Recorded June 3, 2007
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2
REALAUDIO

Truther Con­fer­ence: A Grass Roots Movement

NB: In April of 2007, a gaso­line tanker truck burned, col­laps­ing a major free­way inter­change. It tied up East Bay Area com­mute traf­fic for weeks. Study the pic­tures in this photo essay.

Many of them clearly show steel beams that were weak­ened by the fire and lost their ten­sile strength. They did not “melt.” Note, also, that this occurred in a major urban area. Not exactly a state secret. Note the dis­cus­sion by a physi­cist that the col­lapse of the free­way was because of the same phe­nom­e­non that caused the twin tow­ers to col­lapse.

In this broad­cast, Mr. Emory reads a paper writ­ten by indus­try pro­fes­sion­als expert in the field of con­trolled demo­li­tion. Eval­u­at­ing prin­ci­pal asser­tions of the advo­cates of the “con­trolled demo­li­tion” the­ory about the col­lapse of World Trade Cen­ter Tow­ers 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11/2001, they reject them on empir­i­cal sci­en­tific grounds. As noted in the intro­duc­tion to the paper, this is the first eval­u­a­tion of the con­trolled demo­li­tion the­ory by those expe­ri­enced and skilled with this highly spe­cial­ized func­tion. Crafted by Brent Blan­chard, Senior Edi­tor for Implosionworld.com and Direc­tor of Field Oper­a­tions at Pro­tec Doc­u­men­ta­tion Ser­vices, Inc., the doc­u­ment negates the var­i­ous aspects of the “con­trolled demo­li­tion” dis­in­for­ma­tion that has (to an extent) served to eclipse the very real, sin­is­ter and oper­a­tional forces that launched the attacks.

The com­pany [Pro­tec] that employs Blan­chard and his asso­ciates is “one of the world’s most knowl­edge­able, inde­pen­dent author­i­ties on explo­sive demo­li­tion, hav­ing per­formed engi­neer­ing stud­ies, struc­ture analy­sis, vibration/air over­pres­sure mon­i­tor­ing and pho­to­graphic ser­vices on well over 1,000 struc­ture blast­ing events in more than 30 coun­tries. These include the cur­rent world record-holders for largest, tallest and most build­ings demol­ished with explo­sives. Pro­tec reg­u­larly doc­u­ments the work of more than 20 explo­sives con­trac­tors who per­form struc­ture blast­ing as a pri­mary source of rev­enue (includ­ing exten­sive expe­ri­ence with every Amer­i­can com­pany) as well as dozens more who blast struc­tures in a part-time capacity.”

Sup­ple­ment­ing this paper, I rec­om­mend Item #3 [video #3] at this web­site. Pro­duced by Brent Blanchard’s firm, it shows the implo­sions of many build­ings. In numer­ous pro­grams, recorded and live, I’ve repeat­edly noted that, before an implo­sion can be done, the tar­geted build­ing must be gut­ted, with I-beams, stair­cases and entire floors, in some cases, removed prior to the implan­ta­tion of the charges. Oth­er­wise, the build­ing won’t “implode”! Check out the build­ings here–they have been gut­ted! That is NOT the case with ANY of the WTC build­ings. Not the Twin Tow­ers, not WTC 7. Item #13 at this same site offers a more mea­sured view of this, due to the place­ment of the video cam­era and the back­ground lighting.)

Lis­ten­ers are emphat­i­cally encour­aged to sup­ple­ment their exam­i­na­tion of this doc­u­ment by study­ing the addi­tional mate­r­ial avail­able here. The Blan­chard doc­u­ment is avail­able here in PDF form.

Pro­gram High­lights Include Detailed Analy­sis of the Fol­low­ing: “ASSERTION#1: ‘The tow­ers’ col­lapse looked exactly like explo­sive demo­li­tions.’ PROTEC COMMENT: No, they didn’t. It’s the ‘where;’ ASSERTION#2: ‘But they fell straight down into their own foot­print.’ PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They fol­lowed the path of least resis­tance, and there was a lot of resis­tance; ASSERTION#3: ‘But explo­sive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shoot­ing from sev­eral floors just prior to col­lapse.’ PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen push­ing vio­lently out­ward, which is a nat­ural and pre­dictable effect of rapid struc­tural col­lapse; ASSERTION#4: ‘Sev­eral cred­i­ble eye­wit­nesses are adamant that they heard explo­sions in or near the tow­ers.’ PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explo­sions, but such state­ments do noth­ing to refute sci­en­tific evi­dence that explo­sives were not used; ASSERTION#5: ‘An explo­sive other than con­ven­tional dyna­mite or RDX was used . . . a non-detonating com­pound such as ther­mite (aka ther­mate), which gets very hot upon ini­ti­a­tion and can basi­cally ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by pho­tographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the tem­per­a­ture and dura­tion of under­ground fires, and com­ments made by res­cue work­ers. PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evi­dence to sup­port this claim; ASSERTION#6: ‘Debris removed from Ground Zero—particularly the large steel columns from tow­ers #1 and #2—were quickly shipped over­seas to pre­vent inde­pen­dent exam­i­na­tion or scrutiny.’ PROTEC COMMENT: Not accord­ing to those who han­dled the steel; ASSERTION#7: ‘WTC 7 was inten­tion­ally ‘pulled down’ with explo­sives. No air­plane hit it, and the build­ing owner him­self was quoted as say­ing he made a deci­sion to ‘pull it’.’ PROTEC COMMENT: This sce­nario is extremely unlikely for many rea­sons; ASSERTION#8: ‘A steel-framed build­ing has never col­lapsed due to fire, yet three steel build­ings col­lapsed on one day . . . there­fore explo­sives must have been respon­si­ble.’ PROTEC COMMENT: No, actu­ally it means three steel build­ings col­lapsed due to fire (and vio­lent exter­nal forces) on one day; ASSERTION#9: ‘Any­one deny­ing that explo­sives were used is inten­tion­ally ignor­ing or dis­miss­ing evi­dence that doesn’t suit their con­clu­sion.’ PROTEC COMMENT: Please . . . if any­one knows of spe­cific phys­i­cal evi­dence relat­ing to explo­sives being used in any man­ner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention.”

