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

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:

Why would guys who you claim are demolition experts and demolish buildings give it up to work for a documentation company? lol

Protec are a documentation company, they do not do demolitions, they specialise in documenting and recording demolitions. Do you understand this part yet?? lol

It is not evident by the fact he is one of the top demolition experts in the world, it is evident by the fact that you can't cite us any evidence any of these imaginary 1000 demolitions you claim he or his company have done.

If his company had done 1000's of demolitions, don't you think they would mention it on their companies website?? :blink::yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would guys who you claim are demolition experts and demolish buildings give it up to work for a documentation company? lol

You failed to read my post, and since you missed this post, here it is again.

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)

Now, answer my question.

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You failed to read my post, and since you missed this post, here it is again.

Now, answer my question.

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

Sorry but whereabouts does it say that Brent Blanchard has demolished thousands of buildings?? :blink: hahahahahahaha!! It doesn't!

I think that Brent Blanchard might well be an international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services but he is not a leading expert on demolition implosions due to the fact there isn't any evidence that he has performed one before.

So that's a no.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but whereabouts does it say that Brent Blanchard has demolished thousands of buildings?? :blink: hahahahahahaha!! It doesn't!

You missed the point. I gave you the numbers that were provided to me by his company and other demolition experts and look what you posted. :w00t:

I think that Brent Blanchard might well be an international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services but he is not a leading expert on demolition implosions due to the fact there isn't any evidence that he has performed one before.

It takes a high-ranking demolition expert to lead such a company and to become a world authority on demolition implosives, which is why demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard. In addition, Brent Blanchard has top knowledge on every aspect of demolition implosives, but you would have known that if you had contacted demolition experts and his company as I have.

So once again , you find yourself in a lame position as always. :yes:

Now tell us, what has been told as far as how many buildings Brent Blanchard has demolished? Tell what has been said from time line: 0: 53 to 0:56 in the video.

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but whereabouts does it say that Brent Blanchard has demolished thousands of buildings??

Check the video at the reference given. In addition;

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.

Blanchard also takes aim at the claim that Building 7 of the WTC was demolished, writing: “Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.”

http://www.jod911.co...hard 8-8-06.pdf

Brent Blanchard is THE man of demolition implosions.

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.

How Building Implosions Work

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. They even brought the buildings down in different mathematical sequences, with varying amounts of time factored in between each building's collapse."

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

Spoken like a true leading world demolition expert that he is. :yes:

Now, for the record, are you claiming that Brent Blanchard is not a world-class demolition expert? Yes, or No.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What makes you so irritating to debate is the way you either don't bother to read any links I provide or misunderstand them if you do. I've just provided a link when fire caused a steel structure to collapse, I've just provided you a link showing molten aluminium in a building fire test and you just reply that normal fires "do not bring buildings down" and "do not create molten metal".

I've also shown that their is nothing unusual about iron microspheres, yet you are still claiming you need boiling steel to produce them. You cannot use commonplace phenomena to suggest that something is suspicious.

As to free-fall speed, that depends on the type of structure and the way that it fails. Slim steel columns provide little resistance once they have begun to buckle, hence rapid collapse is not suspicious either.

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.
If you have a mixture of substances exposed to fire, those with the lowest melting points will naturally melt first. When they become liquid, they will naturally flow to the lowest point they can reach. This process is all you need to get a pool of molten aluminium, lead, etc from a mixture that is 90% (or 99%, or whatever) steel. If the aluminium is there to start with, and the facade alone provided thousands of tons, molten aluminium is just a matter of the fires being hot enough.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan

Sorry, I do not see much similar between WTC and a warehouse, really. Do you?

Some experts, including Cahill I think, claim that the only way iron particles can be released is when the metal is at boiling point. I don't know, and neither you nor I have the luxury of being able to ask him whether welding or cutting steel can release such particles. You are probably right on that point, but we have no way to quantify how much welding or cutting was going on. I do not know if the data collected plotted time periods of high and low samples.

I am willing to entertain that aluminum might have been the culprit metal, and I think a good way to get started on that analysis is to determine the ratio of steel to aluminum or other metals involved in the construction of the buildings. You seem to have walked away from that theory of yours.

The notion advanced by Sky that the aluminum fuselage provided sufficient metal to have pools is ludicrous. How could that aluminum, shredded by the steel of the buildings and representing a very small number of the total weight, migrate down to the basement level in a neat package? That is absurd to propose, and IMO, a sign of how desperate the position is.

Further, you also walk away from the energy source to keep metal molten for many weeks.

