• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Implosion World paper

And what exactly are Jim Hoffman's qualifications in demolitions?
 
Redtail said:
I recall someone claiming that they worked in Controlled Demo and the writer of this paper
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

was not actually a CD expert. I haven't seen it used much lately so I was wondering if Blanchard's qualifications were found to be lacking or if people just got tried of using it since the truthers wouldn't read it anyway.
Click to expand...

I believe it was 'Demolition Dave' in this post was disdainful of Blanchard's skills.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2319567#post2319567

It would seem that Blanchard is something of a 'wannabee', but that does not deter from the fact that he did interview the correct experts and demolition experts who were on site. A rather crucial fact that DD's disdain doesn't really remove.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Here is an excellent rebuttal to Blanchard's work:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html



This statement may be true for some, but not all.
Click to expand...

Hoffman states:
"Blanchard's assertion about how tall office buildings would fall is contradicted by all available evidence. Except for the alleged cases of the WTC towers, no skyscraper of more than 40 stories has ever collapsed for any reason other than controlled demolition. "

Hoffman, I'd love to get a list of all the buildings 40 stories and up that were taken down by controlled demolition.
Maybe he could do a search for the tallest buildings taken down by CD?
 
Last edited:
"The visual records show that in both Towers, structures were shattered well above the crash zones before they moved downward into structures below the crash zones."

I don't understand what he is trying to say here. Even when I watched his video it seemed to only further support Blanchard.

Sometimes Hoffman comes up with some really bad stuff. Although this isn't half as bad as trying to explain bowed columns by "Refracted Light".

Check it out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#bowed
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I would hardly call that an "excellent" rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Troother standards are lower. I can recall several 'rebuttals' to Gravy's papers that were little more than 'Oh Yeah?! I don't think so!' and them complained Gravy was a boring guy since he actually covered LC from start to finish.

Most of these guys got bored and stopped after 3-4 pages. But everything up 'til then was 'excellent work' on the LC boards.
 
kookbreaker said:
Troother standards are lower. I can recall several 'rebuttals' to Gravy's papers that were little more than 'Oh Yeah?! I don't think so!' and them complained Gravy was a boring guy since he actually covered LC from start to finish.

Most of these guys got bored and stopped after 3-4 pages. But everything up 'til then was 'excellent work' on the LC boards.
Click to expand...

If I had to point to the worst debunk ever, I would refer to this site.
Check out the lengthy, detailed and well researched rebuttles. ;)
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm
 
I saw Blanchard on a tv show about an explosive demolition job. He seemed to be taking an active role in the project, so he cannot be a total charlatan.
 
Blanchard is not a wannabe. Yes, he's senior editor at Implosion World - the CD "fan" site, but he's also Director of Field Operations for Protec Document Services. Protec are a CD monitoring company. They don't actually perform CDs, but they document them. They also use their expertise in monitoring ground shake from construction sites, which is why they had numerous seismographs around New York on 9/11.

The document, of course, begins by clearly outlining Protec's area of expertise in terms of general CD work, as well as the key factors that make their observations of the WTC collapses even more valuable:

1. Protec had seismographs operating
2. Protec building inspectors and photographers (including Blanchard) documented the clean up process at Ground Zero including the pull down of WTC6.
3. Protec has been given thousands of photographs etc. taken by various companies working at ground zero.
4. Protec documented the only public discussion on the GZ clean up that involved representatives from all of the CD companies involved.
5. Because many CDs are broadcast on multiple channels live, Protec offices are set up to simultaneously record multiple news streams. They started recording coverage on 9/11 before either tower collapses, and well after WTC7 collapsed.

-Gumboot
 
That someone as highly educated as Jim Hoffman would write something so vapid is mind-boggling. That article looks like something that a college freshman might produce.
 
gumboot said:
Blanchard is not a wannabe. Yes, he's senior editor at Implosion World - the CD "fan" site, but he's also Director of Field Operations for Protec Document Services. Protec are a CD monitoring company. They don't actually perform CDs, but they document them. They also use their expertise in monitoring ground shake from construction sites, which is why they had numerous seismographs around New York on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Makes me wonder what DemoDave's beef with the man is. He obviously has no respect for him, but that does not mean anything more than 'he has an opinion'.
 
Last edited:
You're using a software engineer as a rebuttal to someone in the demolition business???

Way to go Swing.

Think for a second about what your rection would be if I used a dentist as a rebuttal to Danny Jowenko.

Besides, most of Hoffman's "rebuttals" seem to consist of "oh yeah? Well what about this and this?"
 
Good article in general, although I'm still a little ticked at their claim (in an earlier version of the paper) that they could not find any evidence that Steven Jones had a PhD. I looked up Jones c.v., called Vanderbilt and got confirmation. It seems to me that if you're going to make an extraordinary claim like that, you make sure to have all the bases covered.
 
Jim Hoffman, the master of structural engineering and demolitions. Not.

This is not the first time he has tried to refute some actual experts. Remember this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columns.html

Jim Hoffman: "Reveals authors' ignorance of structural engineering, and of the towers' design."

Author of that paper: Zdenek Bazant.

He tries to refute the people who actually know this stuff, with his zero knowledge.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom