Demolition Monitor Disputes CD Theory

wispy · 22-05-2012, 08:09 AM

Brent Blanchard in a paper entitled 'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'. He's a senior editor of Implosion World, an industry journal, and a director of Protec which apparently monitor demolition contracts.

www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

If the link doesn't work then you may have to google the title.

He goes thro a number of myths, which include CD and the 'pull it' statement, and in his view, with some research, there's no evidence of explosives and buildings collapsed due to fire and explains why.

He touched upon thermite and that he's discussed the matter with Professor Jones who at the time of the paper hadn't concluded the the research. But Blanchard is sceptical of this claim too and the recent Millette paper also has not found any thermite in WTC dust samples.

bryan · 22-05-2012, 09:49 AM

Wispy, you've made my day. A whole thread devoted to Brent Blanchard!

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....&postcount=152

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryan

Demolition expert Brent Blanchard says that hundreds of columns would have to be blown to bring down the towers with explosives, yet he thinks they collapsed anyway without any explosives at all.

9/11 legos with The Love Police Charlie Veitch BBC.2011.9.11.Conspiracy.Road.Trip - YouTube

bryan · 22-05-2012, 10:00 AM

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

ASSERTION #10
"The collapse of WTC7 included 2.25 seconds of freefall."
COMMENT: NIST eventually had to admit this.

Game over.

rosie789 · 22-05-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryan

Wispy, you've made my day. A whole thread devoted to Brent Blanchard!

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....&postcount=152

Ahha but to have been brought down by minimal explosives David Chandler and all those people who inappropriately used Newton's Third law of motion would have to be wrong and there would be a good chance that the towers could have been brought down by fire if that event arose. People would need to look for more solid evidence of explosives.

How would they know how to place explosives at the right height with regards to an aeroplane impact?
Wouldn't there have been a danger of them going off at the time of impact aswell?

Just asking.

dave52 · 22-05-2012, 11:03 AM

No planes...

skanny · 22-05-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rosie789

Ahha but to have been brought down by minimal explosives David Chandler and all those people who inappropriately used Newton's Third law of motion would have to be wrong and there would be a good chance that the towers could have been brought down by fire if that event arose. People would need to look for more solid evidence of explosives.

How would they know how to place explosives at the right height with regards to an aeroplane impact?
Wouldn't there have been a danger of them going off at the time of impact aswell?

Just asking.

people should really start to look for more solid evidence that small isolated flash fires can totally destroy steel framed high rises.

denton · 22-05-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skanny

people should really start to look for more solid evidence that small isolated flash fires can totally destroy steel framed high rises.

Your definition of "small isolated flash fires" is seriously askew.

wispy · 22-05-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave52

No planes...

As per usual a deep and enigmatic statement.

wispy · 22-05-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryan

Wispy, you've made my day. A whole thread devoted to Brent Blanchard!

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....&postcount=152

9/11 legos with The Love Police Charlie Veitch BBC.2011.9.11.Conspiracy.Road.Trip - YouTube

I haven't looked as the video as I'm at work but I'm going to guess that if I do it won't disprove Blanchard's article.

wispy · 22-05-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryan

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

ASSERTION #10
"The collapse of WTC7 included 2.25 seconds of freefall."
COMMENT: NIST eventually had to admit this.

Game over.

There's no assertion 10. Game not over.

The debate around freefall is a red herring. No evidence of explosives.

Game over as you say.

dave52 · 22-05-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wispy

As per usual a deep and enigmatic statement.

Thanks Wisp-a-roo... It was a response to Rosie's statement...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rosie789

How would they know how to place explosives at the right height with regards to an aeroplane impact?

No planes, no worries...

dr steam · 22-05-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wispy

I haven't looked as the video as I'm at work but I'm going to guess that if I do it won't disprove Blanchard's article.

Wow. Fispy you are one of those lucky ones who have more than one job....
some have no work,others have more than one...

wispy · 22-05-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave52

Thanks Wisp-a-roo... It was a response to Rosie's statement...

No planes, no worries...

Oh I see. Thanks for clarifying.

There were planes and from what I understand even many CTers accept that.

But still, there's no evidence of explosives and CD.

So no need to worry about other collapse theories.

wispy · 22-05-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr steam

Wow. Fispy you are one of those lucky ones who have more than one job....
some have no work,others have more than one...

No. Just the one job.

dave52 · 22-05-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wispy

there's no evidence of explosives and CD.

DEW then... Awesome...

marky78 · 22-05-2012, 03:05 PM

what a joke, so he's basically saying that because it didn't look like a conventional controlled demolition that they were not demolished.

I'm suprised he didn't add - in controlled demolition the area would have been cordoned off and there would have been a countdown through a PA system to warn the public, as this was't evident it could not have been a demolition.

rosie789 · 22-05-2012, 04:32 PM

Here is an explanation into how controlled demolitions work:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...-implosion.htm

Quote:

The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall
The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

You see? Explosions are only the trigger for a collapse which uses gravity.

lizzyking · 22-05-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rosie789

How would they know how to place explosives at the right height with regards to an aeroplane impact?

If it was a preplanned, "inside job", the plane-end of the conspiracy would obviously be coordinated somehow with the demolition rig. Probably the easiest way to assure that the planes impact near the correct areas of the buildings, would be to place beacons in each of the towers. The planes - which are remote controlled and/or autopiloted - are set somehow, to zero-in on where the beacons were placed.

denton · 22-05-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizzyking

If it was a preplanned, "inside job", the plane-end of the conspiracy would obviously be coordinated somehow with the demolition rig. Probably the easiest way to assure that the planes impact near the correct areas of the buildings, would be to place beacons in each of the towers. The planes - which are remote controlled and/or autopiloted - are set somehow, to zero-in on where the beacons were placed.

Assumption based on..?

lizzyking · 22-05-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denton

Assumption based on..?

Its just speculation ('theorizing', in the colloquial) of how it could be accomplished. I'm not insisting that is what happened.

22-05-2012, 10:00 AM	#3
bryan Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,737	http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf ASSERTION #10 "The collapse of WTC7 included 2.25 seconds of freefall." COMMENT: NIST eventually had to admit this. Game over. __________________ 'The use of "professional actors" to depict victims is especially telling, given that many Americans believe the government has used professional actors in events like Sandy Hook and the Boston marathon.' - David Icke

22-05-2012, 11:03 AM	#5
dave52 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,671	No planes... __________________ Dave. www.DaveWare.co.uk Are You Listening...?

22-05-2012, 08:09 AM	#1
wispy Banned Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,968	Demolition Monitor Disputes CD Theory Brent Blanchard in a paper entitled 'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'. He's a senior editor of Implosion World, an industry journal, and a director of Protec which apparently monitor demolition contracts. www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf If the link doesn't work then you may have to google the title. He goes thro a number of myths, which include CD and the 'pull it' statement, and in his view, with some research, there's no evidence of explosives and buildings collapsed due to fire and explains why. He touched upon thermite and that he's discussed the matter with Professor Jones who at the time of the paper hadn't concluded the the research. But Blanchard is sceptical of this claim too and the recent Millette paper also has not found any thermite in WTC dust samples.

22-05-2012, 03:05 PM	#16
marky78 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 847	what a joke, so he's basically saying that because it didn't look like a conventional controlled demolition that they were not demolished. I'm suprised he didn't add - in controlled demolition the area would have been cordoned off and there would have been a countdown through a PA system to warn the public, as this was't evident it could not have been a demolition.