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

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

Why of course!!

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.

On the contrary, the experiences of its employees are entrenched in expertise regarding the demolition process :yes: and look what you posted! :w00t::lol: You might want to review the following information.

http://www.implosionworld.com/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline),Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

Is it any wonder then, why demolition companies around the world come to Brent Blanchard for advice, and detail data information regarding demolition implosions?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Question is: Did you review that video that indicated the number of demolitions he has been involved in? Second question for you; Is Brent Blanchard a leading world authority on demolition implosions? Yes, or No.

I will be waiting for your answer for all to see. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd that some think fire can cut through steel. Just sit and think about it for a moment. Surreal.

Of course fire cannot cut steel. Nobody said it did. Other than further websites spouting illogical nonsense, NOBODY has claimed steel melted.

If fire was so useful to demolitions teams, they wouldn't use Thermite. They'd just walk in with flamethrowers and torch the place.

Then again, why do demolition companies still stick with conventional shape charges instead of thermite? I mean let's all be honest here. Thermite was able to destroy 3 buildings without having to bother with the months of prep work such as taking down interior walls, removing obstructions, cutting non load bearing beams, charge wiring, etc.

Apperantly thermite is much easier to use effectively, probably cheaper, and doesn't require detonation and is quiet.

Of course I am being sarcastic.....

The reason they don't do that is probably because it doesn't work. The fire would take too long. You'd need something like Napalm or *drumrolls*... Thermite! *ba dum tish*

Do you understand how the WTC towers were built? Here's a small hint for you. There is a reason why the truss method was used instead of the conventional web method. Trusses were used in order to provide more interior office space as it allowed the central core columns to be connected to the outer structural columns without requiring a connecting column in between. This gives the floor more spacing without sacrificing rooms for support columns, maximizing potential profit from the tenants looking for large open spaces.

Trusses are not hard steel I beams and are made lighter and obviously thinner. Go check out your local warehouse and see how trusses are built and used.

Now, try this little test.

Take a steel pipe and heat it in the center with a match. Does it sag? No.

Now take a paper clip and straighten it out, light a match under the center, does it sag? Yes.

Well...that is a simple explanation for the differences between using steel made I beams in a web design and steel trusses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

On the contrary sir, live people at the site described pools of molten metal. Photos of such metal were taken and have been shown here at UM. Indeed, even Swanny acknowledges that, though he opines that it could be aluminum and not steel.

I tried to enlist his help in validating his theory about that, but he was not interested in validating the theory by probability and proportion, or by volume or weight.

You do not know and cannot prove how much time was used in prepping the buildings for demolition. Neither can I. We both speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

On the contrary sir, live people at the site described pools of molten metal. Photos of such metal were taken and have been shown here at UM. Indeed, even Swanny acknowledges that, though he opines that it could be aluminum and not steel.

I tried to enlist his help in validating his theory about that, but he was not interested in validating the theory by probability and proportion, or by volume or weight.

You do not know and cannot prove how much time was used in prepping the buildings for demolition. Neither can I. We both speculate.

BR.

Pools of molten metal is to be expected.

Of course swanny cannot validate his theory that it is molten aluminum, as nobody made any scientific investigation to the make up of the pools of molten metal. I honestly don't blame him.

Neither can the truthers validate that it was molten steel without testing it.

It is all speculation.

People were working in those buildings up until the time of collapse. CD companies take months gutting buildings to prep for a demolition. Did any employee that worked that day notice interior gutting going on all floors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not know and cannot prove how much time was used in prepping the buildings for demolition. Neither can I. We both speculate.

It has been proven that explosives had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BR.

Pools of molten metal is to be expected.

Of course swanny cannot validate his theory that it is molten aluminum, as nobody made any scientific investigation to the make up of the pools of molten metal. I honestly don't blame him.

Neither can the truthers validate that it was molten steel without testing it.

It is all speculation.

People were working in those buildings up until the time of collapse. CD companies take months gutting buildings to prep for a demolition. Did any employee that worked that day notice interior gutting going on all floors?

You've missed a few posts Raptor.

Swan accepted that Thomas Cahill and the DELTA group were involved in monitoring the air at WTC weeks after the attack. The air samples collected by them show ferrous particles, among others. Right off hand, I don't think aluminum was mentioned. Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there. I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

Out of all the metals present at WTC, what do you suppose the ratio is of the various metals? Would it be safe to say 90% steel, or would it be even higher?

And riddle me this Raptor, why is molten metal to be expected? For a collapse begun by jetfuel and gravity, after those jetfuel fires had burned for an hour or more, why is molten metal to be expected?

