Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

It's a little-known fact that the WTC had elevators which exploded upon impact! And that's what everybody heard on 9/11. They sound just like high explosives,

:tu:

So there's no need to look for explosives, because there's no evidence for it.

Of course, if NIST happened to trip over it by chance, they would know their employer is a mass murderer. They would expose these monsters instantly, despite the massive implications of doing so. Those NIST guys are a fearless bunch, yes indeed!!

Arturro Griffiths was in one of those elevators and judging from his account, it isn't a little known fact that the elevators exploded upon impact.

He definitely describes multiple explosions and being knocked back by one of the explosions.

So even though you think you know better and you think that is what everyone heard, i'll take the word of those who were there over some Internet debunkers who think they know better and suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't. I was just wondering out of curiosity, do you write those awful jokes you get in christmas crackers? lol

No, however, there is no evidence of me writing those awful jokes you get in a Christmas cracker (whether you believe that or not is irrelevant since humour is very subjective).... however, almost every single post - and in some, every single point you make - contains strawmen arguments.

Perhaps its just that you don't know what a strawman argument is...? Personally I find that hard to believe, but I suppose its possible. It might be a good idea to educate yourself on that particular fallacy you are so, so fond of and stop using it. That would probably improve the quality of your argument from that of a ranting CT with no regard for fact or the other person's argument / position, to someone possibly worth listening to.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little-known fact that the WTC had elevators which exploded upon impact! And that's what everybody heard on 9/11. They sound just like high explosives,

:tu:

IN case you didn't know, the elevators were not loaded with explosives. The sound was made as they crashed, which had nothing to do with bomb explosives.

So there's no need to look for explosives, because there's no evidence for it.

Amusing that as the elevators crashed there was no evidence of a bomb explosion. BTW, more than 1000 pounds of explosive was used in the 1993 WTC1 bombing and yet the hugh bomb failed to destroy one single steel column despite the fact the steel columns were sitting in the bomb crater.

The claim of controlled demolitions is spread around by those who have allowed themselves to be duped.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they haven't and this is why there isn't a list of demolition experts, architects and engineers who support the official story.

There is and I have already posted them.

Experts like Brent who has demolished the grand total of 0 buildings or structures.

You might want to call his company so they can explain to you why Brent Blanchard is a LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY on building demolitions. In fact, demolition companies depend upoon Brent Blanchard for important information.

There are plenty of testimonies of people at GZ who heard, felt and saw explosions that were not elevators falling, bodies hitting the ground or other debunking memes which are usually any old crap, but not explosions.

They did not hear bomb explosions, and once again, there were no explosions evident in the videos, nor on audio nor detected by seismic monitors. In other words, no bombs. :no:

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

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

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. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

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

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

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

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arturro Griffiths was in one of those elevators and judging from his account, it isn't a little known fact that the elevators exploded upon impact.

He definitely describes multiple explosions and being knocked back by one of the explosions.

Ever heard of compressed air?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All pictures and graphs, and hardly any analytical skills.

Too bad about MID, but he's in a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All pictures and graphs, and hardly any analytical skills.

Typical knowledge of how temperature affects steel is all that is needed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, however, there is no evidence of me writing those awful jokes you get in a Christmas cracker (whether you believe that or not is irrelevant since humour is very subjective)....
I just wondered with the poor joke about me living on a farm.
however, almost every single post - and in some, every single point you make - contains strawmen arguments.
Well complaining about them without actually pointing out my strawman argument, doesn't really support your case of my Wurzel Gummage-ness!
Perhaps its just that you don't know what a strawman argument is...? Personally I find that hard to believe, but I suppose its possible.
I know what strawman arguments are but I love how you focus on me and my supposed strawman, while another poster (Whose name we won't mention!) spams the forum with nothing but strawman, yet I'm not seeing you complain about them?

Bias perhaps?? Probably, but it's OK, I still love ya and forgive ya! ;)

It might be a good idea to educate yourself on that particular fallacy you are so, so fond of and stop using it.
Well i thought my post made some valid points but if you think they are made of straw, you could point them out to me and I'll retract my statement.
That would probably improve the quality of your argument from that of a ranting CT with no regard for fact or the other person's argument / position, to someone possibly worth listening to.
Well isn't your opinion about the quality of my arguments subjective? Maybe you could suggest some ways I could improve the quality of my argument if they are that bad.

