The last WTC column, Column No. 1,001 B of 2 World Trade Center

a reply to: dojozen

Again, just for you.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com

www.implosionworld.com...

The above addresses lack of evidence for CD and seismic activity.

a reply to: dojozen

You do understand lead is a metal. Copper is a metal. Aluminum is a metal. So? Who said they seen flowing rivers of steel?

Can you quote where Leslie Robertson said there was molten steel?

a reply to: neutronflux


Are you an expert on thermite/thermate use and what sound print is left?

Thermite is a powdered amalgam of iron oxide and other alloys that can be described as the metal equivalent to kindling. This powder works as an ignitor generating extremely high temperatures. Nano-thermite is a more highly advanced version developed by the military for its customizable reaction rates and incredibly small particulate size. It releases energy much quicker than regular thermite and can be ignited by unconventional means such as laser pulses.

Brent Blanchard looks like he should be on top 10 suspect lists with Protec and deserves a thread dedicated to his participation before and during, as after, we know he helped in the coverup.

Brent Blanchard:" In my opinion we haven't seen any evidence to indicate that. What we go by is evidence. My opinion is always based on what we can prove..."

This review sums it up for Blanchard and his bogus report: *please read it all and go to the site...as this is just a small portion of it..


The report seems to receive official endorsement when it is later used as a source in a State Department debunking webpage entitled “The Top Ten September 11 Conspiracy Theories.”

If you trust the report and author...then you must trust your government.


911research.wtc7.net...

Despite his self-proclaimed expertise, Blanchard fails to debunk any substantial arguments for controlled demolition of the WTC towers. His arguments amount to a series of fallacies wrapped in appeals to authority and reinforced with pretentious language.
Implying All Demolitions Must Be Engineered the Same Way

Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts.

In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings.

The key tenet of Blanchard's denial of WTC controlled demolition is thus the unacknowledged assumption that all demolitions have to be engineered in the same way as those designed to implode buildings with minimal collateral damage. His reliance on a stealth assumption is reminiscent of the NIST Report, which hides its failure to explain the total collapses of the Twin Towers behind the idea that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse" -- an assumption that runs counter to all experience and defies experimental verification.
Wrapping Himself in "Scientific" Phrases

Blanchard is fond of the word scientific, as he uses the word in phrases seven times: "scientific principles of gravity, explosives, and structural failure," "purely scientific view of each event," "scientifically impossible," "scientifically documented," "scientific evidence that explosives were not used," "only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used," and "the scientific principles of explosive initiation and of structural failure."

In fact, Blanchard's treatment of the issues he addresses is anything but scientific. Blanchard:

Provides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
Exploits fallacies such as appeals to authority and appeals to prejudice.
Promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up.

Confusing Evidence for Explosives with Evidence for Demolition

a reply to: neutronflux
Does thermite when used, produce the same seismic signature that you are expecting?

When everything is pulverized into dust and disintegrates, as it did.. including people and reinforced concrete and steel turns to lava...

One thing, can be certain...for sure not the standard CD....for sure was an implosion and starting to think about this Brent Blanchard and where he was at during the months leading up to 911 and what contracts Protec got before and after...

Buildings do not pancake collapse like that...totally impossible, without being a CD of some type and form.

Anyone suggesting it was what NIST and what the 911 Commission say it is or was...?

a reply to: dojozen

Sorry if I cant keep up with you, but can you please make 1 single post of your theory for the day, from start to finish, I am getting a little lost, so now it was thermite not underground explosions and some guy named Brett painted this on the structure of the twin towers?

a reply to: neutronflux
think you need to try and google some of that and get back with us... seems like you are metallurgist and wondering if we need to bring our books and if any of this misleading is going on in the classroom with students...is that where you learned this or are you teaching it?

a reply to: neutronflux

Not it wasn't nukes, it wasn't thermite, it was a few planes and 19 bad guys.

But sure lets turn it into a Bourne movie and call it super secret mini-nukes and hypothetical explosives.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: dojozen

Sorry if I cant keep up with you, but can you please make 1 single post of your theory for the day, from start to finish, I am getting a little lost, so now it was thermite not underground explosions and some guy named Brett painted this on the structure of the twin towers?

