, but I disagree that it has nothing to do with your point. Your point hinges on an interpretation of a portion of Bazant's paper. It obviously doesn't mean what you think it means because otherwise Bazant would have predicted the survival of the buildings.

Still missing the point - Bazant spells out that a rigid mass does not act in the same way as a flexible mass. This applies to one storey or a hundred stories, in any and all context.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:


View PostQ24, on 03 May 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

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

[followed by numerous questions, examples and an attempt to provoke some actual thought or reason]

There are many ways that the section of antenna could have arrived where it did. I'm not going to waste any time or energy marking up photographs to try to guess how it got there. It got there how it got there.

The key point here is that it got there...

No thought. No reason. No attempted answers.

That's what I thought.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

Of course the key point is that "it got there", but the key question is how "it got there".

What you don't seem to understand is that the minimum requirement is a plausible hypothesis, and that requires addressing the questions.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:


and that it wasn't attached to the roof when it did. If the roof fell outside of the building footprint as you still seem to believe, you tell me, where is the damn roof?

What a strange thing to say. How do you know the visible segment of the antenna was not carried to the horizontal position by the roof rotation before it broke? Or is that just another cop-out for lack of an explanation?

The roof is within the debris cloud. The visible portion of the antenna is one way to approximate where the roof might be. The location of the antenna fits with suggestion that the roof continued to rotate and is in a position outside the tower footprint congruent with my previous pictures and explanation.

You have yet to explain how the antenna could have broke and got there any other way. The reason you will not even attempt any thought out hypothesis is because you know your "bounce" is ridiculous next to the fact that the upper block tilted off the tower.  I refer you to the questions in my previous post - refusal to discuss them is a lost position.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1415    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:04 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 May 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Still missing the point - Bazant spells out that a rigid mass does not act in the same way as a flexible mass. This applies to one storey or a hundred stories, in any and all context.
Clearly it doesn't apply outside the range of "3 to 6" stories or Bazant would have indicated as much.  You are twisting his clarifications of the equation to fit your own twisted meaning.


View PostQ24, on 04 May 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

No thought. No reason. No attempted answers.

That's what I thought.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

Of course the key point is that "it got there", but the key question is how "it got there".

What you don't seem to understand is that the minimum requirement is a plausible hypothesis, and that requires addressing the questions.

What a strange thing to say. How do you know the visible segment of the antenna was not carried to the horizontal position by the roof rotation before it broke? Or is that just another cop-out for lack of an explanation?

The roof is within the debris cloud. The visible portion of the antenna is one way to approximate where the roof might be. The location of the antenna fits with suggestion that the roof continued to rotate and is in a position outside the tower footprint congruent with my previous pictures and explanation.

You have yet to explain how the antenna could have broke and got there any other way. The reason you will not even attempt any thought out hypothesis is because you know your "bounce" is ridiculous next to the fact that the upper block tilted off the tower.  I refer you to the questions in my previous post - refusal to discuss them is a lost position.
Why do you think that I have to explain how the antenna arrived where it did in the videos and photograph?  I wasn't presenting a claim of any kind.  You presented the claim that the antenna was proof that the roof had rotated and fell completely outside the building footprint.  I pointed out that you hadn't established that claim.  You persisted in the claim, insisting that the antenna was still attached to the roof in the video you shared.  I showed you the photograph proving that your claim was wrong.  I falsified your claim.  I did not present a counter claim other than "you are wrong Q24."  I've provided the burden of proof for my counter claim.

The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact.  It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.

If you think it is so important to identify exactly how the antenna section got where it was, feel free to invent yet another completely unsubstantiated tale that you think supports your opinion, and then present it to the world as if it is fact.  Of course I'll probably point out again that you haven't proven whatever hypothesis you come up with, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it I suppose.

Cheers.


#1416    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:42 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Great!



Both you and Stundie questioned his expertise in Controlled Demolitions.  As I have already proved that being an expert in any field requires Experience.

I particularly enjoyed the parts you highlighted, excluding 'participation in events or a particular activity' and instead focused on 'practice derived from direct observation'

There's our answer Stundie, RaptorBites admits that all of Blanchards knowledge is garnered through observation. Not practical experience in demolition.


Like I said before, I watch alot of MMA but I am not an expert UFC cage fighter. Blanchard watches alot of demolitions but is not a demolition expert. He may well be however (I only speak for myself here) an expert in the field of demolition.


View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

In case you missed my above post.

I didn't.

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

You are correct.  Both you and Stundie were discrediting Blanchard because he is not considered an "expert" by your definition.  Just because you do not see him as being an expert because he has not demolished a building, does not discount the fact that is IS AN EXPERT by definition.

I am glad that you had to actually look up the definition of the word expert to prove your point as it only proves further that he has no practical experience which you can draw upon. The words 'technically, he is an expert' never sounded so sweet.

Technically.....Alot of people would be alot of things they are not.

After all, by your dictionaries findings I am an expert UFC cage fighter... come get some!

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Being an expert in demolition does not make you a demolition expert?  We playing word games?

Yes, you are as you decide to misquote me. I say that being an expert in the field of demolition does not make you a demolition expert, you reply, magically dropping a word which makes a very big difference. Just the usual tactics eh?

I will repeat, being an expert in the field of demolition alone does not make you a demolition expert.

If you want to play word games, turn to your playmate who is more easily confused.

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

So now we are stooping to stating that Demolition Companies that employ the Company that Blanchard works for are supporting his theory due to favortisim?  Thats grasping at thin air.

No, but they do provide a conflict of interest considering that money has switched hands between them in the past.  If you cannot see this then there is not much else to say.

If he was truly an expert as defined by yourself, there would be many more accessible quotes for one such as yourself to provide which do not come from companies which have previously paid him money.


View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

So being an expert at demolishing buildings means you need experience in demolishing buildings.

Have you missed my quoted definition of "Experience?"


No, as the fact you had to 'technically define' Blanchard as an expert by searching out the definition of the word instead of providing proof of his practical experience speaks volumes about how much of an 'expert' Blanchard really is.

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Of course I would employ the company that actually does the work.  Blanchard's company does not demolish buildings so why would i ask them to do something that they simply do not do as a company.

Still does not detract from the fact that Blanchard's "expert opinion" would not be considered expert.

Of course you would. Why is that?

There you go again Stundie, another question answered that Raptors playmate has been dodging.

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Blanchard's company does not demolish buildings

No matter what other people in this thread may opine, there stands the facts. Blanchards company does not demolish buildings. Blanchard has never demolished a building.

Case closed for that one.

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

And yet neither of you have been able to provide evidence of explosives other than audio interpretation of what sounds like demolition explosives (can you tell the difference based on audio off a video?).  Again you have also stated that yes there was a possibility that they can be wrong OR they can be right.  Where's the proof of explosives?

Let's be fair here.  Stundie's comments of late have been very condescending due to the name calling with "internet warrior" and what not.  Lets be fair, we are all internet warriors as we are all trying to prove what is true and what is not.  Once he can get over himself and stop sounding condescending (granted this is the internet and he may not be attempting to sound as such) I will take his posts a little more seriously.


Again, thank you for subconsciously admitting:

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

neither of you have been able to provide evidence of explosives other than audio interpretation of what sounds like demolition explosives

Your brain believes that they sound like demolition explosives, you agree they sound like demolition explosives and now you have put it down in front of us for all to read that you believe the explosions sounded like demolition explosives.

Sure, we are all internet warriors but some of us are here for the fight and some of us wandered here by accident trying to find the local RSL.

Asking Stundie to get over himself is a lesson in how much water can I spit over my computer screen in laughter. I can see that you have not been around for Stundies 450 regular posts until he decided that if your playmate is going to play games instead of talk, he is going to play too.

Let them play together. Only one makes sense.

Edited by Wandering, 04 May 2012 - 01:53 PM.


#1417    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:47 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Clearly it doesn't apply outside the range of "3 to 6" stories or Bazant would have indicated as much. You are twisting his clarifications of the equation to fit your own twisted meaning.

You don't grasp what I'm saying at all. This line of discussion began because you claimed that a rigid mass is "essentially" the same as a flexible mass. The number of storeys to which Bazant refers is beside the point I'm making - that your original claim is incorrect; Bazant states that a rigid mass is not the same as a flexible mass.