Cheers :D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to call his company so they can explain to you why Brent Blanchard is a LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY on building demolitions. In fact, demolition companies depend upoon Brent Blanchard for important information.
Why would I ring him?? lol

This is the company that Brent Blanchard runs? They are not going to say he is not a world leading authority on building demolitions? lol

I know all I need to know about him, hes has witnessed lots of demolitions but he's got no personal experience of demolition a building cause his company don't do the demolition. Maybe you should ring him and advise him to corner the fire demolition market though?

They did not hear bomb explosions,
I never said they heard bombs, they heard EXPLOSIONS, it's their own words and they were the witnessing it.
and once again, there were no explosions evident in the videos,
Except the videos showing explosions
nor on audio
Except the video of the explosions before WTC7 collapses and the people there saying it was explosions.
nor detected by seismic monitors.In other words, no bombs. :no:
The bombs were not picked up by seismic equipment over 16km away in back in the WTC in 1993.

Making that point invalid. In other words, you are wrong.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I ring him?? lol

To find out how many buildings he has demolished. :yes:

This is the company that Brent Blanchard runs? They are not going to say he is not a world leading authority on building demolitions? lol

Why of course they will. After all Brent Blanchard is a world leading authority on demolition implosions, which is why demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard and his company. :yes:

I know all I need to know about him, hes has witnessed lots of demolitions but he's got no personal experience of demolition a building cause his company don't do the demolition.

On the contrary, Brent Blandchard has many, many years of experience in the field of demolition implosions, which is another reason why he is a leading world authority on demolition implosions. :yes:

Maybe you should ring him and advise him to corner the fire demolition market though?

Why should I? He already knows that fire will cause failure of steel structures of buildings as was the case with the WTC buildings, the collapse of those steel frame buildings in Thailand, Spain, the collapse of the steel structure on that overpass just to name a few.

I never said they heard bombs, they heard EXPLOSIONS, it's their own words and they were the witnessing it.

You can't back out now!!!! :w00t: You implied that bombs were responsible and since you've made your bed, you must now sleep in it. :w00t::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To find out how many buildings he has demolished. :yes:
Why would I ask him that when we know the answer?

I'll give you some clues shall I? It's less than 1 but its not a negative number.

Why of course they will.
Of course they won't say he is not a leading authority on implosions because its his company.
After all Brent Blanchard is a world leading authority on demolition implosions, which is why demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard and his company. :yes:
No he isn't seeing as he has never demolished a building.

You are giving me his marketing spiel from his company website but you are struggling to differentiate that from the actual facts.

On the contrary, Brent Blandchard has many, many years of experience in the field of demolition implosions, which is another reason why he is a leading world authority on demolition implosions. :yes:
So you are disagreeing with me and you think his company ACTUALLY do demolitions?

Excuse me but...........lol

Could you show me, to the contrary, where Protec actually say they do the actual demolition?

Why should I? He already knows that fire will cause failure of steel structures of buildings as was the case with the WTC buildings, the collapse of those steel frame buildings in Thailand, Spain, the collapse of the steel structure on that overpass just to name a few.
Cause you and him could use fires as a demolition method.

Fires brought down the WTC 1,2 & 7. So it should be able to bring down any building in about 7 hours from start to finish by your logic.

You can't back out now!!!! :w00t: You implied that bombs were responsible and since you've made your bed, you must now sleep in it. :w00t::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not backing out of anything sonshine! I said explosions and still standby it.

Was it bombs? Of course it's possible it was bombs, so there is nothing wrong with the bed I've made or am lying in, it's quite comfortable thanks.

However your bed is a mess! You said they never heard explosions and now you appear to be the one changing from they didn't hear explosions, to they didn't hear bombs, based on the evidence that you think you are so smart, you know better than the people at GZ.

But wait, there was no seismic evidence of bombs at GZ, even though you didn't realise that there was no seismic evidence of bombs back in 1993. I mean why did you feel the need to bring that up as a valid point? Dont you realise that you just debunked yourself. Hahahaha!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Stundie, for an exposition of the sophistry of Skyeagle. Cognitive Dissonance cannot be rational behavior. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I ask him that when we know the answer? I'll give you some clues shall I? It's less than 1 but its not a negative number.

How about in the thousands? :yes:

No he isn't seeing as he has never demolished a building.

How about in the thousands?! Ever wondered why Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority in demolition implosions? Check it out.

Brent Blanchard

Background

Employment History

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-He9IfXes

However your bed is a mess! You said they never heard explosions and now you appear to be the one changing from they didn't hear explosions, to they didn't hear bombs, based on the evidence that you think you are so smart, you know better than the people at GZ.

