It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Brent Blanchard: Top Demolition Expert
Undicisettembre: Talking about the three collapses that occurred on 9/11, are conspiracy theories that claim they were controlled demolitions even vaguely reliable?
Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews.
My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs. We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites.
Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.
This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.
No, it is a fact - just have a look at their front page, they have the debunked lies like
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams, Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
That is not a fact, but a lie.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
I guess the best way to discredit the truthers is to let them do it themselves, because they did a fantastic job doing so when they posted that hoaxed video in their argument with me.
originally posted by: Informer1958
And you have NEVER proved any of A&E science a lie.
I just did, but of course you refuse to accept the reality that the paper was published in a pay to publish journal, it was NOT peer reviewed and the editor resigned as it was published without her knowledge. Itt has also been well and truly debunked, but truthers again ignore the facts!
Mini nuclear weapons, silent explosives, beam weapons from space, holographic planes, pod carrying planes firing missiles, cruise missiles, nanoo nanoo thermite, the buildings being rigged with explosives but no one noticed etc. etc.
Show me a Peer Review debunking Steven Jones paper? You cant.
Letter to the Editor (Steven Jones)
April 09, 2006
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added,
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
Those are examples of why the Truth Movement is a laughing stock that it is today. I can still remember when Steven Jones duped the truthers with this photo, which he claimed, was molten steel, and needless to say, truthers have used this photo as their evidence of molten steel.
The fact is all you have is 911 myths and proven debunking misinformation, and disinformation websites to support your theories and nothing more. You do not even have credible science to back your claims.
Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment
The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.
That is false, and add to the fact that after 14 years, facts and evidence support my case, not yours, which is why you are unable to come up with evidence for explosives.
After 14 years you are still spreading disinformation from 911 Myths ( all proven fallacies to support the OS narratives)
The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory
The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.
The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting
The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.
Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: randyvs
I cant believe the garbage that some of these OS believers support!
agree. I cant believe the garbage that some of these OS believers support! It is truly insane and defies critical thinking to say the lease.
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory