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.

 

Does anyone know abuot professional demolition?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
That is the only way to collapse a tall building, let alone a sky-sraper straight down. research it and also research the allogated theory of the metalurgist. I am familiar with both subject, as is most vet (demo) and steel mill workers (met). I do believe that planes flew ito those buildings, but the only way a building falls like that takes precision in the foundation. thereis more than we've been told. Of course that is a national security matter that we are to only be told so much, so as the gov can find out more with the stuff we dont know

Mod Edit: Fixed spelling in title

[edit on 2/14/08 by FredT]




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Glad to see someone posted this. Though I am new to the 911 board so maybe it is old news. When I was younger I LOVED the Discovery Channel. I think 2 or 3 times I saw a documentary on c controlled demolition of large buildings. I will never forget standing in the common room of my dorm when 911 went down. I remember seeing the footage of the buildings falling for the first time. I was shocked. But guess what came to mind almost instantly? "I can't believe those buildings fell straight down like that guys. In the documentary I saw it took PRECISE planning by highly trained professionals to do that with explosives"...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I like this one.




Aided in the structural analysis and structural design of the project by Tryck Nyman Hayes, Inc. of Kingston, Washington, NSE hydraulically jacked the tower up against the balanced tension of the stays, removed the base insulator, inserted a steel and concrete surrogate insulator and lowered the tower back down. Two (2) weeks earlier, NSE had engaged CDI to design a plan to fell the 1,202’-6” tall structure without damage to the helix house 25’ away.

Operating under severe time constraints, CDI was unable to ship U.S.-made linear shaped charges for the project. A CDI representative flew to Buenos Aires where the local explosives supplier had expressed confidence in their ability to melt and pour pentolite explosives in CDI furnished copper sheathing to a density specification provided by CDI.


Inadvertently, and without damage to the helix house, a far more aggressive means of felling large guyed towers was demonstrated. Subsequent analysis of the structural release sequence of the guys has yielded predictable data which CDI intends to use in the felling of large, cable-stayed towers in the future.
www.controlled-demolition.com...



Looks familiar eh?


[edit on 7-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Hi Ivan ~

You and the OP may be interested in this article published back in 2006. Bret Blanchard of Imposionworld wrote this:

A CRITICAL ANYALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC TOWERS 1,2,& 7 FROMA AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

www.jod911.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by IvanZana
 

A CRITICAL ANYALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC TOWERS 1,2,& 7 FROMA AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

www.jod911.com...


Mr. Blanchard must not really know what the hell he is talking about.


every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving".


Really Mr. Blanchard? You might want to view this then.




WOW. Lookey, lookey. Seems this "expert" doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Also this from "howstuffworks.com".


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.


science.howstuffworks.com...


I know if I ever own a building and need it demolished, Mr. Blanchard is the LAST person I would call, since he has NO clue what he is talking about.

Edit: I forgot to give Ivan the credit for the video I got the picture from in this thread.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2/8/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I read Mr. Blanchard's article a few years ago. I asked myself then, "What is he trying to tell us?"

Perhaps, he was thinking of the following methods. They do not appear to be very cost effective or efficient and can be downright destructive and lethal, but they do sorta work to remove buildings and other structures from their former vertical postions:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Well, if one were to demolish the towers in Mr. Blanchard's way, they would topple like trees into downtown Manhattan IMO. So, I have no clue what he is trying to sell other than BS IMO.

While searching for examples, I came across this little gem.

But, I know what I'm going to hear. "Well, it isn't on fire".




The tower that's coming down bottom first

www.dailymail.co.uk...

[edit on 2/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
To me, Mr. Blanchard sounds like he believes himself to be very self-important. I particularly like point #4 of why "Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience that place the firm in a unique position."

" 4.Because building implosions are often promoted as live news events, Protec's offices are equipped to record multiple television broadcasts at all times. Our company's archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterupted beyond the collapse of WTC7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chronicling 9/11 and studied countless ground-base and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he saying because they recorded CNN, Fox and MSNB, that put Protec into a "unique position to analyze and comment on this event." Don't we all have access to the exact same thing at archive.org?

And another thing, aren't only approximately 40 seconds (when the actual collapses were shown live) of their recordings the only parts that can definitely be said to be "free from any possibility of image tampering or modification." After the collapses happened the people in the newsrooms could do anything they wanted to their clips, thus raising the possiblity of modification. And besides those 40 seconds, all he's got is talking heads, commercials, replays, other views.... nothing anybody else here hasn't seen.

And finally the part about freelance and video recordings....sounds to me like he surfs the net late at night just like I do. I guess that puts me in a unique position to comment on the events... but only a quarter as much as Protec.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
A couple of little factoids just to set the record straight

1. Blanchard is certainly no expert. He has very little explosives demolition knowledge. He is not an engineer. He just travels around to demolition sites to take pictures. He also sets seismographs up to record vibration. CDI doesn't even allow him to be around theri projects. Look at his website. Notice the lack of CDI pictures as compared to other demolition companies? There was a special on ABC that called him and his partner the "Beavis and Butthead of Implosion".


2. The tower demolition in Argentina was actually a screw up. It fell the wrong way and damaged the structure which was supposed to remain. Also the height is incorrect. Mark Loizeaux's ego is sooo big that he wanted to have the record for the tallest structure ever blasted. One of his ex- employees held the record at 1200' so Mr. Ego inflated the height after the fact. Unknown to him at the time another company ENDE had demolished a 1400' tower in Canada so he screwed up.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I know if I ever own a building and need it demolished, Mr. Blanchard is the LAST person I would call, since he has NO clue what he is talking about.


gimme a call griff. ill make it go away for you




Originally posted by RazrZ
There was a special on ABC that called him and his partner the "Beavis and Butthead of Implosion".



as i clean mt dew out of my nose and off my monitor lol



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
gimme a call griff. ill make it go away for you



As an expert in demolitions yourself, what do you think of Mr. Blanchard's words? Just curious to get your opinion. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   
well, youre not going to like it.....

other than what you had quoted from the .pdf above, the only part i found of interest was this:


Since their inception in the late 1800's, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized.


the key phrases there are "work best" and "maximized". while this is true, it is not absolute.

ive said before that the building COULD have been brought down by explosives the way it was, however other than it possibly LOOKING like a CD theres just no evidence to support that it WAS a CD.

past that, while i make no judgements of the author personally, (other than he seems like a pretentious prick) i dont really disagree with a lot of his paper from a blasting standpoint.

id have liked some of his report to be based on more than just "well i talked to this guy and HE said...."

but other than making a few of his statements as absolutes when they arent....he's said a lot of the same things ive been saying since the first discussion i had on ats about this topic and says a LOT of the things i said during my H2H debate.

but, as he didnt offer anymore support for his explainations (in some cases less) then i have, i see it as just an opinion piece making it no more valid than any of my own arguments have been.

i think what separates a guy like me from a guy like him is ive always said i could be wrong



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i think what separates a guy like me from a guy like him is ive always said i could be wrong


And to me that makes you more believable than him. Thanks for the reply.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
i have just started to wonder about this demolition theory and i was wondering about the people who worked inside the buildings and even people just passing through the buildings. wouldn't they have noticed the demolition gear or at least some work being done during the set up of the explosives somewhere along the line?
please get back to me this is really racking my brain, thank you



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Up_the_Punx
 


realistically and practically, someone should have noticed yes.

however

hypothetically speaking and thinking way outside the box...it "could" have been done covertly but its a stretch.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join