Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #599 Update on September 11 and Related Matters (Control This!)

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.

Introduction: 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 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. . . [Emphasis added.] .” (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.

Discussion

One comment for “FTR #599 Update on September 11 and Related Matters (Control This!)”

  1. […] FTR #599: Update on September 11 and Related Matters […]

    Posted by Debunking the fifth column, part 1: Controlled demolishing the Truthers | Lys-d'Or | March 20, 2012, 11:58 am

Post a comment