Considering that there are no other examples of modern steel buildings having collapsed from fire, and that molten metals were not found in those modern steel buildings that had caught fire, upon what precedent do you claim that molten metal is to be expected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget all the melted Gold in the basements !

:gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there. I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

A lot of metal-working was done on the site, metal working produces these particles, why do you have a problem?
Out of all the metals present at WTC, what do you suppose the ratio is of the various metals? Would it be safe to say 90% steel, or would it be even higher?

Steel doesn't melt at normal building fire temperatures. Aluminium does.

And riddle me this Raptor, why is molten metal to be expected? For a collapse begun by jetfuel and gravity, after those jetfuel fires had burned for an hour or more, why is molten metal to be expected?
Because a large building will contain a lot of material that can burn, and in the conditions of a debris pile, it can burn for weeks. The opera-house fire I mentioned that lasted fifteen days happened back in the 19th century.
Considering that there are no other examples of modern steel buildings having collapsed from fire, and that molten metals were not found in those modern steel buildings that had caught fire, upon what precedent do you claim that molten metal is to be expected?

What makes you think no other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire? Here's a recent example of the many:

http://www.thisissta...tail/story.html

What makes you think molten aluminium is unusual in a building fire?

http://www.alsecco.co.uk/_images/_filebrowser/FireTest_Report_Airtec_Stone.pdf

Edited by flyingswan
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan accepted that Thomas Cahill and the DELTA group were involved in monitoring the air at WTC weeks after the attack. The air samples collected by them show ferrous particles, among others. Right off hand, I don't think aluminum was mentioned. Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there. I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

Considering the temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, but not steel, it should be of no surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've missed a few posts Raptor.

Been trying to keep up after being gone a month.

Swan accepted that Thomas Cahill and the DELTA group were involved in monitoring the air at WTC weeks after the attack. The air samples collected by them show ferrous particles, among others. Right off hand, I don't think aluminum was mentioned. Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there. I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

I do not understand why you think the presence of molten metal and iron particles are of heavy importance. Clean up cutters were used after the collapse to clear debris.

The WTC complex was also clad in aluminium, lots of it, so the presence of molten metals are not a surprise.

Out of all the metals present at WTC, what do you suppose the ratio is of the various metals? Would it be safe to say 90% steel, or would it be even higher?

Sure, lets go with 90% steel, I still fail to see the point that it is not possible the molten metal can be molten glass or even molten aluminium.

1520312BM4799-hor.jpg

1001900902_cce7790dce_z.jpg?zz=1

1630724-867670-james-hardy-altopress-maxppp-steel-worker-pouring-molten-steel-into-mold-through-sprue-guangzhou-guangdong-province-china.jpg

Can you identify what each of these 3 photos show?

And riddle me this Raptor, why is molten metal to be expected? For a collapse begun by jetfuel and gravity, after those jetfuel fires had burned for an hour or more, why is molten metal to be expected?

2 words, hydrocarbon fires.

Considering that there are no other examples of modern steel buildings having collapsed from fire, and that molten metals were not found in those modern steel buildings that had caught fire, upon what precedent do you claim that molten metal is to be expected?

Actually, the point that steel buildings do not collapsed based on fire alone is incomplete. What you seem to keep forgetting is that a fully fueled plane travelling at over 400 mph impacted the building causing damage, fire took care of the rest. Has any modern day steel building that DID NOT collapse due to fire have a 767 slam in them? So to take the plane impact out of the equation and claim that steel structures do not collapse due to fire alone and then claim impossibility is actually quite hilarious to boot.

At what temperature range does steel start to lose its strength? Have you looked inside a warehouse before and seen the differences of support between a web based I beam support design and a steel truss support design? The difference in thickness of the beams are hardly comparable. The reasoning why the desginers went with the steel truss design was due to having the outer structural beams attached to the core columns without needing the use of secondary support columns, obviously maximize office space without having to deal with columns running through the entire floor taking up space.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of metal-working was done on the site, metal working produces these particles, why do you have a problem?

Steel doesn't melt at normal building fire temperatures. Aluminium does.

Because a large building will contain a lot of material that can burn, and in the conditions of a debris pile, it can burn for weeks. The opera-house fire I mentioned that lasted fifteen days happened back in the 19th century.

