1, 369+ to Date and Another TV Spot for Building What Commercial

reply to post by turbofan


Is there even one of this handfull of so-called "engineers and architects" that could sit in court and be considered an expert on building demolition?

Sure, I'd say one of the many chemical engineers could present a solid case about the elements found.
Even one of the several structural engineers could explain why the structure should have remained standing, and/or
the impossibility of the collapse times.

Don't you think demo experts have degrees in chem., and some sort of higher education in physics in general? Perhaps some sort of schooling in metalurgy I'm not aware of a degree for "demolition".

Here's something for you Hooper:

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.

reply to post by turbofan


Sorry, but in most locals where a building or other structure is to be demolished with the use of explosives the regulations require a demolition plan be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer currently licensed in the State where the demolition is to take place. This also can apply to non-explosive demoltions if the demolition process may place other property in jeopardy. Ethically, P.E.'s are required not to sign or attest to anything that they do not have specific training and experience with.

Is there anybody on that list of so-called "engineers and architects" that have ever signed and sealed a demolition plan? Its really quite simple.

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
plan.

What sort of proof would you accept if I were to e-mail AE911 and ask?

Question back to you: What discipline(s) must the engineer possess in order to formally sign a demo
plan?

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
plan.

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
plan?

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.

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo, I'm sorry, but a "professional" site with "professional experts" trying to be serious, loses ALL credibility with this very sentence on their "professional" AE4T site:

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Are there are volcanologists on that "professionals" list that can verfiy their statement of "fact"?

My other favorite part from their website's "list of evidence of demolition":

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.

So no, I'm sorry, but AE4T is a joke, a big fat, hilareous, (and a little sad) joke. Ignorance, based on more ignorance, encouraged by more ignorance, is what I see when I look at that site. At ATS we are suppose to deny ignorance, not embrace it in a giant bearhug.

Now lets go onto those "professionals" shall we?

What relevance does a software engineer have to do with structural engineering? What relevance does an interior home designer have on structural engineering and demolition? What experience does someone with a Bachelor's degree have in building design? Also have any of you bothered to do any research into any of the signatures? Cause lookin into some of them, a lot of them have no real relevance to the issues at hand in the WTC collapses.

Remember the "Dr. Mike Rotch" incident with their "professional experts" list?


yes, very credible, very professional those folks at AE4T.

Thanks for your OPINION, but it's not really on target.

You see, on the same site of A&E's they list anomalies for the twin towers and state #7 as "pyroclastic - like"
dust clouds.

Genradek, nobody believes that volcanos were living inside the towers, so don't get too excited.

What you and some others fail to realize (it's right under your nose), is that those cauliflower like dust clouds
(like volcanic cloud) can only be produced in a few known ways:

- volcanic erruption
- CD with explosives
- explosives

All have extreme heat and pressure in common.

Let me know if you, or anyone else can produce those types of 'pyroclastic like' clouds in any other way.

P.S. Another engineer just signed up 1,370.

reply to post by GenRadek

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

No we dont, because there were thousands of pictures and videos taken on that horrid day to show what really happened..
So I'm sure you will just post the pics as proof....
BTW, ones with "composite image" clearly visible just don't pass scrutiny, but I'm sure there's hundreds of real pics to prove your point..

"Geraldo Rivera is now the official spokesperson for the OS strawman?"

And I always thought Geraldo was the official spokesperson for Al Capone's Vault. A guy that's made a career of pedaling massive BS on TV doesn't like conspiracy theorists.


"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?"

Please explain to me how the police officers in a helicopter from up top could see into the interior of a building which was allegedly engulfed in smoke and fire. Did they have x-ray vision like Superman?