CDI - DREXS Technology Sounds Perfect

Can anyone find out more about DREXS?

Are the charges "remote controlled" (i.e. no detcord)?
Does "concrete sacrification" = concret turned to dust?

Controlled Demolition Incorporated's (CDI's) DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) and explosives concrete sacrification and segmentation services can enhance production without sacrificing safety of operations.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s implosion capabilities and DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System facilitate the demolition or dismantling of all types of steel and concrete facilities to provide the safe, expeditious and cost-effective removal of industrial structures." -CDI

"Our DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) systems are engineered and applied to segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment. State of the art, proprietary underwater blasting techniquesguarantee fragmentation of concrete and masonry piers to removal limits, and maximize efficiency of debris removal." - CDI-UK

"Using its DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System, Controlled Demolition Incorporated segmented the spans into 300 ton sections which matched the lifting capabilities of Tidewater's equipment." -CDI

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Pootie]

I never understood how people could really believe the buliding could not be wired

With the means available to the general public, the methods that are public knowledge, it seems like it would be near impossible to rig up a traditional demolition

But what about classifed methods and materials? Do you think anyone in the middle of the 70's would believe we had an aircraft that couldn't been seen by radar? What I'm trying to say is that the public sees what the military saw 20 years ago

i could never understand how someone can think that something can fall down by itself, but would be 'impossible' to 'rig' with explosives.

obviously, if it can fall by itself, ANY bomb will hasten it's descent. by OCT(official conspiracy theory) logic, only one "floor" would have to be rigged.

the age of doublethink.

nice find, slapnuts.

Originally posted by Pootie
Can anyone find out more about DREXS?

Are the charges "remote controlled" (i.e. no detcord)?
Does "concrete sacrification" = concrete turned to dust?

Remote controlled you'd assume means wireless charges; "scarification" in this context means they rig the concrete members to blow into manageable pieces for ease of removal. It's evolved to a very sophisticated process, CD.

Originally posted by gottago
It's evolved to a very sophisticated process, CD.

I bet in the next 20 or so years, we have some very interesting things. Like stuff that would fit nicely into the WTC scenario. Like the poster above me said. In 20 years, the technology that was used on 9/11 will be available to the public.

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by Pootie
Does "concrete sacrification" = concrete turned to dust?

"scarification" in this context means they rig the concrete members to blow into manageable pieces for ease of removal.

Their site (Right from CDI) specifically says sACrification not sCArification...

One is from the base "scar" the other from "sacrifice" as far as I know.

Maybe just a typo, but I cannot see how scaring or etching the concrete would be the desire in a demo.

well, near as i can gather from whats available (cant find any spec sheets for their stuff)

it really sounds like nothing more than a proprietary design on a linear shape charge.

but i am going to keep looking

EDIT: well there is nothing in the patent office database for anyone named loizeaux pertaining to explosives nor is there any listing for Directional Remote Explosives Severance as a patent.



[edit on 12-4-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
EDIT: well there is nothing in the patent office database for anyone named loizeaux pertaining to explosives nor is there any listing for Directional Remote Explosives Severance as a patent.

What does this specifically mean Damocles? Real question. Does that mean that CDI is operating with non-patented material? Could it be because they are the only CD company that has top secret clearance?

Griff

Does that mean that CDI is operating with non-patented material? Could it be because they are the only CD company that has top secret clearance?

Which would be consistent with them being entrusted by the Gov to remove classified materials from the Oklahoma building.

This following link is the Interview they did with NOVA, there is talk about demolitions and how buildings are "PULLED" in on themselves as well.

www.pbs.org...

So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate—thousands and thousands of pieces of paper.

well, i suppose to speculate it COULD mean anything.

to me it just says that they take a linear shape charge and call it something else for marketing.

thats just me though, id like to see the spec sheets on it really

Originally posted by Damocles
well, i suppose to speculate it COULD mean anything.

to me it just says that they take a linear shape charge and call it something else for marketing.

thats just me though, id like to see the spec sheets on it really

Damocles may well be right; it sounds like marketing to me. They've developed a clever technique, probably not patentable, but nonetheless proprietary.