What makes you think no other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire? Here's a recent example of the many:

http://www.thisissta...tail/story.html

What makes you think molten aluminium is unusual in a building fire?

http://www.alsecco.c...irtec_Stone.pdf

This was not a normal building fire Swan. Normal building fires do not bring the buildings down at nearly free fall rates, do not create molten metal, and do not leave simmering pools of molten metal. There are many other characteristics of these particular events never experienced before. That is a very poor choice of words, normal building fire.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that it might have been molten aluminum, if only you could make the case. If only you could validate your theory. So far, you have not. You do not even attempt to discuss what ratio of iron to aluminum might have been present, so that your theory might take its first step. So far Swan, all you offer is maybe this or maybe that.

Not persuasive in the least. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

I think the presence of molten metal is significant because in order for metal to be made molten and remain molten, and offer air samples suggestive of boiling metal, a very large amount of energy must be consumed. For example, the electric bill for any foundry must be pretty darn high.

All we have here, according to the official story, is jetfuel burned up top the building, about 800 feet away from the basements, and gravity. I doubt any operating foundry get melt steel and keep it that way for weeks by merely burning jetfuel 800 feet from the metal. Just does not pass the common sense smell test.

Rest of the post Raptor, very very stale. Not at all persuasive. We both know it, I suspect. A jetfuel fire up in the air by 800 feet or more, some undetermined quantity and quality of office furniture that meets UL fire code, and you're going to have molten metal for weeks and hot spots visible from satellites? Puh-leeze. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

All we have here, according to the official story, is jetfuel burned up top the building, about 800 feet away from the basements, and gravity.

I am only going to address this part of your post and will come back tomorrow to deal with the rest as this really made me scratch my head profusely.

Are you sure the official story only said jetfuel and gravity? Nothing about a plane impacting the towers?

Are you sure about that?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Raptor, sure. Yessir, the OCT has airplanes impacting the towers at about the 800 foot mark.

Wow, I feel so much better now! :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was not a normal building fire...

It was enough to bring down the WTC buildings.

Normal building fires do not bring the buildings down at nearly free fall rates,...

Don't tell that to architects and civil engineers because they won't believe you. After all,they've stated for the record that fires brought down the WTC buildings and they support the official story that fires brought down the WTC buildings. :yes:

...donot create molten metal,

Course not, which throws cold water on your claim that molten steel was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

and do not leave simmering pools of molten metal.

Since temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, but not steel, there is no mystery the molten metal was aluminum.

There are many other characteristics of these particular events never experienced before.

Let's take a look at your comment. How many B-767s slammed into buildings at over 500 mph before the 911 attacks?

I'm perfectly happy to accept that it might have been molten aluminum,...

You have not other choice if you want to accept reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jetfuel fire up in the air by 800 feet or more, some undetermined quantity and quality of office furniture that meets UL fire code,...

You better take another look.

In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9.

The fire was fueled by office materials only.

076-full.jpg

...you're going to have molten metal for weeks and hot spots visible from satellites?

That's reality! :yes:

Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

QUEENSBURY — Firefighters were still dousing hot spots Monday at a blaze that began more than two days ago in warehouses rented by SCA Tissue. "It's the biggest fire in our history as far as a big commercial building," said West Glens Falls Fire Chief Mike Gordon.

http://www.timesunio...two-4250472.php

Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

The fire that broke out earlier this week at the Bruce Church produce packing sheds will continue to smolder for the next couple of days and produce some light smoke, but there are no longer any flames coming from the site.

http://www.yumasun.c...l#ixzz2K4b4zHAl

Hobby Store Still Smoldering After Saturday's Fire

Lynchburg, VA - The remains of The Collector's Lair were still smoldering on Monday. Officials still do not have a cause, but confirmed the fire started in the basement of the building. Investigators say it will probably continue smolder for days until they can get to the bottom of the 12 feet of rubble. "A little hard to see it go," said frequent shopper of "Collector's Lair," Chris Morris.

Locals like Morris have been stopping by to get one last look. "There's a lot of stuff in there. I'm not surprised it's burning this long," said Morris.

http://www.wset.com/...-saturdays-fire

Officials say Caldwell plant fire smoldered for days

Firefighters work at the scene of a structure fire as a portion of the Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed building collapses in the background, Sunday evening in Caldwell.

http://www.idahopres...e=image&photo=1

Fire at Yuma-area packing shed to smolder for days

YUMA, AZ (AP) -

A fire that destroyed a group of produce packing sheds east of Yuma is expected to smolder for days as piles of burned cardboard cools and foam building insulation continues to send up smoke.

http://www.kpho.com/...molder-for-days

Great Chicago Fire

Once the fire had ended, the smoldering remains were still too hot for a survey of the damage to be completed for days.

