skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1351 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) How about answering the question for a change?? I have answered the questions and posted facts and evidence as well. Don’t believe unfounded claims about 9/11 Could the collapses have been caused by an atypical controlled demolition with the explosives placed near the airplane impact? MIT professor Thomas Eagar explains that the fires would have been sufficiently hot to weaken the steel columns so that they could no longer support the million of pounds of building above them. This means that the fires accomplished what explosives could have done, and so there is no need to invoke explosives as an explanation. Although our intuition may tell us that the towers should have tipped over rather than fall straight down, engineers know better. Buildings are composed mostly of empty space, and the path of least resistance is straight down. This explains the superficial similarity between the World Trade Center towers and a controlled demolition. How else can one test the hypothesis? Detonations can be detected by seismographs—machines used to measure earth movements such as earthquakes. Researchers from Columbia University were recording seismic activity in Manhattan at the time. They recorded tremors caused by the falling buildings, but no prior signals expected of detonations were observed. These recordings are publicly available online. Also, explosive demolitions leave all sorts of telltale signs that were not found in the ground zero rubble, according to demolition expert Bill Moore, former president of the National Demolition Association. Not only are the cuts to the metal distinctive, but blasting caps, detonation cords and other debris would have been found, but were not. http://www.buffalone...ticle521955.ece How many buildings has Blanchard rigged and demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts?? What did the video say? In order for him to occupy the positions related to demolitions requires a great amount of knowledge regarding the demolition process, which you should have understood by the fact that demolition experts in this country and around the world depend on Brent Blanchard for his expertise, which you would have noted if you had been paying attention to what I have been posting. Edited May 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1352 Share Posted May 2, 2012 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? What I said was that to be a demolition expert, you must have had experience of demolishing a building. Not sure which part you are struggling, but pushing a button like the lucky 11 year old boy you post did, doesn't make him or even Blanchard a demolition expert. 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. Changed tactic?? You are the one who his changing tactic after posting the absurd idea that because Blanchard as pushed a button, that makes him a demolition expert like the young boy who got to press the button. So please tell us, how many buildings Blanchard has rigged and demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts?? According to Brent Blanchard...Top demolition expert... 2. Mr. Loizeaux's false and self-serving statements are designed to market his company, and one would be wise to question anything he says. He does not have a reputable standing in the industry.http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/implosionworld/index.html No doubt, Blanchard as demolished many more buildings than Mr Loizeaux and his family run demolition company that his father set up in 1947 hey?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1353 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) I have answered the questions and posted facts and evidence as well.So how many is it then??What did the video say?Nothing about him or his experience in demolishing buildings!In order for him to occupy the positions related to demolitions requires a great amount of knowledge regarding the demolition process, which you should have understood by the fact that demolition experts in this country and around the world depend on Brent Blanchard for his expertise, which you would have noted if you had been paying attention to what I have been posting.I know what you have been spamming the forum with....Now answer the question instead of dodging and spamming! How many buildings has Blanchard rigged and demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts?? Edited May 2, 2012 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1354 Share Posted May 2, 2012 What I said was that to be a demolition expert, you must have had experience of demolishing a building. Not sure which part you are struggling, but pushing a button like the lucky 11 year old boy you post did, doesn't make him or even Blanchard a demolition expert. Changed tactic?? You are the one who his changing tactic after posting the absurd idea that because Blanchard as pushed a button, that makes him a demolition expert like the young boy who got to press the button. Should I present your post where you claimed that a person needs to demolish a building to gain experience? Now, for the question for all to read: Is Brent Blanchard a demolition expert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1355 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So how many is it then?? Did the video place the exact number? Did the video say thousands? Nothing about him or his experience in demolishing buildings! Since demolition experts around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard for his expertise in the demolition proecess, simply says that you are incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1356 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Considering that you have yet to present any bomb evidence in the collapse of the WTC buildings, what more is there to say?! And since you have asked the question over and over again, I don't know what else to say other than I can provide evidence that shows the possibility of explosives.I can't prove it and have always maintained I can't. However what you can't refute without denial and ignorance is that those who were at GZ reported explosions and no internet warriors on a debunking crusade, who think they know better can say it was anything other than what they reported without counter evidence which shows they were wrong. Your opinion on what you think they heard is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1357 