1. The pro­gram begins with the intro­duc­tion to the paper: “The pur­pose of this analy­sis is to explore the pos­si­bil­ity of explo­sives or sim­i­lar sup­ple­men­tal cat­a­lysts caus­ing or con­tribut­ing to the col­lapse of World Trade Cen­ter Tow­ers 1, 2, and 7 in New York on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001 through exam­i­na­tion of known facts as they relate to sci­en­tific prin­ci­ples of grav­ity, explo­sives, and struc­tural fail­ure. To our knowl­edge, this is the first analy­sis con­ducted by experts in the field of explo­sive demo­li­tion, as well as the first with obser­va­tions and com­men­tary from per­son­nel directly respon­si­ble for the removal of debris from Ground Zero. . . . This report is authored by Brent Blan­chard, Senior Edi­tor for Implosionworld.com and Direc­tor of Field Oper­a­tions at Pro­tec Doc­u­men­ta­tion Ser­vices, Inc. (www.protecservices.com), Ran­co­cas, New Jer­sey. Addi­tional con­tri­bu­tions and research assis­tance was pro­vided by Pro­tec employ­ees Earl Gard­ner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden. . . .”
(“A Crit­i­cal Analy­sis of the Col­lapse of WTC Tow­ers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explo­sives and Con­ven­tional Demo­li­tion Indus­try View­point” by Brent Blan­chard; Implosionworld.com; 8/8/2006 [PDF])

2. Next, the broad­cast sets forth the pro­fes­sional bona fides of Pro­tec: “ . . . Pro­tec is one of the world’s most knowl­edge­able, inde­pen­dent author­i­ties on explo­sive demo­li­tion, hav­ing per­formed engi­neer­ing stud­ies, struc­ture analy­sis, vibration/air over­pres­sure mon­i­tor­ing and pho­to­graphic ser­vices on well over 1,000 struc­ture blast­ing events in more than 30 coun­tries. These include the cur­rent world record-holders for largest, tallest and most build­ings demol­ished with explo­sives. Pro­tec reg­u­larly doc­u­ments the work of more than 20 explo­sives con­trac­tors who per­form struc­ture blast­ing as a pri­mary source of rev­enue (includ­ing exten­sive expe­ri­ence with every Amer­i­can com­pany) as well as dozens more who blast struc­tures in a part-time capac­ity. Beyond the above, Pro­tec pos­sesses sev­eral addi­tional types of data and expe­ri­ence that place the firm in a unique posi­tion to ana­lyze and com­ment on this event . . . .” (Idem.)

3. More about Protec’s qual­i­fi­ca­tions to eval­u­ate the cen­tral points in con­tention. “1. Pro­tec was oper­at­ing portable field seis­mo­graphs at con­struc­tion sites in Man­hat­tan and Brook­lyn on 9/11, and these seis­mo­graphs were record­ing ground vibra­tion through­out the time­frame of events at Ground Zero. These mea­sure­ments, when com­bined with more spe­cific and detailed seis­mic data recorded by Colum­bia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Obser­va­tory, help to pro­vide an unfil­tered, purely sci­en­tific view of each event.” (Idem.)

4. “2. In the weeks fol­low­ing 9/11, sev­eral Pro­tec build­ing inspec­tors and staff pho­tog­ra­phers, includ­ing this author, were con­tracted by demo­li­tion teams to doc­u­ment the decon­struc­tion and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. . . .” (Idem.)

5. “3. Pro­tec has been given access to thou­sands of per­sonal pho­tographs taken by labor­ers and site fore­men employed by the demo­li­tion com­pa­nies respon­si­ble for decon­struct­ing the Ground Zero site. . . .” (Idem.)

6. “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 unin­ter­rupted beyond the col­lapse of WTC 7. . . .” (Idem.)

7. The bulk of the broad­cast involves detailed exam­i­na­tion of a num­ber of prin­ci­pal con­tentions of the “con­trolled demo­li­tion” advo­cates: “ASSERTION#1: ‘The tow­ers’ col­lapse looked exactly like explo­sive demo­li­tions.’ PROTEC COMMENT: No, they didn’t. It’s the ‘where.’ . . .” (Idem.)

8. “ASSERTION#2: ‘But they fell straight down into their own foot­print.’ PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They fol­lowed the path of least resis­tance, and there was a lot of resis­tance. . . .” (Idem.)

9. “ASSERTION#3: ‘But explo­sive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shoot­ing from sev­eral floors just [prior to col­lapse.’ PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen push­ing vio­lently out­ward, which is a nat­ural and pre­dictable effect of rapid struc­tural col­lapse. . . .” (Idem.)

10. “ASSERTION#4: ‘Sev­eral cred­i­ble eye­wit­nesses are adamant that they heard explo­sions in or near the tow­ers.’ PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explo­sions, but such state­ments do noth­ing to refute sci­en­tific evi­dence that explo­sives were not used. . . .” (Idem.)

11. “ASSERTION#5: ‘An explo­sive other than con­ven­tional dyna­mite or RDX was used . . . a non-detonating com­pound such as ther­mite (aka ther­mate), which gets very hot upon ini­ti­a­tion and can basi­cally ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by pho­tographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the tem­per­a­ture and dura­tion of under­ground fires, and com­ments made by res­cue work­ers. PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evi­dence to sup­port this claim. . . .” (Idem.)

12. “ASSERTION#6: ‘Debris removed from Ground Zero—particularly the large steel columns from tow­ers #1 and #2—were quickly shipped over­seas to pre­vent inde­pen­dent exam­i­na­tion or scrutiny.’ PROTEC COMMENT: Not accord­ing to those who han­dled the steel. . . .” (Idem.)

13. “ASSERTION#7: ‘WTC 7 was inten­tion­ally ‘pulled down’ with explo­sives. No air­plane hit it, and the build­ing owner him­self was quoted as say­ing he made a deci­sion to ‘pull it’.’ PROTEC COMMENT: This sce­nario is extremely unlikely for many rea­sons. . . .” (Idem.)

14. “ASSERTION#8: ‘A steel-framed build­ing has never col­lapsed due to fire, yet three steel build­ings col­lapsed on one day . . . there­fore explo­sives must have been respon­si­ble.’ PROTEC COMMENT: No, actu­ally it means three steel build­ings col­lapsed due to fire (and vio­lent exter­nal forces) on one day. . . .” (Idem.)

15. “ASSERTION#9: ‘Any­one deny­ing that explo­sives were used is inten­tion­ally ignor­ing or dis­miss­ing evi­dence that doesn’t suit their con­clu­sion.’ PROTEC COMMENT: Please . . . if any­one knows of spe­cific phys­i­cal evi­dence relat­ing to explo­sives being used in any man­ner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our atten­tion. . . .” (Idem.)

16. The authors end their paper with the con­clu­sions set forth in this and the fol­low­ing two para­graphs: “ . . . With all due respect to dis­tin­guished schol­ars and oth­ers alike, it mat­ters lit­tle whether Alex Jones is draw­ing par­al­lels to build­ing implo­sions, Steven Jones is draw­ing con­clu­sions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is draw­ing dyna­mite in the hands of Wile E. Coy­ote; for asser­tions to be cred­i­ble, they must even­tu­ally com­ply with the sci­en­tific prin­ci­ples of explo­sive ini­ti­a­tion and of struc­tural fail­ure, real­is­tic judg­ments of prob­a­bil­ity, and indis­putable visual evi­dence. Thus far, every asser­tion we have inves­ti­gated scores a resound­ing 0 for 3.” (Idem.)

17. “Our team wel­comes the oppor­tu­nity to review addi­tional data as it becomes avail­able. How­ever bar­ring any addi­tional evi­dence, those mak­ing alle­ga­tions sim­i­lar to the points above may do well to con­sider that some­times ‘ask­ing tough ques­tions’ isn’t the biggest chal­lenge; It’s accept­ing the answers and deci­sively mov­ing on to other areas that ren­der their con­tri­bu­tions pro­duc­tive and valu­able. . . [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s.] .” (Idem.)

18.Two video pro­duc­tions are being gen­er­ated by a cou­ple of doc­u­men­tary film­mak­ers. One is a DVD of a three-lecture series called “The First Refuge of a Scoundrel: The Rela­tion­ship Between Fas­cism and Reli­gion.” To learn more about this, visit The Anti-Fascist YouTube.com page. In addi­tion, there will soon be a doc­u­men­tary about Mr. Emory, titled “The Anti-Fascist.” For more about this project, visit theantifascist.com.