http://en.wikipedia....at_Chicago_Fire

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, common sense refuted your false claims. :yes:
You are fooling no one but yourself i'm afraid.
On the contrary, he has performed thousands.
Again more denial.
What did the video say?
Nothing much,
Did you call his company? Remember,Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority on demolition implosions.
You might believe his marketing spiel but the fact is that he has never demolished a building.
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!
The fact is that all he and company do his document implosions, they do not perform the demolition themselves. Hence they are called Protec Documentation Services. The clue is in the bolded bit.
Apparently, you have no idea what you about. :no:
Everyone is clueless except you
Why use kerosene when an over is available?
|Oh hadn't you heard that fire is the best method of melting, cutting and weakening steel. More effective that thermite or RDX apparently.
I already have. :yes: You missed it because you are not in the habit of adding 2 + 2 together correctly.

I think you are looking for things which don't exist and make them up in your head. Blanchard doesn't do the demolitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

Weakness of my claims? haahaha!! That Blanchard hasn't demolished a building? There is nothing on the Protec website that says they or Brent do demolitions.

Don't why you are trolling and spamming but it won't change the fact you are wrong.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are fooling no one but yourself i'm afraid.

Nope!! Science and common sense have already proven my case. :yes:

u might believe his marketing spiel but the fact is that he has never demolished a building.

How amusing!! Now, for my admission. I have been in touch with demolition experts and his company, and they have confirmed that Brent Blanchard has personally been involved in demolition implosions. How many buildings demolition did they confirm for Brent Blanchard?

A. 1 demolition

B. 100 demolitions

C. 500 demolitions

D. Well over 1 thousand

Answer: D.

Now, you know one reason why Brent Blanchard is one of the top demolition experts in the whole world! :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weakness of my claims? haahaha!! That Blanchard hasn't demolished a building? There is nothing on the Protec website that says they or Brent do demolitions.

LOL!! I have been in touch with demolition experts and his companies via emails which have confirmed that Brent Blanchard has been involved in many demolitions with well over 20 years experience and look what you posted :yes:

I told you to check because I had already done so, but you failed to do so and the rest is now history. :w00t: BTW, the demolition process involves many people, so is it any wonder why I have stated that claims of 911 conspiracist are based on pure ignorance?

I have conveyed the message to you that demolition experts around the world look up to Brent Blanchard for advice and detailed information on demolitions, but unfortunately, you failed to place the pieces of the puzzle in their proper places. :no: You don't become one of the world's top demolition experts by watching TV or reading articles on the Internet; you have to have many years of experience to become a world leader in demolition implosions.

What do you do when you feel there is more information that cannot be found on the Internet? I've learned to contact people and companies over the years when I want to find out more about a particular story and I even invited you to do the same but you failed to do so. You didn't even understand the significance of what I have been conveying, especially in regards to Brent Blanchard and implosion.com.

You know the old story; "You reap what you sow."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope!! Science and common sense have already proven my case. :yes:

How amusing!! Now, for my admission. I have been in touch with demolition experts and his company, and they have confirmed that Brent Blanchard has personally been involved in demolition implosions. How many buildings demolition did they confirm for Brent Blanchard?

A. 1 demolition

B. 100 demolitions

C. 500 demolitions

D. Well over 1 thousand

Answer: D.

Now, you know one reason why Brent Blanchard is one of the top demolition experts in the whole world! :yes:

Evidence of this?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of this?? lol

Apparently, you didn't understand a word as far as my contacts are concerned. You see, it is like this, I am not afraid to use emails and the telephone to ascertain the rest of the story. What did I invite you to do the other day as far as using the telephone?

I know from experience that not everything can be found on the Internet.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, you didn't understand a word as far as my contacts are concerned. You see, it is like this, I am not afraid to use emails and the telephone to ascertain the rest of the story.

Not sure what you are on about here?? :blink:

Protec are a documentation company, maybe the worlds best demolition documentation company, but they do not perform demolitions.

When you find evidence of this thousands of demolitions Protec/Blanchard have performed, then let me and the forum know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are on about here?? :blink:

Protec are a documentation company, maybe the worlds best demolition documentation company, but they do not perform demolitions.

When you find evidence of this thousands of demolitions Protec/Blanchard have performed, then let me and the forum know.

Apparently, you failed to understand that Protec, Inc. is made up of demolition experts and Brent Blanchard has more than 20 years of demolition experience, which is evident by the fact that he is one of the top demolition experts in the whole world. :yes:

You've searched the Internet, but I went straight to the demolition sources using the telephone and emails to get to the rest of the story.Now, answer my question I posed to you the other day.

Is Brent Blanchard a leading world expert on demolition implosions? Yes, or No.

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.