Response to "A critical analysis of the collapses of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint", Part 1
The PDF document can be found here.
This letter was written by Brent Blanchard, an editor at "Implosionworld.com" and a director at Protec Documentation Services Inc., and is dated August 8th, 2006. He claims assistance from other employees of Protec. Protec Documentation Services Inc. is a company involved in documenting building implosions. Protec apparently was at Ground Zero following 9/11 and did some documentation.
A few preface remarks:
First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".
Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?
Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.
Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.
Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.
Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure
Now to the main assertions:
I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.
They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes
I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings
I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.
The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.
This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.
Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."
This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.
This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out.
This is where I will stop my rebuttal for now.
This letter was written by Brent Blanchard, an editor at "Implosionworld.com" and a director at Protec Documentation Services Inc., and is dated August 8th, 2006. He claims assistance from other employees of Protec. Protec Documentation Services Inc. is a company involved in documenting building implosions. Protec apparently was at Ground Zero following 9/11 and did some documentation.
A few preface remarks:
First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".
Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?
Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.
Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.
Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.
Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure
Now to the main assertions:
Assertion 1: the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. The author says "no they didn't".
I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.
They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes
I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings
Assertion 2: the buildings fell straight down into their footprint. The author says "They did not. They followed the path of least resistance".
I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.
The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.
Assertion 3: Explosive squibs can be seen shooting from several floors prior to collapse. Their response: this is just air and debris being discharged as a natural part of the collapse process.
This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.
Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."
This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.
This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out.
This is where I will stop my rebuttal for now.
posted by spooked at 1:55 PM
11 Comments:
...the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings...
This is the point where I stopped reading. If you're going to lie about what conditions were like inside the towers, I see no reason to debate you.
How is it that lies are acceptable when told by "truth" seekers?
the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings...
If you're going to lie about what conditions were like inside the towers, I see no reason to debate you.
ya. like he needs to lie about what conditions were like inside the towers. well it gives you an excuse for not saying anything worthwhile at least. here, have a little debate with this gal about the conditions inside the towers:
boy it sure is hot enuf to melt steel in here!
S.O.T.-- you cut off my statement to make it seem more unreasonable. The complete statement was "-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down"
Show me, please, since no one else ever has, how the fires weakened enough columns at one time to cause the whole floor to essentially break off. There were hundreds of heavy steel columns supporting a given floor, and the safety factor was at least 2.5. This means over 60% of the columns would have to be weakened at the same time by extremely hot fires just to get even close to collapse. Where is the data that fire weakened that many columns?
It is also worth pointing out that most of the columns supporting a WTC tower floor were on the outside of the building, and therefore would be cooled on the outside by ambient air. They were hardly wrapped in flames.
The bottom line is the fire weakening story makes little sense, nor does the official collapse story, nor does this little essay from our friends at Implosion World.
No one ever said that steel melted. Steel loses 50% of it's structural strength at 1100 degrees. At 1800 degrees it loses 90%. I've been told by actual firefighters that temperatures inside regular house fires frequently reach as high as 1700 degrees. And that's without 10,000 pounds of jet fuel as an accelerant.
The funny thing about the video you linked to, is that you can see a giant roaring fire over her head. But I guess you don't want to think about that because you want Bush to be in real life this evil badguy you've built him up to be in your fantasies.
It is also worth pointing out that most of the columns supporting a WTC tower floor were on the outside of the building, and therefore would be cooled on the outside by ambient air.
They didn't need to be heated to failure. When heat warping caused the trusses inside to pop thier retaining clips and the central columns lost thier strength, the outer columns took of the load that they were never intended to. And they failed.
The bottom line is the fire weakening story makes little sense, nor does the official collapse story, nor does this little essay from our friends at Implosion World.
The bottom line is all the structural engineers in the world and now, the demolition experts at IW are against you.
And you are a guy who thinks that THIS is "science":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836
You're fighting a losing battle, Spook. The TRUTH will win every time.
who cares about bush. do you honestly believe that we overlook stuff just to pin 9/11 on bush? right.
so is it your claim that it was hot enough for steel to lose 50% of it's structural strength just over the woman's head yet where she was standing it was not? unconvincing.
who cares about bush. do you honestly believe that we overlook stuff just to pin 9/11 on bush? right.
You mean overlooking things like every structural engineer in the world being against you?
That's exactly what you have done.
so is it your claim that it was hot enough for steel to lose 50% of it's structural strength just over the woman's head yet where she was standing it was not? unconvincing.
If it were me, there would be no way that I'd stand on the edge of an 800 foot fall like that unless nowhere else was safe.
Yes, the fires were hot enough to degrade the structure and chase Edna Cintron onto that dangerous ledge.
sure.
"No one ever said that steel melted."
Actually, early on, that WAS the official explanation. Then they changed it when people said that was ridiculous.
Jet fuel is simply a hydrocarbon fuel, it is nothing magical. Most of the jet fuel officially burned off. I don't even think there was jet fuel, because I don't there were planes.
The IW guys are shills, who can't get basic facts right about the squibs. I could give a shit what they say at this point.
The truss theory has long been discredited.
I don't directly blame Bush for 9/11, even though his administration is clearly deeply implicated in it and covered it up. Bush is a loser, and everyone knows it. I don't know why you even try to bring him up at this point.
I don't think you would know science if it bit you in the ass.
And yes, the truth will win, eventually.
I have three questions: How do buildings that fail near their tops collapse at near free-fall velocity? Why did building 7 collapse when buidings damaged much worse did not? Why was no fornensic investigation performed? These are questions of engineering, physics and law that have not been officially addressed. Why not?
Post a Comment
<< Home