For the sake of objectivity

I want to draw attention to a study done by Protec, a demolition firm who took it upon themselves to study the possibility of demolitions being used on 9/11. And although it concludes that it was unlikely demolitions were used, I find its arguements compelling. In fact, out of all the studies done i.e. popular mechanics, FEMA, and NIST, I find it to be the most crediable. I think it is important for us to look at all aspects of this debate even if they do not agree with our own assertions. I urge the 911 truth community to not practice what we condemn and denounce this study as rubbish without ever having read it. We jump all over people who dismiss our questions without ever having looked at the information. So for the sake of objectivity won't you please read the study.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Thank you and may the truth reveal itself once and for all!

Respectfully,

John D. Briggs II

Bridges for Sale! Everything Must Go!!! Serious offers only.

From the "sincere" tone I really thought that this may actually be something worth reading. And I said to myself you know, the guy is right. Why WOULDN'T we consider something like this. Then I read it and remembered why we would normally take a crap on a post like this and move on. I won't go into detail because I think people will be able to see for themselves what the issues are and anyway I don't have the time to waste right now. I also don't want to help the perps hone their BS here so as to make it as believable when they take it to the masses. Should this crap ever be presented in a public forum it will be torn to shreds by yours truly amongst others, but not here and not now.

Suffice to say--go ahead and waste your time reading this if you want, but rest assured it has no merit. Take it from RT. This is just new packaging for the same old shit, and the way it goes to such pains to insist on its objectivity is hilarious when you actually read it. If people insist on commenting extensively on it I suppose we can give a short seminar on bedunker dusting but for now the proper response is--

HAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

give it up, perps. you've lost.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

People always say, "WTC 1,2

People always say, "WTC 1,2 and 7 looked nothing like a Controlled Demolition." WHAT!!!

I would LOVE for them to tell us other characteristics of a CD that were not displayed on 9/11!

Squibs - Check
FreeFall speed - Check
Fall into own footprint - Check
Crimp in the facade (of WTC 7) - Check

Hmm, what else am I missing here? It can't be that difficult to show the differences!

Give me a Freaking Break!!

All true, with one distinction

which is pretty obvious anyway, but worth keeping in mind: WTC7 destruction looks very different than WTC 1 and 2. WTC7 was not "explosive", there appears to be no pulverization. Things didn't blow up and sideways there. WTC7 looks very much like a classic controlled demolition, while 1 and 2 were much more violent. ! and 2 practically disintegrated in the air, while WTC7 seems to have slid down on itself, actually imploded.

The distinction is significant, because OCTers will sometimes say that the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 didn't look quite like controlled demolition, and that statement, taken by itself, is actually true. I don't know if there is a term for that, but it's more like "explosive demolition", if you will, while WTC7 is classic CD.

The demolition sequence on 7

The demolition sequence on 7 had to be different from a classic CD, because it needed to look as though it roughly began at the point of plane impact. That's why it looked non-classical. Once a building is set to go, the computer controlling the charges can be tasked to sequence it any which way.

I assume you mean on one and two

not 7. but of course you're right the whole point was to make it look like it was a result of the plane impact. besides, we know there were explosions in the basement as the first plane hit, so technically they were in a sense also taken out at the bottom first. like I said, this is a cheap ass hack job...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Aack! Thanks, RT-- I merged

Aack! Thanks, RT-- I merged two sentences and didn't edit. Of course, I meant to say why 1&2 appeared so different from 7. Correct me if I'm wrong, everyone, but until the final sequencing was programmed (which I assume was necessary because of uncertainty over the exact location of plane strikes), wouldn't the design of the demolitions have essentially been the same?

Agree with LEH and RT...

On why the CD was different for WTC 1 & 2 compared to WTC7. Based on how WTC7 was brought down (from the bottom) it should dispel the theories I have heard out there (not mine) that Flight 93 was intended to hit WTC7.

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

Is it neccessary to be so

Is it neccessary to be so mean about it? I am only trying to be objective. I want the truth just as much as you do. I wasn't suggesting this study was the be all end all I was simply considering it with all the other information and asking for opinions from others. I do not find it neccesary to take a dump on my post. That kind of attitude towards others will get you nowhere sir.

Respectfully,

John D. Briggs II

Nothing new here

Absolutely nothing new. This is very similar to PM's version of events. Unless they can explain how all columns in WTC7 failed at the same time, allowing the building to fall straight down in 6 or 7 seconds, then what is the point? All they can say is that there is no evidence to suggest it was CD. The usual rubbish. They also ignore the testimony of William Rodriguez and thermal satellite images of the Ground Zero demonstrating there really was molten metal.

From an abbreviated list

of Protec's clients that they have on their site, I have extracted a few interesting ones:

AT&T CORPORATION
CONRAIL
DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY
LOCKHEED MARTIN
NASA
NATIONAL ENGINEERING
PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTH.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. BUREAU OF HEALTH CARE
U.S. ENERGY LABS, INC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Lies won't Protec them

Duly noted--they do know we're taking names right? Put Protec down on the list as a latecomer--very bad! Anyone who at this point is STILL actively trying to cover up this scandal is well beyond choosing poorly.

Let's make this clear: CEASE AND DESIST, LYING APOLOGISTS FOR THE OCT! You are only digging yourselves a deepr hole. Whatever you're being paid is not enough. Whatever assurances you are getting that this will all blow over are dead wrong.

We gotta be fair you know?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

This is very telling. Thank

This is very telling. Thank you for this information.

Wiley Coyote? Give Me A F******* Break

I

Protec attacks the use of explosives quite a bit more than they seem willing to discuss the use of thermite or thermate.
One factor missing from this analysis is the integrity of the company's site conclusions drawn during a period of intense stress and elevated adrenalin. No one ever treated this debris or the site or the ancillary evidence around the site as part of a crime scene, therefore their thinking about and inspection of debris, at the time was most likely compromised. This company never explained why it took such an intense and unpaid interest in this event. Comparing Dr. Jones to Wiley Coyote at the end of the report is a give-away cheap shot, more revelatory of the report author's bias, than anything else he says in the report.

Totally Unscientific

No data, no citations. Total crap. Protec should be embarrassed.

"The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire."

Are they talking about steel shelving?
Steel Christmas Trees?

Exactly what "steel structures" are they referring to?

Not CD because the "collapse started at the top" LOL.

Gosh, i'm SOOO _SURPRISED_ they didn't address how the "collapses" happened at free fall!

Come to think of it, what do we need demolition experts for anyway? All that work and planning to bring down a building into it's own footprint, USELESS, EXPENSIVE, just get some JET-A stick it in he upper floors, light it up and sit back! Surely the building will symmetrically collapse at free fall within an hour. I hear god has a 2 for 1 deal on building demolitions done this way.

This has been critiqued already

by Jim Hoffman:

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

Worth a read before drawing conclusions

Thank you all

I just want to say thank for you comments. I am new to this and do not have all the answers. I am really honestly just trying to look in all directions. It seems fairly clear this is covered ground already so I will continue to press for the truth. Thanks again guys

apologies

for being so harsh. it's just that when we see someone who has just signed up and they post something that has really been covered and found to be without merit we tend to suspect foul play. well, I do anyway--sorry for the snap judgement!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

It's all good brother, no

It's all good brother, no hard feelings.

In regards to the unconventional fall of the Towers...

Does anyone have an opinion to this post I posted in another blog?

"After carefully examining multiple clips of the tower's collapses, it appears that part of the demolition was accomplished by "unzipping" the building with vertical explosives, rather than horizontal. I believe this is why the building appeared to unpeel like a banana, as it was described by live news reporters on the scene. In addition to this, it appears other parts of the building were demolished in large square and rectangular chunks, as seen in the photo of this Infowars article. If you look at the way the building was constructed, you will see that it would be impossible for the building to break up like this on its own because of the way each individual grid piece was placed. Kind of like a puzzle. Examine the satellite and aerial photos of ground zero and you will see long thin sections of the perimeter that show the unzipping phenomenon and the square chunks."

http://911blogger.com/node/8689#new