Sorry, if you want it all summed up in one post, you must have just got in off the bus....

Sounds like you may have a lot of catching up to do and might want to take orientation 101,, 1st.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
lol, the 19 who they claimed did it?

Like the one who's passport that survived all that and fell from the plane miraculously, was found by the dirty cop who was helping cover it up?

How many of the 19 alleged hijackers were still alive after 9-11? At least 6 of them?

Sure was amazing how the FBI and everyone knew who all it was, before it even happened...though denied ever even thinking of such... can look at them and tell they were lying.

Think it was in a TV show before it happened and also a known false flag terror drill that is and was often used for training, with planes being hijacked...the high tech CD was the main climax featured, not the planes./missiles...they were just needed to support the narrative and agenda and objectives...

Flight recorders?

Block and stop investigation for a year?

originally posted by: dojozen

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: dojozen

Sorry if I cant keep up with you, but can you please make 1 single post of your theory for the day, from start to finish, I am getting a little lost, so now it was thermite not underground explosions and some guy named Brett painted this on the structure of the twin towers?

Sorry, if you want it all summed up in one post, you must have just got in off the bus....

Sounds like you may have a lot of catching up to do and might want to take orientation 101,, 1st.

Ok cool thanks for your subtle put downs, i will let you chase your tail for the rest of your life, keep it classy

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: dojozen

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: dojozen

Sorry if I cant keep up with you, but can you please make 1 single post of your theory for the day, from start to finish, I am getting a little lost, so now it was thermite not underground explosions and some guy named Brett painted this on the structure of the twin towers?

Sorry, if you want it all summed up in one post, you must have just got in off the bus....

Sounds like you may have a lot of catching up to do and might want to take orientation 101,, 1st.

Ok cool thanks for your subtle put downs, i will let you chase your tail for the rest of your life, keep it classy

well, what did you expect?

Keep wagging the dog...

Brief us on what are your current sources of learning and information...not your news media sources...

Watched any good documentaries on it?

Out of these top 10 on this list, how many have you viewed before

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

Would suggest watch all of those, at least once or so a year, if you are really curious and having trouble remembering the details, like I do.

Who do you depend on to tell you the truth?

a reply to: dojozen

Typical conspiracist, you cannot refute “A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT”. So it’s all a lie? What part is a lie?

a reply to: neutronflux
one more time....read it and then say that.

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: dojozen

I am sorry that there is no evidence of thermite either. Would like to cite one study that concluded thermite that was honest and transparent, and completed the discovery process by submitting their samples to an independent lab for contamination. In fact, cite a study that concluded thermite in the WTC dust by actually conducting a test that would show the dust had the properties of thermite by burning the dust in an inert atmosphere for example.

Might start here

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Spoiler alert, the study was never completed to confirm thermite.

Or this

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
www.internationalskeptics.com...

That concludes this

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips

At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16 Although both the red/gray chips and the primer paint contain iron oxide pigment particles, the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips. Some
small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain some information about product materials. According to the MSDS currently listed on the Tnemec website,17 55 out of the 177 different Tnemec coating products contain one or two of the three major components in the red layer: epoxy resin, iron oxide and/or kaolin (aluminum silicate) pigments. However, none of the 177 different coatings are a match for the red layer coating found in this study.

Why would there be detectable unreacted thermite in the WTC dust. How many pounds of thermite would there had to been for unreacted thermite to be detectable in 1,000,000 tons of tower rubble for a reaction that is self sustaining? It should have consumed itself.

Also, thermite is relatively slow burning and is inconsistent in its burn times. Not a pyrotechnic useable in a supposed sophisticated split second time top down CD.

And it still has the same problems with conventional explosives. How does the CD system maintain its integrity through jet impacts and fires to start the collapses on the floors of the jet impacts.

And again, there is video of columns buckling. There is not evidence of columns cut. And the vertical and core columns are still visibly standing above the completely collapsed floor systems before they topple. Not one ounce of evidence of sparking and flashing of cutting thermite, or the glow of molten metal on the columns?

originally posted by: dojozen
a reply to: neutronflux
one more time....read it and then say that.

911research.wtc7.net...

