EddyBlack said:
I appreciate that you have made comments on both sides of the debate, so my arguement is not directed at you personally. The issues put forward in that link are ridiculous. It starts with an ad-hom attack on Blanchard, who's only 'crime' is to lay out his qualifications for laymen to look at a highly complex and contentious subject.
His contention that CDs are carried out in the same manner is a KEY arguement. The idea that the conspirators would use a novel method, twice, and expect them to succeed perfectly is crazy.
Then it reverts back to ad-hom attack on the language used, despite not finding a 'scientific' arguement against any of the points raised. Why should Blanchard have to explain the 'scientific principles of gravity'? They are well documented elsewhere. Also why should it be possible for a demolition to be successful without preburning? Simply looking at the description of the demolition by CDi of the J.L.Hudson building (linked to previously and easily googled) shows that they had to cut steel away from the columns for the shaped charges to be
able to cut the columns, and this was on a building a third of the height of the WTC towers! Nor would I suggest that any Combat Engineer would have experience of a building of such a design as they were pretty unique and three times higher than the world record breaking demolition
With respect to the sulfidation of the steel, I believe that is well explained in that there were 50,000+ PCs in each tower. The level of sulphur products is easily explained by the amount of plastics involved.
The arguement about the 'multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics' is another false lead. By this silly term I infer they are referring to the potential use of thermite/ate. Yet it doesn't address the issue of how thermite would be able to be held gainst a vertical column long enough to be burnt through.
Th elast aparagraph raises a series of points but fails to show how ANY of them dispute Blanchards claims. For instance, symmetry, In what way were the collapses symmetrical? In fact the NIST report goes to great lengths to show tha the inital collapses were COMPLETELY different for each of the towers because the initila damage was so different. The 'rates of fall' is so contentious as to be worthless, almost every observer will give a different time, The NIST report is quite clear on how it measured this because any other interpretation is depependent on seeing the remains of the tower through the dust cloud. The issue of 'rates of expansion' is bizarre, what was the author thinking of, what did they mean? It doesn't make sense. The last point about 'trajectory of debris' is another silly arguement. What debris do they have issue with? How do they know what material it is, where it was originally, how was it secured?
A very poor response to the Protec statement that uses principaly ad-hom attack and no substantiating evidence.