Pootie: Hmmm, interesting word, "sacrification." I'd indeed thought you'd made a typo.

As for sacrification, after some Googling, it seems to be a recent techno-mongrel coinage generated from the tendency of geeks to turn verbs into nouns.

It means the process of sacrificing, and has two connotations or at least is used in two areas; one is religion, the other medical lab science.

What this has to do with CD is anyone's guess.

Remote and expedient are the two words that stand out to me. But that is just me. Also the columns at all WTC sites seemed to be mostly conveniently sized... These are some of the fundamental "bullet points" of DREXS.

The patents could be pending... you may not find them.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Pootie]

Dear Slapnuts (now forcibly known as Pootie):

Great post — and a bold one I might add. You’re definitely causing some alarm bells to go off — somewhere — now that you’ve brought CDI into the discussion. You just might get banned again!

It’s a highly reasonable possibility than CDI was actively involved at the demolition of the four WTC-buildings (1, 2, 6 and 7) on 9-11. Why?
— They fit the psychological profile necessary to do such a thing, they sincerely enjoy blowing things up. ‘Average’ people don’t get aroused when seeing things get demolished, they tend to be packrats and addicted to nostalgia and antique shows and whatnot.
— They pioneered the use of explosives as a way to bring down buildings — they’re the leading experts in that field. Before, mainly wrecking balls were used.
— The company founder himself coined the very term “to pull it”.

Of course I still think there were nukes at the WTC’s but that doesn’t lessen the shine of this thread.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Great post ... You just might get banned again!

Thanks. I wasn't banned. I changed e-mail accounts, lost my login info and took the easy way out and just made a new one instead of bugging the mods.

The Loizeaux family is indeed strange, scary and very able to have advised on the "expedient demolition" of the wtc complex. They get off on things like that and ADMIT to being able to do EXACTLY what happened on 9/11:

Mark Loizeaux (Son, CEO):

“to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.

and

By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west. (Else, 2004)

and

Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, “hot spots of molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels” (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).

Don't forget that Daddy Jack Loizeaux GETS OFF on:

"The thing that pleases me is the fragmentation and the control. When you take a building, break it up into millions of pieces and put it into its basement, as artfully as we do. And it works just like clockwork. So we've got it all down to a science. It just -- it gives me goose bumps to talk about it."

One of the blasters:

"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing a delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."

food for thought.

Originally posted by Pootie
Mark Loizeaux (Son, CEO):

“to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.

Are those Mark's actual words? Can you give a source? If so, then that is a CD specialist (and one that was hired to do the clean up at that) saying that it was a miracle for the towers to fall like they did without it being a CD?

Originally posted by Griff
Can you give a source?

Newscientist.com

Article: Baltimore blasters
* 24 July 2004
* Liz Else
* Magazine issue 2457

On-line reading requires a subscription.


[edit on 13-4-2007 by Pootie]

So then, I take that as it was a direct quote from him? So, now when the official people say that no CD expert has come out, I can point to what Mark L. has said? That is what I'm getting from this. Am I not taking his quote the right way? Shouldn't his exclamation that it was a "miracle" be in the headline news?

thing is, there was a video of some european CD expert that claimed his opinion was that its a CD, just like this guy is sure it wasnt.

everyone has their own opinion, thats why theres dissent in the engineering communites, thats why we're all here. we see things differetnly and disagree.

hell, maybe the guy in that quote is saying that to throw suspicion off him? who'd suspect a guy who is in the biz and admits his opinion is it was a cd?

Originally posted by Damocles
hell, maybe the guy in that quote is saying that to throw suspicion off him? who'd suspect a guy who is in the biz and admits his opinion is it was a cd?

Funny you sould say this because it is coming from CDI. The company hired by the government to "clean up" Oaklahoma City Bombing and Ground Zero.

Edited to add: Mark L. from CDI was at ground zero probably from day 1. His quote of it being a miracle is EXTREMELY important in my mind. Much more from a guy overseas who is seeing it happening on tv. Mark probably wasn't at ground zero until later but he was there none the less.

Anyway, I agree about opinions. Everyone has one.

[edit on 4/14/2007 by Griff]