No, you should be able to argue the points if there is a actual lies in the implosionworld piece.

a reply to: dojozen

Like the one who's passport that survived all that and fell from the plane miraculously, was found by the dirty cop who was helping cover it up?

You do understand IDs have a history of surviving jet impacts. Even jets knocked out of the sky by a missile.

Two Dutch passports lie in a field among luggage, personal belongings and wreckage from Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on Jul. 22, 2014, in Grabovo, Ukraine. (Photo by Rob Stothard/Getty Images.) PHOTO BY ROB STOTHARD/GETTY IMAGES.
foreignpolicy.com...

And it’s documented there was wide spread wreckage on the streets from the jets hitting the towers.

It would be unusual if no personal items were found. The passport was not the only bit of items from the wreckage.

a reply to: dojozen

By the why. Mythbusters couldn’t even cut a 4,000 suv in half with a 1,000 pounds of thermite laying on the vehicle horizontally in a minute. So thermite was going to cut massive steel columns vertically in seconds?

www.dailymotion.com...
1/2 ton thermite vs SUV mythbusters

The thermite didn’t even cut the roof completely in half with the thermite sitting horizontal and channeled with bricks. With the reaction measured more in minutes than seconds.

a reply to: dojozen

You still have not cited any evidence of CD in the bowing of WTC 2’s vertical columns leading to buckling.

The video of the collapse initiation is in the link below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

So if the bowing was not caused by contracting floor trusses, then by what? Then the bowing lead to buckling to initiate the collapse on the floors the jet impact took place. So what caused the buckling that lead to collapse at the point of jet impact?

a reply to: dojozen

Would you like to point to any specific lies in “A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT“?

Would you like to quote an actual lie by Brent Blanchard?

a reply to: dojozen

sounds like you are still trying to see the wizard and oz is just a little further...you will be fine, once you get there.

I live in Oz.

I'm an Aussie.

Nothing you say is making sense anymore.

3 buildings fell and if you want to think it was because of anything other than a controlled demolition...be our guest.

our?


how many of you are there?

However, thank you very much for your blessings.


You couldn't find something in a YouTube video to say that?


You cant actually discuss the contents of the thread anymore?

3 buildings fell and if you want to think it was because of anything other than a controlled demolition...be our guest.

Controlled demolition is standard isn't it?

its why you can learn about demolitions and get a job at various demolition companies because its a standard process one learns like most other professions.

you know where its "controlled" so as to not damage the surrounding area.


But then you said it was a non standard demolition, I asked if you could show what a non standard one looks like other than the twin towers, show other demolitions where the collapse starts at differing points high up in the building like it did with the towers, both started at different points for the towers, coincidentally it was roughly where the planes struck the buildings.

But I guess it was all set up like that, were they even real planes?

As far as evidence of explosions and detonations by witnesses who were there and heard and saw it, that you can find on the web, if you just looked...do not have much to offer you, as far as citations...either you have seen before or you have not, and seeing how you seem some fixated on it...would think you would have watched some of the documentaries on it...that all confirmed was explosives...

How does one tell the difference between a demolition charge and lets say gas canister exploding while the building is collapsing?

Why not actually hear what is said by witnessed instead of interpret it as demolition and that they were claiming it was demolition.

You posted a video which I couldn't care to watch but it looked like the interview with firefighters saying as the building was coming down you could hear the Boom, Boom, Boom. and doing the hand actions making it look like each floor was being blown out?

Is that the one?

If you think they are saying it was demolition then.... forget it.... when people hear what they want, they hear what they want, nothing said by anyone will get through because....they hear what they want.

What would make a building and everyone and thing in it, turn to dust?

You tell me

no one believed this happened and only you are saying it did.


You are posting GIFS showing that not everything turned to dust

Why must you exaggerate so much?

Sorry, if you want it all summed up in one post, you must have just got in off the bus....

No in just about every post you are changing something.

Like the one who's passport that survived all that and fell from the plane miraculously, was found by the dirty cop who was helping cover it up?

Miraculously?


People have fallen out of planes from 10km in the sky and fell to the ground and survived with minimal injuries.

Planes crashes have happened many times, do you know what has found many times.

Peoples passports, papers, things that one would would expect to burn easy if its close to fire but fail to understand the chaos going on during something like the impact of a plane hitting the ground.