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.
Becoming a Blaster
Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with Protec Documentation Services, says that countless implosion enthusiasts ask him the very same question: "How can I become a blaster or demolition expert?" There is no "blaster school" or organized demolition instruction program in the world, Blanchard says, so the only way to become a demolition expert is learn on the job. Prospective blasters will work at an established blasting company until they know the field inside and out. Then, they can either stay on with their boss or venture out on their own and compete with the blasters who trained them.
Clients are understandably cautious about building implosion, and they tend to hire a demolition company based on the jobs it has pulled off in the past. For this reason, Blanchard says, it's very difficult for a young demolition firm to land major implosion jobs. Almost all major building implosions in the world are handled by about 20 well-established companies. In many of these companies, blasting is passed on from generation to generation. Parents teach their children the skills, and the children then raise little blasters of their own.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by hooper
That's a good question. It's quite possible there is an engineer on that list that has signed off on a permit/demo
What sort of proof would you accept if I were to e-mail AE911 and ask?
A name to begin with and then maybe a project name and date. Most of these permits are a matter of public record.
Question back to you: What discipline(s) must the engineer possess in order to formally sign a demo
Depends on the State or Commonwealth. In some states there are separate Structural P.E's (S.E's) and in some there are not, structural engineering is a Civil discipline. But generally Civil and/or Structural. Not chemical, electrical, computer, biomedical and definetly not an architect.
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
WTC7 and WTC1+2 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
Do we have to go back and repost all the firefighters', engineers, that were there that saw it happening before their eyes? Do we have to repost the police officers in the helicopter that radioed the top of the tower is slightly tilting and the interior partly collapsed? Do we have to repost the firefighter commentary on WTC7 that saw it tilting, bulging, creaking, HOURS before collapse? But I'm sure you have already convenently forgotten those parts, or purposely ignore them