Duhh posted this, and I figured if I'd respond in any detail, I could at least make it a little more worth my trouble and make it a new thread.
From the article:
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where."
Blanchard asserts here that the WTC do not appear as demolitions because of where the collapses began within the buildings (on higher floors). The
paper paper suggests that damage must first be done to the base of a building, but since none was observed, the WTC couldn't possibly have been
The author also fails to consider that preparatory damage had indeed been done to the bases, as evidenced by several witness testimonies (ie,
Rodriguez and co-workers) of concrete-shattering and steel-crushing explosions in the basements at the times of impacts, which has "officially" been
attributed to jet fuel rushing down the elevator shafts into the basements and then exploding.
From there, charges can be initiated from wherever they are programmed to go off, assuming that damage to the base would indeed have to been done
prior to additional charges in the specific cases of the Towers, considering the circumstances.
And finally, the author fails to realize that if the failure of a single floor's structural members' by fire and impact damage alone could lead to
global collapse, then logically, a thermite cutting of the exact same members would lead to the exact same result.
By official theory, the bases of the Towers would not have been compromised, and yet the Towers had no trouble completely failing, from top to
"But they fell straight down into their own footprint."
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.
I agree that the Towers did not fall into their own footprints, but were mostly ejected outwards, outside of their footprints. The author of this
article suggests 95% of the debris landing outside of the footprints. I have been much more conservative, suggesting 80-90%, as per Jim Hoffman's
suggestions, or, as of lately, only describing the mass that fell outside of the footprints as "most" of the mass.
But here we have agreement from someone on the "other side" of the issue that most of the mass did indeed fall outside
of the footprints, and
thus did not
fall straight down as an ever-increasing amount of driving mass. This raises questions as to how the collapses maintained a steady
speed, despite most of the debris falling outside of the footprints
(as Mr. Blanchard agrees) and not
straight down onto the lower floor
systems, as well as the strengthening of support columns nearer the bases of the buildings, and the increasingly great amounts of energy that would
have been required for the destruction of each additional floor. Also puzzling is how floors that have already been destroyed, and "crushed" into
dissociated steel beams and concrete powder, could have contributed much to the alleged pancaking effect in the first place, especially when most of
the mass is falling around
the Towers and not straight down.
The author rehashes truss failure theory here as well, which I disagree with for a number of reasons. For one, truss failure theory, as an explanation
for the alleged pancaking, is completely unprecedented scientifically, and has no substantiating evidence going for it even in the case of the Twin
Tower collapses. The NIST Report is the latest government-issued report, and supposively the definitive one. The NIST's Report fails to back its own
assertions of global collapses from single floor failures (and utterly fails to even analyze this theory, let alone test
it), or even the
plausibilities of single
floor failures from the given impacts and fire. The NIST Report presents a lab test and a computer simulation in an
attempt to verify its assertions of whole-floor failures from the impact and fire damage, and utterly fails with both, despite even using what it
describes as more severe parameters in one of its computer simulations (as in, more severe than could be realistically expected).
Another problem with truss failure theory is that it would require an additional mechanism to explain the failures of the first totally-collapsing
floors in either Tower. A limited amount of buckling is shown by NIST, but never enough to justify the failure of an entire floor. The apparent
buckling comes about slowly in either Tower, not even nearing the amount that would be required for failure, before each Tower's failure. An
attempted explanation to make up for this problem suggests buckling/truss failures propogating further buckling/truss failures until a critical point
is reached, where a given floor's loads can no longer be sustained and the floor fails at once. This, however, would require the additional mechanism
mentioned above: some mechanism that would allow failures to propogate themselves while most of the floor's structure is still intact and functioning
properly. Here you'll find a contradiction, however: none of the previous buckling, in either Tower, resulted in such failures, despite involving
the exact same structural elements.
"But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shotting from several floors just prior to collapse."
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural
First of all, I would love for Mr. Blanchard to provide one
non-demolition example of the phenomena observed at the WTC. If he can describe
them as "a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse", then he must surely have a number of examples for us to serve as
In the case of WTC 1 and 2, it has been scientifically documented [sic] that the failures of interior floor trusses were occurring slightly ahead
of exterior columns, which is why the columns fell outward and contributed to a "mushroom" effect.
Two problems here.
For one, this would only explain squibs coming immediately before the collapse wave, by a single floor. In reality, many squibs were observed multiple
floors below the collapse wave, as far as 50 floors down.
For two, this would not result in seldom, violent expulsions here and there, but many, even expulsions from each pancaking floor. This was not
"Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers."
PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence
that explosives were not used.
I'll save a response to this statement when I have seen the scientific evidence refuting the use of explosives. This is a damned pretty circular
(a logical fallacy, aka "begging the question") given the context in this "study".
The author mentions the lack of seismic data pre-collapse for the Towers, but ignores the impacts. This is when eyewitnesses reported violent basement
explosions (not just sounds
, but significant physical damage to the structure). This would have appeared seismically as one event that could be
written off as an impact alone.
"An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used...a non-detonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon
initiation and can basically 'melt' steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of
underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers."
PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.
What investigations have been done by PROTEC? What information do they have on this issue, that we
do not have, or that Steven Jones does not
Blanchard mentions that sufficiently molten steel would have damaged the excavation equipment. This is true, and this would have also provided a
motivation to avoid
digging directly into molten material.
Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc.-added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end
of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Walsh, 2002).
) Quotes like this suggest the molten material was not
being directly picked up by
the excavation equipment, but that there was a buffer of cooler steel between the equipment and the molten material.
Blanchard also seems to overestimate the speed at which steel conducts large amounts of heat:
At a minimum the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up. The heat would then quickly transfer
through the steel components of the excavator and there would be concern for it soperator.
I seriously doubt steel will transfer so much heat as fast as Blanchard suggests, and for Blanchard to be concerned about heat transferring all the
way up a steel beam, through a crane arm, and around the operator, seems pretty ridiculous to me. I would like to see some kind of justification for
those statements, as steel doesn't seem to transfer so much heat that
fast at all:
Blanchard then references talking to operators of clean up equipment at Ground Zero. No objection to the responses he got from them, but there is
contradictory testimony from many others at Ground Zero that is publicly available. I referenced one above. Just use Google.