Face it--under close scrutiny the official story falls apart. It cannot be proved, and the evidence works against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am willing to entertain that aluminum might have been the culprit metal,...

The silvery droplets painted a clear picture.

The notion advanced by Sky that the aluminum fuselage provided sufficient metal to have pools is ludicrous. How could that aluminum, shredded by the steel of the buildings and representing a very small number of the total weight, migrate down to the basement level in a neat package? That is absurd to propose, and IMO, a sign of how desperate the position is.

How many tons of aluminum was used in the contruction of the B-767 and in the facade of the WTC buildings?

Face it--under close scrutiny the official story falls apart. It cannot be proved, and the evidence works against it.

One the contrary, it has been proven the metal was not steel and that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point. I gave you the numbers that were provided to me by his company and other demolition experts and look what you posted. :w00t:

I haven't missed a thing....lol

There are no numbers because you have invented it, this is why there is no mention of Protec or Blanchard having done thousands of demolitions. :w00t:

If he or his company were demolishing buildings, then they would mention it wouldn't they? :blink:

It takes a high-ranking demolition expert to lead such a company and to become a world authority on demolition implosives, which is why demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard.

Not for his expertise on demolition because as we know, he has never done a demolition. They depend on him for his documentation skills.....lol

In addition, Brent Blanchard has top knowledge on every aspect of demolition implosives, but you would have known that if you had contacted demolition experts and his company as I have.

So once again , you find yourself in a lame position as always. :yes:

Yeah, cause I'm the one whose claiming that Protec or Blanchard have demolished thousands of builings without evidence of any of them, not even a single one is mentioned on their website, yet you STILL believe they have performed thousands. :w00t:

What a lame position I am in? hahahahaha!!

Now tell us, what has been told as far as how many buildings Brent Blanchard has demolished? Tell what has been said from time line: 0: 53 to 0:56 in the video.

What is said in the video.....Hilarious!

The commentator Andrew Maxwell who is also the man standing with Blanchard says...

"Brent Blanchard as performed thousand of demolitions on buildings."

That is your evidence??........Excuse me but......hahahahahahaha!! Oh come on, you can't be serious? A comedian who says Blanchard has performed thousand of demolitions when there isn't a single documented demolition of a building he has done, anywhere on the internet or his website is EVIDENCE and must mean that he TRULY has demolished thousands of buildings.

You're almost a good comedian as Andrew Maxwell..... :w00t:

Unless you have some better evidence other than hearsay, I would you suggest you think about your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One the contrary, it has been proven the metal was not steel and that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings.
Please feel free to expand on why you think you know better than those at GZ who claimed they saw molten steel and how it has been proven its not steel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't missed a thing....lol

Oh yes you did!! :w00t:

There are no numbers because you have invented it, this is why there is no mention of Protec or Blanchard having done thousands of demolitions. :w00t:

How amusing considering that that I got that informaton from demolition experts and his company and look what you posted. :w00t::D:lol: :lol: :lol: .

BTW, Brent Blanchard's position required hands-on demolition experience and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Brent Blanchard as performed thousand of demolitions on buildings."

That is your evidence??........Excuse me but......hahahahahahaha!! Oh come on, you can't be serious? A comedian who says Blanchard has performed thousand of demolitions when there isn't a single documented demolition of a building he has done, anywhere on the internet or his website is EVIDENCE and must mean that he TRULY has demolished thousands of building

Not only confirmed from the video, but confirmed via email and the telephone from demolition experts and engineers as well and look what you posted. Has it ever occurred to you as to why demolition companies and experts around the world see Brent Blanchard as a world-leader in demolition implosions who seek his advice, information and detailed data on demolition implosions?

Goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about. :td: And, it doesn't take a college degree to start a demolition implosion, which is what you think, but it does take a demolition expert with many years of experience to fill the shoes of Brent Blanchard, which is why he is considered one of the top experts in the demolition industry. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please feel free to expand on why you think you know better than those at GZ who claimed they saw molten steel and how it has been proven its not steel?

Yeah right, considering the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel and look what you posted!! :w00t::lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yes you did!! :w00t:

How amusing considering that that I got that informaton from demolition experts and his company and look what you posted. :w00t::D:lol: :lol: :lol: .

BTW, Brent Blanchard's position required hands-on demolition experience and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You got the info from a comedian........lol.....not demolition experts.....and certainly not from his company. :yes:

Unless you have hallucinated that he has demolished thousands of buildings.

