Demolition Monitor Disputes CD Theory

[skanny]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Any comments on all that smoke seen pouring out of the south side of wtc 7?

any comments on what bryan posted?

here it is since you obviously avoided the issue as per usual .....

"Can we take it that Brent Blanchard's demolition company is now using the 'random fires' technique to bring down multi-storey, steel-framed buildings?

its a very interesting question.

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by skanny

"Can we take it that Brent Blanchard's demolition company is now using the 'random fires' technique to bring down multi-storey, steel-framed buildings?

its a very interesting question.

I thought it was way too obvious.

First of all there would be less chance of predicting collapse time. It could be somewhere within several hours if at all.
Secondly you would have to start the fires in the first place by some how spreading them out where they needed to be which could be very dangerous for anyone inside.
Thirdly: would it necessarily undertake a total collapse? Every building is different. WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 did not collapse this way.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by rosie789

I thought it was way to obvious.

First of all there would be less chance of predicting collapse time. It could be somewhere within several hours if at all.
Secondly you would have to start the fires in the first place by some how spreading them out where they needed to be which could be very dangerous for anyone inside.
Thirdly: would it necessarily undertake a total collapse? Every building is different. WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 did not collapse this way.

If totally random fires can lead to a collapse that's visually indistinguishable from a well-planned controlled demolition, then a team of demolition experts should be able to bring down a similar kind of building using controlled fires.

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by bryan

If totally random fires can lead to a collapse that's visually indistinguishable from a well-planned controlled demolition, then a team of demolition experts should be able to bring down a similar kind of building using controlled fires.

Ah so you are joking.

So how would they control these fires then?

[bryan]

Originally Posted by rosie789

Ah so you are joking.

So how would they control these fires then?

Same way Fred Dibnah did.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by bryan

Same way Fred Dibnah did.

So you see this method will be able to work for multi storey buildings, including concrete framed?

Fred Dibnah How to bring down a chimney stack. - YouTube

Fred Dibnah How to bring down a chimney stack. - YouTube

And I mean as a 'controlled demolition' possibly in built up areas, possibly not too far away from other buildings.

In the middle of nowhere with no fire hazard and not having to have fire engines stand by and after having pulled all the salvageable stuff out of the building, plus materials that could cause toxic hazards when set alight, then pile in a load of combustible materials which you've somehow calculated will burn long enough to bring the building down, yeah you could probably do it.

Why don't you patent the idea?

[bryan]

Originally Posted by wispy

Why don't you patent the idea?

Because I know that fires don't bring down tall buildings.

Why doesn't Brent Blanchard patent the idea?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by bryan

Same way Fred Dibnah did.

But you'd have to set them off within a taller and wider building filled with flamables, how would you get people to do that? It would be a slow process even if you chose a building with a similar construction. Most of the time explosives are safer.

Does no-one understand 'controlled' demolitions either?

All controlled demolitions will use gravity to an extent, explosions are only an initiation. Only a stupid person would put explosives everywhere and literally blow a building to bits. If the circumstances of a fire are that it takes out crucial support columns then a building will collapse... eventually.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by bryan

Because I know that fires don't bring down tall buildings.

Why doesn't Brent Blanchard patent the idea?

But you just stated 'like Fred Dibnah'.

So which way is it then?

But we know you're just being mischevious don't we.

But just because the the collapse of tall buildings due to fire isn't a common event.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/artic...ue_id=27&i=153

It doesn't mean that it didn't happen on 911 does it?

'ooh officer, I've never driven into a lampost whilst drunk before, therefore I haven't done it just now even though you've got it on your dashboard cam'.

[rosie789]

I repeat: which century are some of you people stuck in?

Do you always believe that if something has never happened before it will 'never happen' no matter what the circumstances?

Concorde has never crashed before. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

[bryan]

Originally Posted by rosie789

I repeat: which century are some of you people stuck in?

Do you always believe that if something has never happened before it will 'never happen' no matter what the circumstances?

Concorde has never crashed before. ITS A CONSPIRACY!

Straw man. The question is: Now that demolition experts know it can happen, why don't they put that knowledge to good use?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by bryan

Straw man. The question is: Now that demolition experts know it can happen, why don't they put that knowledge to good use?

Look back a bit.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by bryan

Straw man. The question is: Now that demolition experts know it can happen, why don't they put that knowledge to good use?

You're twisting in the wind and hoisting your own straw man arguments.

As Rosie said, look a few posts back and my Dibnah link post.

I reckon you know the answer but are playing a game.

Do you not think demolition experts and builders know what happens with building fires compared to explosive demolition.

The WTC towers and 7 collapse was hardly controlled was it?

And as controlled demolition is the removal of support and breaking of structure in a precise and controlled manner, I wouldn't have thought setting fires to large structures fits the bill, does it?

[bryan]

Originally Posted by wispy

But you just stated 'like Fred Dibnah'.

So which way is it then?

Fred used to build his bonfire in exactly the right spot.

Originally Posted by rosie789

But you'd have to set them off within a taller and wider building filled with flamables, how would you get people to do that? It would be a slow process even if you chose a building with a similar construction. Most of the time explosives are safer.

You'd only need to start some fires around column 79. The (official) reason why WTC 7 took so long to burn down is because the fires were moving around and they didn't reach the east side till late afternoon.

Originally Posted by rosie789

Does no-one understand 'controlled' demolitions either?

All controlled demolitions will use gravity to an extent, explosions are only an initiation. Only a stupid person would put explosives everywhere and literally blow a building to bits. If the circumstances of a fire are that it takes out crucial support columns then a building will collapse... eventually.

Why doesn't Brent Blanchard patent the idea of bringing a building down by using explosives to remove a single column and initiate a progressive collapse of the entire building?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by wispy

In the middle of nowhere with no fire hazard and not having to have fire engines stand by and after having pulled all the salvageable stuff out of the building, plus materials that could cause toxic hazards when set alight, then pile in a load of combustible materials which you've somehow calculated will burn long enough to bring the building down, yeah you could probably do it.

You're probably right.

A building burning for 7hrs would put a lot of nasty chemicals in the air. Carbon monoxide, cyanide, burning plastics....

[wispy]

Originally Posted by rosie789

You're probably right.

A building burning for 7hrs would put a lot of nasty chemicals in the air. Carbon monoxide, cyanide, burning plastics....

That's right. So you'd need to spend time stripping all that out, plus also having a fire watch and maybe even fire engines on standby if there is a risk to other buildings nearby.

You could probably do it in the middle of nowhere, but who builds a commercial high rise in the middle of nowhere. Even then, certainly in the UK, there'd be farms etc., nearby who wouldn't be keen on this.

The flip side. If thermite is so good at bringing steel, or any, high rise buildings down, how viable is this commercially and has it been used since 911by CD Contractors who of course know that it can be done but are keeping their traps shut because it will spill the beans on what happended on 911.

[wispy]

Fred used to build his bonfire in exactly the right spot.

Not exactly many spots to choose from on chimney stack is there, given that the plan area is not that big? Just depends on which direction you want it to fall.

But that was Fred's method.

The old mill stack across the road to my school was demolished whilst we were in the playground. The explosion give us a bit of a start.

Of course they collapsed it away from the school, and the high wall around it screened what they were doing (which is why we were unaware it was happening) and I presume kept the collapsing rubble from bouncing out too far.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by rosie789

WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube

'Look at the hole in that building.... ???several floors...????'

'???? come down'

That's as much as I could make out. But look at all that smoke which is actually billowing out of the side!

So wheres the hole again?

[marky78]

Are people getting confused with Fred Dibnah' technique? even Fred couldn't drop a building or chimney using just fire.

he would physically remove part of the structure and replace with wooden supports then set the fire and wait for it to burn the new wooden supports.

so to use his 'fire' technique on a steel framed building you would still have to remove the main structural steel elements (using cutting gear or explosives) and replace them with wooden supports, then make sure all the new wooden supports burn equally and all fail at the same time to try to create a symmetrical collapse.



Those random office fires on 9/11 were pretty damn clever huh.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by marky78

Are people getting confused with Fred Dibnah' technique? even Fred couldn't drop a building or chimney using just fire.

he would physically remove part of the structure and replace with wooden supports then set the fire and wait for it to burn the new wooden supports.

so to use his 'fire' technique on a steel framed building you would still have to remove the main structural steel elements (using cutting gear or explosives) and replace them with wooden supports, then make sure all the new wooden supports burn equally and all fail at the same time to try to create a symmetrical collapse.



Those random office fires on 9/11 were pretty damn clever huh.

You're right.

Fred did smash through part of the chimney's brickwork base and insert timber props. I had forgotten that when I posted the link.