posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:02 AM
I outlined some issues I personally took with the paper in the thread I linked to above.
I don't disagree with everything he says, it's just the conclusions he reaches based on that info. For example, most of the debris fell way outside
of the footprints when the Towers fell. He says in a demolition, this wouldn't be the case, but that's only true for a conventional
demolition in which the building simply drops like WTC7 did, and I agree: these (WTC1 and 2) were far from conventional. And in fact, from the "other
side" of the issue, the massive lack of debris falling straight down is just one more problem with official theory, that the falling mass was just
too unbearable for the remaining building. As Blanchard himself suggests, 95% of the mass fell off the sides. That's his figure, not mine.
He puts a lot of stock into NIST, too, suggesting the NIST report is conclusive and provides actual substance, whereas I do not believe it does, and
neither do most others here. For example, they don't show enough buckling prior to collapse to justify the initiation of either collapse. They also
failed to reproduce their theoretical collapse mechanisms, in two different tests they conducted. They never established their case with
anything solid, but published their report anyway. And Mr. Blanchard references that report quite a bit as he suggests demolition theory has
absolutely nothing going for it.
Things like that. Like I said, I posted on it in the thread I linked to above. I responded to each assertion he made in the paper if you want to read
any more of it.
[edit on 4-9-2006 by bsbray11]