Bazant is saying that 1-6 stories would form a flexible mass and a greater number of stories would form a rigid mass at the collapse initiation. This is different to our discussion which referred to the debris of the upper block halfway through collapse and where you said it does not matter if the upper block is broken/debris because it is "essentially" the same as a rigid block.

Myself and Bazant are talking about two completely separate phases of the collapse - I am using the example only to show that a rigid mass is not the same as a flexible mass. You were not understanding the rock/sand analogy and so I referred you to Bazant.

Do you now understand that a rigid mass is not the same as a flexible mass and that Bazant's calculations only apply to the first?


View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Why do you think that I have to explain how the antenna arrived where it did in the videos and photograph? I wasn't presenting a claim of any kind. You presented the claim that the antenna was proof that the roof had rotated and fell completely outside the building footprint. I pointed out that you hadn't established that claim. You persisted in the claim, insisting that the antenna was still attached to the roof in the video you shared. I showed you the photograph proving that your claim was wrong. I falsified your claim. I did not present a counter claim other than "you are wrong Q24." I've provided the burden of proof for my counter claim.

And I still believe the antenna, to reach that location and perform the pivot motion, was attached to the roof until well over halfway through collapse. That the end of the antenna was broken after that point does not affect anything.

Exactly, "you are wrong Q24" is all you keep saying, but neither demonstrating why or offering a plausible alternative. You need to explain how else the antenna could arrive where it did and in that motion, to refute the claim that the upper block rotation is the only possible answer.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1418    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,116 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:36 PM

View PostWandering, on 04 May 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Like I said before, I watch alot of MMA but I am not an expert UFC cage fighter. Blanchard watches alot of demolitions but is not a demolition expert.

How amusing that you would say such a thing when Brent Blanchard is well-known around the world as a demolition expert and it takes a demolition expert to write about demolitions in a demolition publication.

Quote

Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert


Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with Protec Documentation Services, says that countless implosion enthusiasts ask him the very same question: "How can I become a blaster or demolition expert?"

http://science.howst...-implosion1.htm


According to Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services, virtually every building in the world is unique.And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down.Blanchard notes the demolition of the Hayes Homes, a 10-building housing project in Newark, New Jersey, which was demolished in three separate phases over the course of three years. "A different blasting firm performed each phase," Blanchard says, "and although all of the buildings were identical, each blaster chose a slightly different type of explosive and loaded varying numbers of support columns.

http://www.zoominfo....argetid=profile

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.

http://implosionworld.com/history4.htm

 
Special thanks to Brent ...
Special thanks to Brent Blanchard at Protec Documentation Services for all his help with this article.

According to Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services, virtually every building in the world is unique.And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down.Blanchard notes the demolition of the Hayes Homes, a 10-building housing project in Newark, New Jersey, which was demolished in three separate phases over the course of three years. "A different blasting firm performed each phase," Blanchard says, "and although all of the buildings were identical, each blaster chose a slightly different type of explosive and loaded varying numbers of support columns.

http://www.zoominfo....argetid=profile

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

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


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.


Brent Blanchard: A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC 1, 2, & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Point of View 

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

Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry.

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.zoominfo....argetid=profile

And, it takes a demolition expert to occupy a position as senior writer that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. If you are going to publish articles related to explosive demolitons to the demolition industry, then you have to understand the process behind explosive demolitions.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 May 2012 - 06:34 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1419    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:26 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

You don't grasp what I'm saying at all. This line of discussion began because you claimed that a rigid mass is "essentially" the same as a flexible mass. The number of storeys to which Bazant refers is beside the point I'm making - that your original claim is incorrect; Bazant states that a rigid mass is not the same as a flexible mass.

Bazant is saying that 1-6 stories would form a flexible mass and a greater number of stories would form a rigid mass at the collapse initiation. This is different to our discussion which referred to the debris of the upper block halfway through collapse and where you said it does not matter if the upper block is broken/debris because it is "essentially" the same as a rigid block.

Myself and Bazant are talking about two completely separate phases of the collapse - I am using the example only to show that a rigid mass is not the same as a flexible mass. You were not understanding the rock/sand analogy and so I referred you to Bazant.

Do you now understand that a rigid mass is not the same as a flexible mass and that Bazant's calculations only apply to the first?
There you go again claiming that my disagreeing with you means that I am misunderstanding something.  :rolleyes:

Tell you what.  If you can get Bazant to specifically state what you claim he means, we can have a discussion about it.  Until then all you're doing is misinterpreting a portion of his explanation of a limitation of an equation in his paper and attempting to twist that into some kind of support for your beliefs.



View PostQ24, on 04 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

And I still believe the antenna, to reach that location and perform the pivot motion, was attached to the roof until well over halfway through collapse. That the end of the antenna was broken after that point does not affect anything.

Exactly, "you are wrong Q24" is all you keep saying, but neither demonstrating why or offering a plausible alternative. You need to explain how else the antenna could arrive where it did and in that motion, to refute the claim that the upper block rotation is the only possible answer.
Maybe you missed this part the first time around?  Here, I'll add a little emphasis so that it is a little bit harder to miss...

The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact. It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.



Cheers.

Edit typo.

Edited by booNyzarC, 04 May 2012 - 07:01 PM.


#1420    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,116 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:06 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 May 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Both you and Stundie questioned his expertise in Controlled Demolitions.  As I have already proved that being an expert in any field requires Experience.

They don't seem to understand that Brent Blanhard is not just considered a demolition expert, but a leading authority on the demolitions process, worldwide.

Quote


August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader


Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Quote

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 B) 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."

Quote

Brent Blanchard (February 2002). "A History of Explosive Demolition in America". Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique. International Society of Explosives Engineers. pp. 27–44. ISSN 0732-619X.

Spoken like a true demolition expert and WORLDWIDE authority on the demolition process.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2012 - 01:01 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1421    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,343 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:02 AM

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."


This argument still makes me laugh.

What is required for highrise demolition?

Well, that all depends on which method iis used!!!

The explosives method requires careful planning, accurately placed and timed charges throughout, and much more. Like he noted above.

The 'random damage and fires' method has no requirements at all. We are told it works, like the explosives method.

And it's way easier!

We have extensive requirements......or none whatsoever. It worksl both ways!!

Sheesh, what a crock...


#1422    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:07 PM

It seems that requirement (a) of Blanchard's statement above was met.

With bad guys controlling security at WTC, how difficult is it to place charges while doing "maintenance"?  Not very.

Considering that tenants were advised that the power grid within the towers was to be shut down on the weekend before 11 September, it seems likely that something was afoot that could easily have been the powering up of a detonation sequence.

Blanchard thinks (a) is impossible, but it is not.


#1423    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,116 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:00 PM

View Postturbonium, on 05 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

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."


This argument still makes me laugh.

Only to those 9/11 CT folks, but we already know their track record, right?!.

Quote

The explosives method requires careful planning, accurately placed and timed charges throughout, and much more. Like he noted above.

Of course it does and you need to pre-weaken of the structure as well.

Quote

What is required for highrise demolition?


How Building Implosions Work

http://science.howst...g-implosion.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2012 - 07:12 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1424    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,116 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:03 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 May 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

It seems that requirement (a) of Blanchard's statement above was met. With bad guys controlling security at WTC, how difficult is it to place charges while doing "maintenance"?

It couldn't be done without attracting a lot of attention.

Quote

Considering that tenants were advised that the power grid within the towers was to be shut down on the weekend before 11 September, it seems likely that something was afoot that could easily have been the powering up of a detonation sequence.

Blanchard thinks (a) is impossible, but it is not.

Of course it was impossible considering that it takes many weeks of preparation for an average size building, and in the case of the WTC Towers, the preparation would have taken many months.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1425    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:20 PM

Well Sky, that is debatable as to how difficult it might have been to rig the buildings.  In the first place, the occupancy rate for the towers was a bit low by many accounts.  Further, quite a few people have noted that there was almost always some sort of maintenance program going on.  And if the bad guys were the gate keepers as to who and what came and went, it would be easy.

Yes, they did have many months.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users