It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 18
160
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
9/11 Brent Blanchard outlines the requirements for the Controlled Demolition of a Steel Frame Building




edit on 6-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
9/11 Brent Blanchard outlines the requirements for the Controlled Demolition of a Steel Frame Building





lol you are quoting an idiot and someone who loves disinfo through BS.


Blanchard exploits a common misconception -- that because demolitions are usually engineered to proceed from the ground up, all demolitions would necessarily have to be engineered that way. This is of course false, since explosive charges could be placed anywhere in a building and detonated in any order desired. Obviously, the demolitions of the Twin Towers, being designed to support the official narrative of events, started from around the crash zones.


Lol nice one for debunking yourself. Blanchard was an idiot!

Blanchard Debunked!



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Nova937



lol you are quoting an idiot and someone who loves disinfo through BS.


Apparently, Brent Blanchard is one of the world's top demolition experts and it was his company that was operating those seismic monitors that did not detect demolition explosions.

You can read all about it here.



9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...

edit on 6-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Damn.!
Thought you were a better reader of my posts....go back to the first 2 pages and read all my posts about Blanchard, with whom I had a discussion here in this same forum, years ago.
After I phoned his pay check company PROTEC, and told him here in this forum that all those so dear to him handheld seismograms from 9/11 were lost from PROTEC's archives, as his company told me by telephone, that same Brent Blanchard suddenly stopped posting, did not react anymore on me when I asked him to produce those damn interesting to me, seismograms, and was NEVER seen on the WWW anymore to talk about that subject.

Btw, he's a journalist working for PROTEC, writing that article in its monthly paper called "Implosion World".
Hes by far not a world renowned demolition expert...he may drink tea with them and listen to their stories, which he writes down then, with his special personal twitch, as he did then.
He's a charlatan, who liked to be in the spotlights of the right wing debunkers. PATHETIC.

PROTEC was not allowed of course, to produce those handheld seismograms, since the planners of 9/11 knew far too well, that they would immediately reveal the footprints of demolitions, i.o.w. EXPLOSIONS.

Now re-read my posts on page 1 about this Blanchard type, first read my conclusive last post about him on top of page 2.

He is a PRICK, see this remark of him about the Loiseaux family business, as if he ever could be an expert like them :

2. Mr. Loizeaux's false and self-serving statements are designed to market his company, and one would be wise to question anything he says. He does not have a reputable standing in the industry.



Please DO READ my posts.! Before putting misplaced faith in the wrong "debunking" sites.

If you want to hear the opinion of a real explosives expert, who worked for the biggest demolition companies in the world, look up " Ed Sullivan, demolition expert", on You Tube. You'll hear a totally different story, from a real expert who was an explosives loader for the Loiseaux family.
He is convinced that explosives were used on 9/11, and gives his reasons for that.
Explosives Technician Blows Away Official WTC Conspiracy.

Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org
www.youtube.com...

edit on 6/8/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Combine the Barry Jennings interview with these 2 remarks by MrKoenig1985 :


NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1, (Nov. 2008), p. 298 / PDF p. 342:
"As all of the emergency responder restructuring operations were underway, three people became temporarily trapped inside WTC 7. Two New York City employees had gone to the OEM Center on the 23rd floor and found no one there.(16) As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs, the lights inside WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At that point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers (at an unspecified location) came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor, broke out two windows, and called for help. Fire fighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs."

MrKoenig1985 4 months ago (edited). +whetedge
Transformers with automatic circuit breakers and heat-resistant insulating oil should blow why?
Con-Ed staff didn't report any problems. And the substation was shut down around 4:34p.m.
This video was recorded just before noon.

Additionally, according to Con-Ed, the power at whole WTC complex was out before 10:00 a.m.


I also found that 10:00 a.m. power-out time remark by CON EDISON in another NIST Report.
Now combine the South Tower collapse time ( 09:59:04 a.m. )
and the North Tower collapse time ( 10:28:31 a.m. ) with the above.

Thus the story NIST patched together from the Barry Jennings and Michael Hess witness statements given to them, are invented fiction.!

The lights went out according to NIST, when WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28:31.
But according to CONED, the lights must have been out already half an hour earlier, since electrical power at the whole WTC complex was out before 10:00 a.m.

Thus, both men were not witnessing a stairwell collapse at the 5th floor of WTC-7, caused by the collapse of WTC-1N, the North Tower, but those stairs were blown up by an explosion. Just as Barry Jennings was saying, until he died.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
My OP (opening post) is the corroboration Furlong & Ross searched after, for the 9/11 Jenny Carr conference tape, with its TWO explosions 9 seconds apart, clearly audible in it, at the time when Flight 11 hit the North Tower :

Take your time to read this 2006 Furlong & Ross study, -after- you read the following lines :


page 9 of 11 :
NIST's determination of 8:46:30 time of first “impact” is artificial. It is not only erroneous, but may be specious if time manipulation is the motive. This phony time for AA Flt 11 is directly contradicted by the statement made by the NTSB and is not supported by the radar data supplied by the NTSB. The last radar signal from the aircraft before impact was received at 8:46:40, ten seconds after the time that NIST now says is when the aircraft impacted the Tower.
One wonders again if the NIST 2005 contract with Dr. Kim to re-analyze the seismic times is also an attempt at time manipulation in order to find credibility for the bogus 8:46:30 NIST time. An audit by independent seismological experts to determine the authenticity of the revised seismic times would be in order to resolve this matter. --snip--

page 11 of 11 :
This analysis has examined the evidence of basement explosions as given by William Rodriguez and others and has shown by the evidence given by William Walsh, and by examination of the Tower’s elevator layout, that it is not physically possible that these could have the aircraft impact as their source.

The analysis has identified further information from Jenny Carr and shown that this confirms the evidence of William Rodriguez that the basement explosions preceded the first aircraft impact by nine seconds. Examination of the various times given for the seismic events and aircraft impacts, detailed by the FAA, the NTSB and the LDEO original seismic analysis confirm that there was a time delay between the basement explosions and the
aircraft impact.



page 5 of 11 :
TIME DELAY FROM BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS TO AIRCRAFT IMPACT
The authors have located evidence that possibly shows how long the time was between the initial explosion and the later impact of AA Flt 11 at WTC1.
Jenny Carr was at a business meeting with others on the morning of 9/11 at 1 Liberty Plaza, and a recording was being made of that meeting. During this recording a first explosion is heard, and then a second one about 9 seconds later. This data still needs to be corroborated, and both authors and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are involved in this; however, it is worth presenting at this time. This was found inside a movie compendium.

(LT : Found it back. It was "9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001"). To repeat, this needs further corroboration.
Link: Jenny Carr, Video - 9 Seconds and go in 14 minutes, 30 seconds.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   


The quality of the video is abominable, but at the 13:35 / 36:22 mark, its chapter "Evidence of Sub-Basement Explosions" starts with the interview with the WTC janitor Willie Rodriguez, listen to that carefully, then at 14:40 Jenny Carr her 2 explosions conference tape subject comes up CLEAR to SEE and HEAR. Luckily this part is very clear.
Listen and look carefully to that Jenny Carr conference recording between 14:50 and 14:59 / 36:22 of this video its time, where you hear and see CLEARLY TWO explosions going off, 9.03 seconds apart, recorded in that conference tape by Jenny Carr. Listen to what the male voice says directly after those explosions.



"In Carr's audio when laid over the Naudet footage, you would hear the impact sound earlier than on the original audio from the Naudet film, because she was much closer located to WTC, just across Church St. and WTC Plaza".(Logical remark of MrKoenig1985, sound travels at 333 m/s)

The keen observer will have noticed that NIST must have made a HUGE calculation mistake and time-stamped the Nicholas Cianca photo nine seconds later than (after) the REAL time that the Cianca photo must have been shot. Intention, deliberately, or not?

Instead of EDT 17:20:46 as NIST printed on the Cianca photo of that first sign of the start of WTC-7 its collapse, it must be EDT 17:20:37 instead.
That is 9 seconds earlier.
Otherwise the whole WTC-7 collapse seismogram makes no sense since the video evidence, in the NIST timed case, doesn't fit the seismic evidence AT ALL.

Which 9 seconds discrepancy of the real logical time of the Cianca photo and its by NIST on it printed time, are identical with the difference of 9 seconds between the FAA time (8:46:35 ) and the NIST seismic time (8:46:26), for their first plane (Flight 11) impact times into WTC-1N.
NIST and LDEO introduced a 1-2 seconds fault margin for LDEO its seismic times.
Normally, seismic times are MUCH more precise timed.
As precise as radar times (8:46:40 for Flight 11 first impact in WTC-1N ).
By the way, based on UTC, the on atomic clocks, speed of light based, times.!


page 6 of 11 :
FAA TIMES
Within the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) its "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001” are found the impact times of 8:46:35 and 9:03:14.
Link: FAA Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11,2001
(LT : no link anymore, had to find it myself :
direct link to the FAA report's 59 pages )

What is interesting is, when the 9 seconds found on the Jenny Carr tape are added to the original LDEO seismic time of 8:46:26, the result is 8:46:35, the exact FAA impact time for AA Flightt 11.


Read the rest of page 6 and 7, especially the NTSB TIMES chapter.

Thus, the first explosion recorded on the Carr tape must have been the sub-basement explosion as told by Willie Rodriguez and all his 14 plus 33 other colleagues who were in those basements, that heard that first explosion inside the basement, too.
None of his colleagues were interviewed by any government appointed entity. Only Willie, but his explosion remarks did not turn up in the 911 Commission Report...None of his interviews by them, in fact...

Take your time now, to READ carefully these 4 pages :
The Basement Explosions (authors : NK-44 + chopoz)
Especially this post about the two still standing huge thick steel core columns "spires" , and how they failed too in the few last seconds of each Twin Tower collapse sequence.

-more-



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
By the way, this Rutgers Uni link states the FAA impact time as 8:46:40.... No direct link to FAA its report “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001”. Strange, especially for a law review site which primary interest should be preciseness.
Since the real FAA Report mentions a different time : 0846:35 Impact at World Trade Center.

Google also doesn't turn up a direct link to that FAA report.
You have to go to this link (read its Documents section), Google turns up as its first one, aNational Security Archive link to find a very small printed direct link to the FAA report's 59 pages under its top-left Air traffic radar chart.
You can still read nowadays (2015) inside the hijack map drawing on the FAA report its page 3/59 :


0846:31
Primary radar tracking of AAL11 was lost.


and also at page 5/59 (and 43/59) these 2 important lines :


0846:31 Primary radar tracking of AAL11 was lost.
0846:35 Impact at World Trade Center.


UAL175, page 14/59 and 48/59 :


0903:14 Second Impact at World Trade Center.



Impact times were of AA Flight11 into the north face of the North Tower (WTC1N) and UA Flight 175 into the south face of the South Tower (WTC2S) :


page 3 of 11 :
Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, so error variance is not stated. The Commission Report has the impact times. Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck.
There is no question: AA Flight 11 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [UTC – 4 hrs]. Since the planes crashed at those times, the question is: What caused the LDEO times 14 and 17 seconds earlier? What caused those seismic spikes?


These atomic clocked radar times were the LAST radar signals RETURNS bounced back from the planes surfaces and picked up by several revolving radar dishes that had from 6 to12 secs full 360 degrees turn times for their dishes. See my RADES thread for more details.
Thus, no revolving times were involved regarding those two flight collapse times their last RECEIVED and saved/stored radar returns. See F&R their crystal clear explanatory drawing.
For the radar dish positioned at Reagan International Airport's norther runways strips tip, it was f.ex.12 secs for radar returns from Flight 77.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
CONCLUSION
The Sept. 2001 seismic collapse-start time by LDEO in their WTC-7 collapse seismogram was determined correctly in 2001. Their time of EDT 17:20:33 must have been based on the deep sound in the video of WTC-7's collapse. Or any other source with that sound or even pictures connected to that sound, in it. It can't have been based on the Cianca photo, that one was delivered to NIST by Cianca, many years later in 2004 or 2005.

The NIST time stamp for WTC-7 its east-penthouse roof-dent forming must be corrected to 9 seconds earlier in time.
Otherwise the whole LDEO registered WTC-7 collapse seismogram makes no sense at all. When NIST's time stamp of 5:20:46 p.m. would be true, all amplitudes do not coincidence anymore with the visual repositories of the WTC-7 collapse sequence.



This behavior of NIST kept us on the wrong foot for 10 long years, since 2005, when I found that Cianca photo, time stamped by NIST, of the first dent on top of WTC-7.
Only the now by me corrected time stamp of EDT 17:20:37 as the real time for the first sign of beginning collapse, does fit ALL the visual photo and video repositories.

Some honest researchers left at NIST (or it should be outsourced) should reconsider and invest their own photo and video time stamping method, to find out where in their prime example of their method (coincidentally exactly ALL the photos in Nicholas Cianca's digital photo-camera), that huge mistake of 9 seconds must have been introduced. And by whom...



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Where's the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? At no time did seismic monitors detect demolition explosions and here is the proof.

Seismic Data Chart 1

Seismic Data Chart 2

As you can plainly see, there are no demolition spikes evident within the seismic data charts. Someone made up the tales about explosives and Truthers took that bait and ran away with it.



Their time of EDT 17:20:33 must have been based on the deep sound in the video of WTC-7's collapse.


Demolition explosions are very loud. The sounds within WTC 7 were attributed to structural weakening by the fires, not explosives. To prove my point, please point out the time lines where demolition explosions are heard in this video of WTC 7.



Now, let's listen to what real demolition explosions sound like.



As you can plainly hear, the sounds of real demolition explosons in the second video were not heard as WTC 7 collapsed. Secondly, it would have been inpossible to properly place explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 while occupied and not attract a lot of attention and complaints.

The fact that a huge bombed failed to bring down WTC 1 in 1993 is a hint that explosives alone could not have brought down the WTC buildings, especially in those occupied and crowded buildings.
edit on 6-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop




I will secede when you then prove me wrong...You too, if you're wrong?




You seem to be having some trouble finding the corner of the building so let me help you out.



I have placed a circle around the corner we are aiming for. For some unknown reason you have decided claim the corner is right up against the handrail of the subway entrance, so tight that people can't squeeze in between.
I have placed an red arrow in this photo at the point where you are claiming corner is. As you can see the corner is not there.

The fact is, that the actual corner of the building cant be seen in the over head photo because it is hidden under the green marquee.

My yellow line stops at the green marquee just as the yellow arrow does in this photo, but, it is pointed at the point where the corner of the building meets the ground. The angle in my photo is correct.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
When I posted at jref a long long time ago under an other name there was a guy DemolitionDave who made some comments about B.B, i.e.


I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs.
He is a self proclaimed "expert"

Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"

There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry"

Also the respected scientist Frank Greening (who butchered the NIST wtc7 report but disappeared from internet) called him a BS'er...

DemolitionDave also gave a list of thermite demolitions

www.internationalskeptics.com...

But the non-diplomatic Jref clowns were not able to ask him friendly for references but destroyed the thread with their usual tactics. That was the reason for me never to post there again. They are stubborn arrogant idiots with big egos, where no constructive discussion is possible. They are for the skeptical movement what Judy Wood and noplaners are for the 9/11 truth movement. I'm also a skeptic but a real one.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: drommelsboef



wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs.
He is a self proclaimed "expert"


Let's take a look, because Brent Blanchard is a world-renown demolition expert.



Brent Blanchard

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

www.implosionworld.com...


An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

By Brent Blanchard

August 6, 2006

"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or B) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

"The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely."


August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.

www.historycommons.org...


Brent Blanchard obviously knows what he is talking about.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
Van Romero, vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 8-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Lol changed his mind much? How much did he get for that?

Or did TPTB threaten him and his family that they will do a Barry Jennings on him?



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Nova937

Van Romero and a few others were in a similar position to Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Labs. Speak the truth, state the obvious, and lose your job. Ryan lost his job because he would not lie. Van Romero kept his job because he knuckled under to the pressure.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: drommelsboef



wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs.
He is a self proclaimed "expert"


Let's take a look, because Brent Blanchard is a world-renown demolition expert.



Brent Blanchard

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

www.implosionworld.com...


An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

By Brent Blanchard

August 6, 2006

"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or B) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

"The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely."


August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.

www.historycommons.org...


Brent Blanchard obviously knows what he is talking about.


He is correct the World Trade Center building 7 was NOT destroyed with explosives.

But isn't it obvious that explosions did occur?

I submit that TRANSFORMERS located in the lower level exploded due to Direct Energy Weapon contact.

NO AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVE THEORY CAN EXPLAIN LIQUID METAL, CONCRETE, ETC. AT 2100 to 1700 DEGREES IN THAT BASEMENT.

To see the laser, watch the depixelization of the windows to the building just before the collapse of the center of it at the point of it's strongest construction (the elevator shafts and staircases).

IMPOSSIBLE !



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
lest we forget the debacle in florida a year prior to 911?

you know floridans votes didn't matter when ol' bush pilot himself and the supreme court of florida decided ol' bush is a good ol boy- better than gore eh? "We'll decide who the people of florida elect."

A person was put into office hastily...which should have been a red flag from the start? Not by the people but by supreme law-makers?

I can understand the necessity lbj acted with haste, just not in deciding a (PEOPLES MAIN SERVANT IN CHARGE)...being the case prior to the national emergency that still hasn't been called off...or has it, are we more secure in our own skin nowadays?

I think these servants believe themselves to be masters?

Mastering the art of accumulating personal wealth?

Notice how the new tower has a square and a compass having intercourse?
I see things differently...

wtc7 had a core consisting mainly of concrete?
I thought 7 housed files of files of files of accumulated intelligence reports?



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Nova937



Lol changed his mind much? How much did he get for that?

Or did TPTB threaten him and his family that they will do a Barry Jennings on him?


Considering that other demolition experts, civil engineers, architects and firefighters confirmed that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings, there was no need to pay him off, especially since he is 100% correct that no explosives were used which is evident by the fact that after 14 years, still no evidence of explosives found.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Yule C Mann



He is correct the World Trade Center building 7 was NOT destroyed with explosives.


Which was evident by the fact that no explosions were detected that could have been attributed to explosives nor evident on video or audio.


but isn't it obvious that explosions did occur?


Yes, but nothing to do with explosives, as noted by firefighters who later attributed the sounds they heard to collapsing floors and exploding gas lines.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join