BTW. I think you'll find that Brent Blanchard position required no hands on demolition because it's his company!! He owns Protec Documentation Services and therefore requires no hands on experience cause he ain't got none, he documents demolitions but doesn't do them.

Double dose of delusions. :w00t:

You keep pretending you are right, no one else is fooled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got the info from a comedian........lol.....not demolition experts.....and certainly not from his company. :yes:

Unless you have hallucinated that he has demolished thousands of buildings.

BTW. I think you'll find that Brent Blanchard position required no hands on demolition because it's his company!! He owns Protec Documentation Services and therefore requires no hands on experience cause he ain't got none, he documents demolitions but doesn't do them.

LOl!!! :lol:

:lol:

:lol:

BTW, you have this question to answer: :yes:

Now, for the record, are you claiming that Brent Blanchard is not a world-class demolition expert? Yes, or No.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right, considering the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel and look what you posted!! :w00t::lol: :lol:

Yeah right, this is the standard of evidence and proof needed when it comes to supporting any official theory nonsense. :w00t:

I asked you why you think you know better than those at GZ who claimed they saw molten steel and how is your opinion that the temperatures never reached the melting point evidence??

Is it because someone told you...like a comedian?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right, this is the standard of evidence and proof needed when it comes to supporting any official theory nonsense. :w00t:

Well, that is what I call a cope out! :w00t::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That doesn't answer the following question:

Are you claiming that Brent Blanchard is not a world-class demolition expert? Yes, or No

If you fail to answer the question AGAIN, it will become an issue. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOl!!! :lol:

:lol:

:lol:

BTW, you have this question to answer: :yes:

Now, for the record, are you claiming that Brent Blanchard is not a world-class demolition expert? Yes, or No.

I already answered No.......lol

Because he has never demolished a single building, he documents them not demolish them.

Now for the record, are you claiming STILL claiming that Brent Blanchard has demolished thousands of buildings? Yes or No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already answered No.......lol

Good to clear that up because your answer flies in the face of the demolition industry and look what you posted!! :w00t:

Now for the record, are you claiming STILL claiming that Brent Blanchard has demolished thousands of buildings? Yes or No?

Yes, and according to the phone call and emails, that is correct. If you have talked to any of those experts they would have told you something else in regards to Brent Blanchard's experience in the demolition industry, which would have been evident by the fact that demolition experts around the world seek his expertise on demolition implosions. :yes:

You don't become a qualified airline pilot by watching airplane movies......HINT!!!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that is what I call a cope out! :w00t::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Coming from someone who can't cope with the fact that they are wrong and deludes themselves continually that there is evidence for something which doesn't exist, like a lack of evidence of Blanchards/Protec demolition record.

Keep dreaming that Blanchard has demolished buildings and keep in your happy, safe place.

The reality appears to be a nightmare. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from someone who can't cope with the fact ...

Remember, I was the person who contacted demolition experts who confirmed the demolition expertise of Brent Blanchard, not you! :no: You chickened out! :w00t:

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. Histeam'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://www.zoominfo....argetid=profile

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good to clear that up because your answer flies in the face of the demolition industry and look what you posted!! :w00t:
You asked me a few posts ago, showing that you lack the capability to follow debate and how can it fly in the face of the demolition industry, when the industry shows no record of Protec or Blanchard demolishing a building. :w00t:
Yes, and according to the phone call and emails, that is correct.
Whose emails and phone calls? lol

The ones you have imagined? WOW!! Stunning evidence?

Hilarious that you think this is the standard of evidence is needed to delude yourself that this is true, yet demand much higher evidence to believe other things.

If you have talked to any of those experts they would have told you something else in regards to Brent Blanchard's experience in the demolition industry, which would have been evident by the fact that demolition experts around the world seek his expertise on demolition implosions. :yes:
I don't doubt they do for his demolition documentation experience and skill, but not for the actual demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, I was the person who contacted demolition experts who confirmed the demolition expertise of Brent Blanchard, not you! :no: You chickened out! :w00t:

How did you confirm his expertise on how he has demolished thousands of buildings? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked you why you think you know better than those at GZ who claimed they saw molten steel and how is your opinion that the temperatures never reached the melting point evidence??

Are you suggesting the fact that steel melts at over 2500 degrees f is false?

Temperatures under the rubble didn't even register that high at all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.jnani.org...911/king911.htm

Well if he has fooled Andrew Maxwell and you into thinking that he has demolished thousands of buildings, then I wouldn't certainly trust much more he had to say.

Besides, there are plenty of others who have gone on record to say there was molten steel. Making Blanchards hearsay invalid!

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.