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And since you have asked the question over and over again, I don't know what else to say other than I can provide evidence that shows the possibility of explosives. How amushing when demolition experts have ruled out explosives and here you are with no demolition experience overriding the experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1358 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I can't prove it and have always maintained I can't. I know you can't and never could. Read on. Could the collapses have been caused by an atypical controlled demolition with the explosives placed near the airplane impact? MIT professor Thomas Eagar explains that the fires would have been sufficiently hot to weaken the steel columns so that they could no longer support the million of pounds of building above them. This means that the fires accomplished what explosives could have done, and so there is no need to invoke explosives as an explanation. Although our intuition may tell us that the towers should have tipped over rather than fall straight down, engineers know better. Buildings are composed mostly of empty space, and the path of least resistance is straight down. This explains the superficial similarity between the World Trade Center towers and a controlled demolition. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/viewpoints/article521955.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1359 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Did the video place the exact number? Did the video say thousands?So he has rigged thousand of buildings for demolition has he?? Care to point to a single one he has planned and rigged with explosives??Since demolition experts around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard for his expertise in the demolition proecess, simply says that you are incorrect.Brent Blanchard says that demolition experts around the world depend upon his expertise. <---Skyeagle fails to notice the self promoting marketing guff from Brent and his company which watches demolitions!!I'm sure you can point to these demolition companies who have experience of actually rigging, planning and demolishing buildings that require the expertise of a man who as far as we can tell, has never actually rigged, planned or demolished a building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1360 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So he has rigged thousand of buildings for demolition has he?? Care to point to a single one he has planned and rigged with explosives?? Tell us all, what Brent Blanhard was demonstrating in the video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1361 Share Posted May 2, 2012 How amushing when demolition experts have ruled out explosives and here you are with no demolition experience overriding the experts. You demolition expert has never demolished a building has he....Danny Jowenko has demolished buildings and reckons WTC7 was demolished. Torin Wolf has demolished buildings and reckons all the tower were demolished. Van Romero has demolished building and thought that the towers were demolished. Brent Blanchard has never demolished a building (as far as I'm aware!) and thinks they were not demolished. Yeah, you are onto a right winner with your demolition expert! Anyway, why don't you answer the question? How many buildings has Blanchard rigged and demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts?? Tell us all, what Brent Blanhard was demonstrating in the video? Talking about something he has never done himself at a guess??So how many buildings has Blanchard rigged and demolished to earn the title of one of the top demolition experts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1362 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I know you can't and never could. Read on. And I never said I would or could....lolBut its possible that explosives were used and no debunking crusader opinion is going to beat the evidence of the people who were at GZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1363 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Should I present your post where you claimed that a person needs to demolish a building to gain experience? Now, for the question for all to read:You can present if you like, the point still stand though.How is he an expert if he has never performed the operation? More importantly how can he be one of the top experts in something he hasn't performed?? Is Brent Blanchard a demolition expert?I already told you.......NO!! lolSo how many buildings has he demolished to become the countries top expert on demolitions?? lol Come on! Asking more questions doesn't answer the question I posed to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1364 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) You can present if you like, the point still stand though. Is Brent Blanchard a demolition expert? How is he an expert if he has never performed the operation? More importantly how can he be one of the top experts in something he hasn't performed??I already told you.......NO!! lol LOL!!! It just goes to show where you are coming from. If you had been paying attention to the facts and other evidence, you would have known that Brent Blanchard is one of the top demolition experts in the world. Edited May 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1365 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And I never said I would or could....lol But its possible that explosives were used and no debunking crusader opinion is going to beat the evidence of the people who were at GZ. There were no bomb explosions noted anywhere on the videos, on audio nor on the local sensors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1366 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And I never said I would or could....lol But its possible that explosives were used and no debunking crusader opinion is going to beat the evidence of the people who were at GZ. Read on. Stephen Jones, a professor emeritus at Brigham Young University, reported traces of a substance called thermite on a steel beam section taken from ground zero to be used in a Sept. 11 memorial. However, Blanchard notes that thermite is not used, nor would it be useful, in a controlled demolition. Since thermite can be used for welding and cutting steel, it seems more likely that thermite would result from removing a section of beam from the ground zero site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1367 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Let's be fair Sky he has provided evidence, unfortunately he cannot qualify the witnesses making the statements that they heard demolition explosives. Well its nice to hear you admit that Raptor.I'm not here to prove that is what they heard, I am here to show the possibility and that it is not impossible or they are wrong as some internet warriors seems to think. Therefore, his so called evidence is moot till he can provide qualification.The evidence from the numerous eyewitnesses is not moot, it's first hand accounts of people who were there.What is moot is claiming they heard something else without any supporting evidence. And while I admit, it could be something other than explosives, until there is evidence for something else, then explosives remain a possibility. 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. Who in the industry considers him to be an expert in controlled demolition?? Protec and implosion World are companies and organisations which he runs.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. Due to the fact that he has never planned a demolition, rigged a buidling and demolished it.He might be the worlds biggest fan of demolitions, he may have watch tons of them and I'm sure he is very knowledgable about them, but that doesn't make him an expert when he has never rigged an explosion. 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 ( 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1368 Share Posted May 2, 2012 There were no bomb explosions noted anywhere on the videos, on audio nor on the local sensors.Yes they were Skyeagle, denial and ignorance are no substitute for the hard cold reality in which there were sounds which were just like explosives.I could spam the forum with them, but I know you have seen them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1369 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Well its nice to hear you admit that Raptor. I'm not here to prove that is what they heard, I am here to show the possibility and that it is not impossible or they are wrong as some internet warriors seems to think. The evidence from the numerous eyewitnesses is not moot, it's first hand accounts of people who were there. What is moot is claiming they heard something else without any supporting evidence. And while I admit, it could be something other than explosives, until there is evidence for something else, then explosives remain a possibility. Who in the industry considers him to be an expert in controlled demolition?? Protec and implosion World are companies and organisations which he runs. Due to the fact that he has never planned a demolition, rigged a buidling and demolished it. He might be the worlds biggest fan of demolitions, he may have watch tons of them and I'm sure he is very knowledgable about them, but that doesn't make him an expert when he has never rigged an explosion. They didn't hear anything related to a bomb explosion and I have posted videos of bomb detonations to make my point. Read on. 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. For a demolition, explosives are placed in the lower part of the building to cut supporting beams. As a result, the building initially gives way at the bottom, and most of the destruction is due to the building collapsing on itself due to gravity, not by blowing it to smithereens. The coverup claim concedes a lack of evidence in support of a controlled demolition, and instead tries to maintain that hypothesis by a perceived inability to rule it out. This is called a negative argument, and it is scientifically unacceptable because it can be used to espouse any idea no matter how unlikely. Edited May 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1370 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Read on. Whats Steven Jones got to do with anything?? Don't tell me, you have fantasised and imagined an argument where I have presented Steven Jones as the worlds leading expert in demolitions or something, right?? Desperate and pathetic. Just face it, Blanchard ain't demolished squat has he?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1371 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Whats Steven Jones got to do with anything?? I thought that you would have known by now since he was the person who threw in thermite and the WTC buildings. Read on. Stephen Jones, a professor emeritus at Brigham Young University, reported traces of a substance called thermite on a steel beam section taken from ground zero to be used in a Sept. 11 memorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted May 2, 2012 #1372 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They didn't hear anything related to a bomb explosion and I have posted videos of bomb detonations to make my point.Read on. Yes, they said they heard explosions, some said they heard explosives.Posting a video and the opinions of an internet warrior sitting behind his keyboard, denying the sounds of explosions on the videos which have been posted while spamming the thread with repeated videos and links, thinking he knows better than those at GZ might be winning the crusade in your head, but the reality is very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Posted May 2, 2012 #1373 Share Posted May 2, 2012 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. So unless every single witness at GZ had taken a demolition course, you will ignore their testimony? Nice handwave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 2, 2012 #1374 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Desperate and pathetic. Just face it, Blanchard ain't demolished squat has he?? How amusing!! Read on. The collective evidence argues that the controlled demolition hypothesis should be rejected unless new information arises. Is it possible that the hundreds of people in the public and private sector who have studied the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and worked on site are all involved in a coverup? The problem with this assertion is that a coverup is itself a hypothesis that must be tested. To invoke that idea without evidence is scientifically unsound, not to mention lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Posted May 2, 2012 #1375 Share Posted May 2, 2012 So unless every single witness at GZ had taken a demolition course, you will ignore their testimony? Nice handwave. How many buildings has your 'expert' demolished Raptor Bites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now