Anyone seen this used to prove CD?

Arus808

Philosopher
Arus808
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
6,204
ldcfa331b0aa87d26e9ff09io8.gif


Im trying to find the "story" behind the building pictured here. A ct nut is trying to say that this proves that WTC towers were brought down by CD because this building collapsed (by these two images) from the "top" down.
 
thanks. yet another "look at this piC! it proves CD" claim biting the dust.
 
From Firestone's first link:
Due to the close proximity of nearby buildings, only the top half would be removed, leaving the base to be demolished conventionally. Furthermore, the top half had been split into two separate halves, each of which would fall to a different side of the structure. Nothing like this had ever been attempted before.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really call that a "top-down" demolition. Something along the lines of "top" demolition would be more appropriate.
 
The CTers may be interested to know that the company that took that photograph - Protec Documentation Services - did an analysis of WTC1, 2, and 7, from a CD perspective, and concluded that none of them were a CD.

-Gumboot
 
Also in the link it shows pictures of the building as it was prepared for the "top half demolition" and it clearly shows that they had to remove all of the outer and inner walls leaving just the supporting columns exposed and of course that was not the case with any of the WTC buildings. Funny how the poster somehow managed to not post those pictures. Purely an "accidental" omission I'm sure.
 
For anyone who is interested, Protec's 18-page analysis of the WTC collapses can be read here.

*Just a warning, the link is a PDF.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
For anyone who is interested, Protec's 18-page analysis of the WTC collapses can be read here.

*Just a warning, the link is a PDF.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I like the response of Dylan, when he is pointed to this PDF:

Dylan Avery said:
"Absolutely did not [come down from fire]. Absolutely. I looked at the building, I looked at the construction, so no, absolutely not."
-Danny Jowenko, 2/22/2007, PumpItOut
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

Give him a ring. He'll tell you the same thing.
Click to expand...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8351&view=findpost&p=13472176

So all the people and experts, who were even on site are wrong, because one man from Holland looked at the building and says otherwise. How incredibly stupid is that? :faint:
 
ref said:
So all the people and experts, who were even on site are wrong, because one man from Holland looked at the building and says otherwise. How incredibly stupid is that? :faint:
Click to expand...


It is a pity Jowenko has got clamshell over the topic.

It would be great to send him that document and see what he thought about it.

-Gumboot
 
Travis said:
Also in the link it shows pictures of the building as it was prepared for the "top half demolition" and it clearly shows that they had to remove all of the outer and inner walls leaving just the supporting columns exposed and of course that was not the case with any of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...

I really like this logic. Do you think an wtc7 implosion would be impossible if you don't clear up the building ?
 
einsteen said:
I really like this logic. Do you think an wtc7 implosion would be impossible if you don't clear up the building ?
Click to expand...

Why do you choose not to belive the experts on the scene and the implosionworld PDF Gumboot linked, but instead choose to believe your countryman who was never there and is alone with his opinions?
 
Because if I have to believe DemolitionDave the author of that report is no CD expert and implosionworld is a fan site. He said it as this forum. I tried to contact him about wtc7 but he doesn't reply. DD will certainly know it.
 
einsteen said:
Because if I have to believe DemolitionDave the author of that report is no CD expert and implosionworld is a fan site. He said it as this forum. I tried to contact him about wtc7 but he doesn't reply. DD will certainly know it.
Click to expand...

What about the first part of my question, why do you choose not to belive the experts on the scene?
 
einsteen said:
Because if I have to believe DemolitionDave the author of that report is no CD expert and implosionworld is a fan site. He said it as this forum. I tried to contact him about wtc7 but he doesn't reply. DD will certainly know it.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? That report was written by Brent Blanchard, "Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc., Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden."

Pay attention, please.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
What the hell are you talking about? That report was written by Brent Blanchard, "Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc., Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden."

Pay attention, please.
Click to expand...

I think he meant, that someone called DemolitionDave has said, that the author of that report is not a demolition expert.

The document says Protec is an independent authority on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air pressure monitoring and photographic services.

So technically, those guys don't plant the actual exlosives, they perform the studies. Like that would refute their paper :rolleyes:
 
einsteen said:
I really like this logic. Do you think an wtc7 implosion would be impossible if you don't clear up the building ?
Click to expand...

Well my logic on this is that when actual professional demolition companies have to do an explosive demolition they always clear up the building to get access to column supports. I'm thinking that these professionals probably aren't doing this for kicks and have a good reason for it.

Perhaps you can provide an example of an explosive demolition project where walls were not removed to provide access to the structural columns.
 
einsteen said:
Because if I have to believe DemolitionDave the author of that report is no CD expert and implosionworld is a fan site. He said it as this forum. I tried to contact him about wtc7 but he doesn't reply. DD will certainly know it.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember the posts by DemolitionDave but what Protec are experts in is vibration prediction and monitoring and they specifically state (in their implosionworld paper) that none of the seismic readings taken on 9/11, by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory or their own portable seismographs at several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn, show explosives were used to bring down WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Is Protec's seismic analysis wrong yes or no?
 
ref said:
What about the first part of my question, why do you choose not to belive the experts on the scene?
Click to expand...

I think that is a good question, who on earth would think about a CD that day. Of course if the experts that day think it was due to fire that is a temporarily theory. If we then go to the later FEMA report we see that it is incomplete and does not give an explanation. Now NIST is still working on it. What is the value of the first impression of deeply shocked people then who have to do it with half-baked and incomplete information that day ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom