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

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.