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

But wait, there was no seismic evidence of bombs at GZ, even though you didn't realise that there was no seismic evidence of bombs back in 1993.

Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993? No! Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 and WTC2 in 2001? No! Since explosives were not attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993, figure out what that means. And, if you look at a photo of the steel columns in the 1993 blast, not one steel column was destroyed by the huge bomb. How many monitors did Protec. Inc. have in the general area in 1993?

I mean why did you feel the need to bring that up as a valid point? Dont you realise that you just debunked yourself. Hahahaha!

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Stundie, for an exposition of the sophistry of Skyeagle. Cognitive Dissonance cannot be rational behavior. :cry:

Irrational behavior involves the act of trying to convince people that no Boeing struck the Pentagon despite the overwhelming evidence and then, substitute an P-700 anti-ship missile for which there was no evidence, in addition to claiming that no Boeing crashed near Shanksville despite overwhelming photo evidence,and confirmations from radar data, investigators, clean-up crews, coroner Wally Miller, and United Airlines.

Irrational behavior involves the act of trying to convince people that nukes were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings despite the lack of evidence of any type related to a nuclear detonation.

Irrational behavior involves the act of trying to convince people that American 77 passed north of the gas station when in fact, physical evidence proved otherwise, and then, trying to convince people that explosives knocked down the light poles leading to the Pentagon when in fact, evidence proved the light poles suffered from impact damage that had nothing to do with explosives, and list goes on and on..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about in the thousands? :yes:
Thousands? hahahaha!

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

http://www.protecservices.com/Services.php

Ever wondered why Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority in demolition implosions?
No, because he isn't.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-He9IfXes

Why don't you tell us?
They did not hear explosions that were attributed to explosives and figure out why I posted the fact there were no explosions detected by seismic monitors in the area and think for a minute, what that means? I know the answer because I have seen, heard, and felt the blast waves of real explosions. :yes:
What are you blathering on about here? It's not even coherent!
Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993? No! Were explosives attached to the steel columns of WTC1 and WTC2 in 2001? No!
So why are you claiming that there is no seismic evidence of explosives in 2001 when there were none back in 1993? lol
Since explosives were not attached to the steel columns of WTC1 in 1993, figure out what that means.
No need to figure out what it means.

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

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

If only they had used fire, those columns would have been wax.
Nope, because you debunked yourself by the very fact you failed to follow-up on the rest of the story regarding explosive blast waves and Brent Blanchard's bio.
You failed to provide any evidence of Brent actually demolitioning a building in all that spam you posted. Hahahahaha!

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands? hahahaha!

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

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

Common sense dictates that only demolition experts occupy the positions that Brent Blanchard have held. :yes: Apparently, you are unaware that Brent Blanchard has held multiple positions that required a demolition expert and look what you posted. :w00t:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

implosionworld.com

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

By Brent Blanchard

August 6, 2006

"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or 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."

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

Skyscrapers Then and Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Nova, the engineer that designed them said that he knew they were coming down from the moment they were hit — they were not engineered to take that.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Common sense dictates that only demolition experts occupy the positions that Brent Blanchard have held. :yes:
Common sense doesn't dictate your logical fallacy I'm afraid.
Apparently, you are unaware that Brent Blanchard has held multiple positions that required a demolition expert and look what you posted. :w00t:
Apparently, you are still unaware and failing to admit that although Blanchard may have held multiple positions that required a demolition expert, that he or his company have never performed a demolition.

I like how you have worded this, you've gone from "Blanchard being a demolition expert".....to...."he has held multiple position that required a demolition expert?" Nice logical quantum leap there Skyeagle. :w00t:

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

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

Fire can affect steel columns in the same manner, but you didn't know that because you have never worked with steel, but I have. :yes:
So what you are saying is that if the terrorist back in 93 had used fire, the WTC would have collapsed?? :w00t:
Now, what have I said about throwing 4130 steel sheets into an oven in order to soften the material for fabrication purposes?
Why bother with an oven? lol Just chuck some kerosene on it and it will soon be soft enough for fabrication, but becareful, it might cut the steel.
On the contrary, he has demolished thousands of buildings, which is why he is a leading world authority on demolition implosions. :yes:
So why can't you post us some evidence that he has ACTUALLY demolished THOUSANDS of buildings? Because his company profile doesn't say he demolishes buildings, it says he documents demolitions.

I know you are struggling with the concept of documentation and demolition, but there is a massive difference. :w00t:

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

You don't seem to understand the difference between a demolition company and a documentation company, so here is Protec Company Profile to help you distinguish the difference between the two. :w00t:

Protec Documentation Services is recognized as an international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services.
Nothing about demolishing buildings in there I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Vibration Prediction:

Protec's custom-developed software programs allow our Engineers to convert your work plan into a reliable predictor of vibration levels prior to the start of site activities. In addition, Protec's supporting database-research team has access to thousands of vibration records from previous projects, which can be used to provide empirical vibration data recorded under similar or identical conditions.

Protec's Vibration Prediction Study can save untold time and expense by helping establish appropriate equipment and methodology prior to site mobilization.

Vibration Monitoring:

Protec has the experience and versatility to develop and implement cost-effective monitoring programs custom-suited to any jobsite.

Our Engineers integrate many factors such as site logistics, type of (and distance to) adjacent liabilities, regulatory requirements, federal vibration standards, and budgeting goals in recommending the most effective program for your project.

Using state-of-the-art field seismographs and supporting specialty equipment, Protec measures vibration via two primary methods:

arrow.jpga) With on-site technicians, who can operate and reposition instrumentation throughout the day as your work progresses. An on-site Protec technician also serves to visibility establish that an independent third party is monitoring vibration (which itself has been shown to reduce nuisance claims), and the technician can address local resident's inquiries in a knowledgeable and congenial manner.

arrow.jpgB) With continuously-monitoring field seismographs. This involves the installation of multiple instruments at critical locations around a jobsite, which record site data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and can be remotely accessed by Protec or our client at any time. Protec configures these units to instantly contact our offices (or client's site supervisors directly) if elevated or unusual levels are detected. This instant notification can help initiate discussion and mitigation before small issues potentially turn into large ones.

Both monitoring methods include the development and submission of Protec's formal Vibration Monitoring Reports. With Protec you will always have a record of jobsite vibration.

Structure Inspections:

Establishing the condition of nearby structures and educating property owners about those conditions is a critical component of any risk-management plan.

Protec inspectors document the condition of adjacent properties and liabilities before and after your project. These inspections reduce unsubstantiated claims and serve as a powerful public relations tool for showing project officials, neighboring residents and business owners that you stand behind your work and take your reputation seriously.

Claim Investigation & Legal Testimony:

Protec doesn't just drop raw data in your lap…our experts can help resolve potential issues by providing consultation and data interpretation long after a project is complete.

We know that inquiries or claims can arise months or even years after a project concludes…which is why Protec remains nearby with the experience and background to help determine whether claims are the result of jobsite activity, environmental changes or other unrelated causes.

Protec works with all available data and provides valuable assistance in helping avoid costly legal disputes.

Additional Services:

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

Settlement Monitoring & Measurement Systems:

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

Horizontal-Vertical Control Point Surveys

Noise Monitoring:

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

Pre-Construction Video & Site Photography:

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

Protec employs the latest advances in high-resolution technology and GPS tracking to establish exact jobsite details, and our custom-developed data-indexing system assures easy access to specific site locations.

In addition, Protec performs pre-, progress- and post-construction/demolition project photography using the highest-resolution equipment available. Our experienced photographers are Tunnel, Track and Confined Space Certified with over a dozen transit agencies in the NY-NJ-Phila metro area, please call for more details.

No, I'm right, there is nothing in there about Protec or Brent Blanchard performing actually demolitions. :w00t:

Only someone who is delusional would think that Protec actually do demolition based on this company profile cause it's says sod all about performing demolitions themselves. :w00t:

Edited by Stundie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rich Sky--your claiming common sense. :w00t:

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

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

On the contrary, common sense refuted your false claims. :yes:

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

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

I like how you have worded this, you've gone from "Blanchard being a demolition expert".....to...."he has held multiple position that required a demolition expert?" Nice logical quantum leap there Skyeagle. :w00t:
'

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

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

So what you are saying is that if the terrorist back in 93 had used fire, the WTC would have collapsed?? :w00t:

Apparently, you have no idea what you about. :no:

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

Why use kerosene when an over is available?

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

On the contrary, Protec, Inc., is the world-leading company consist of building engineers, technicians and demolition experts and look what you posted. :w00t::lol:

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

Protec, Inc.

heading-companyprofile.gif

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

Industry Memberships:

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

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.