" ... Oh....also.....your Brent Blanchard [Protec] 'expert' has been described in the media (not by the 9/11 Truth seekers) as: 'A spokesman' who often lacks substance but speaks with much 'bluster,' and this paper appears to fit that pattern. ... " - Rosie O'Donnell
By Alex Constantine
In his June 20 broadcast over WFMU-FM, basso conspiracy theorist Dave Emory took aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement, which he frequently derides, and backed up his assertions that a controlled demolition did not take place with a report prepared by Protec, a government contractor specializing in demolitions. Protec, of course, is not an independent investigator. The company receives generous federal funding and has a concrete vested interest in supporting the 9/11 Commission's findings ... with a seven-page report (not exactly exhaustive), one that relies largely on opinion, appeals to authority, facile misrepresentations of fact and other signally non-scientific approaches to the issue ... A contradictory report could result in loss of government contracts, of course, so its conclusions are disposable solely on conflict-of-interest grounds.
It is riddled with misrepresentations of fact, some outrageous. For instance, Protec maintains, in support of its position that the air assaults ultimately resulted in the collapse of the towers, "three steel buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day .... The fact is, MANY steel structures have collapsed due to fire. ... " Not so (see entry #4 below), according to FEMA - which couldn't cite a single instance of a steel building collapsing due to fire damage - but the casual reader is unlikely to know this and the report attempts to - MUST - get away with the blatant falsehood ... otherwise, of course, the entire Protec premise - that Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC - falls to pieces like a burning skyscraper.
Unattributable statements: Protec maintains that the truth movement is mistaken in asseritons made concerning removal of WTC debris (see #1 below). The report merely cites "those who handled the debris." No names. Those who handled much of the debris in the end would be Mafia-controlled junk yards (see archive), contracted by Rudy Giuliani to cart off the evidence before it could be examined. Protec doesn't mention its source - the Mafia? - and hiding sources is another non-scientific weakness of the report. There is no way to confirm or deny Protec's statement because its source, in this and too many other instances, is concealed for no apparent reason.
Now, Dave Emory, the conspiracy theorist, has a history of responding to criticisms by dragging an "expert" onto his radio program to silence the hounds with an appeal to "authority." He doesn't particularly care if his guest is a shill or even telling the truth. His main concern appears to be that he be perceived as correct, after all, on top of the argument. Emory stifles - censors - serious responses and thus appears to have won the argument. This is a pathetic performance that he has repeated a number of times in the past, often with embarrassing results (for him - see "Dave Emory and Daniel Hopsicker are Handled" in my archive for much more).
1) Dave Emory highly recommends Protec's 9/11 WTC collapse report and refers callers to the Protec ImplosionWorld web site.
2) The State Department highly recommends Protec's 9/11 WTC collapse report and refers callers to the Protec ImplosionWorld web site.
3.) Rosie O'Donnell's excellent critique of the Protec report.
4.) Lies in the Protec report.
1.) Dave Emory: Update on September 11 and Related Matters (Control This)
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.”
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.” 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 ... ”
THE STATE DEPARTMENT ALSO LIKES PROTEC
Fire vs. Steel - The Facts
More recently, the folks at Protec Documentation Services (and/or Implosionworld.com) released a paper late last year, designed to rebut various claims regarding the collapses of the buildings at the WTC complex. And they must be doing something right, because even the US STATE DEPARTMENT refers skeptical visitors to the ImplosionWorld website...
Rosie O'Donnell: WTC 7 Demolished on 9/11
I've read the paper written by Brent Blanchard. Great fiction. Blanchard works for Protec who was a hired Ground Zero contractor and is a recipient of other contracts from government entities that have a HUGE interest in maintaining the "official" story....Protec and their employees are hardly disinterested or unbiased parties.
I'm not going to waste much time or effort (again, look it up yourself) on this, but here's some key points on the paper....Blanchard:
- Provides NO evidence to support most of his assertions
- Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and completely ignores the vast body of public evidence.
- Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
- Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
- Promotes common misconceptions, such as that the demolition must proceed from the ground up.
- Mentions only I-beam columns when discussing what caused the Twin Towers to fall, seemingly unaware that all of the tower's perimenter columns and all but the top stories of their core columns were box columns, not I-beam columns.
- States that the three buildings did not fall into their own footprint, but that they followed the path of least resistance when they in fact did fall into their own footprint and of course, followed the path of MOST resistance.
- Uses incorrect information when discussing the seismic data and their recordings differ greatly from other documented seismic data collected that day. He also gives false information from other seismic recordings to attempt to make them support Protec's data.
- Claims Protec hasn't "come across any evidence to support" claims of the presence of molten steel when there are Satellite images showing temperatures well above the melting point of aluminum ON THE SURFACE of the rubble pile FIVE DAYS AFTER the attack, not mention, the many, many eye witness accounts and photograph documentation of molten steel being present.
- States that the steel debris was properly examined which is directly contradicted by actual testimony given by the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- States there was no evidence of explosive residue on the steel collected when the steel was never examined for this and the vast majority was recycled before the completion of FEMA's investigation whose final Report called for "further research investigation and analysis".
- States: "The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire", the ACTUAL fact is that no one has produced even a SINGLE example outside of 9/11 of a steel-framed high-rise building (even one of faulty construction or damaged) that has collapsed due to fires or even as a combination of structural damage and fires.
- Concludes by stating he's disproven EVERY theory when in fact he completely failed to articulate, let alone answer, even ONE single compelling argument by ignoring the six physical features that were present which are unique to controlled demolition.
- Completely dismisses the factual evidence, while highlighting the most absurd arguments, all of which have been disproven by many others much more knowledgeable and credible who don't contract with the government.
Oh....also.....your Brent Blanchard "expert" has been described in the media (not by the 9/11 Truth seekers) as: "A spokesman who often lacks substance but speaks with much "bluster", and this paper appears to fit that pattern."
4.) mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org
subject: re: Protec Documentation Services
I am writing with a comment about an organization which claims membership in your organization, Protec Documentation Services of Rancocas, NJ.
Protec recently released a paper, 'WTC COLLAPSE STUDY', on its sister-site 'implosionworld.com'.
Having read the paper, and having compared the statements therein with the US Government's official positions on the issues addressed, I have reason to believe that Protec has failed to comply with at least two of the ISEE Fundamental Principles and Fundamental Canons listed on your website's Code of Ethics page.
ISEE Fundamental Principle #1:
ISEE Members uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of humankind. I am not an expert in explosives, structural, or fire protection engineering, but I am definitely a member of 'humankind'. After comparing Protec's statements regarding the WTC collapses with the statements of experts contracted by FEMA and NIST, I feel that rather than 'enhancing' anything, Protec has instead misrepresented and obfuscated the facts. --Example 1--
a refutation of the assertion "they [the WTC Towers] 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." This statement is at odds with NIST NCSTAR1, page 196: "The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. ...the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass" ISEE Fundamental Canon #3: ISEE Members shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Clearly, Protec's release of this paper constitutes the issuance of a public statement, and a portion of the paper seems at best misleading, if not outright untruthful. --Example 2-- a refutation of the assertion "A steel-framed building has never collapsed due to fire..." "PROTEC COMMENT: ...The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire." This statement is at odds with FEMA Report 403, Chapter 5, page 1: "Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings." --Example 3--
an excerpt from a page on the implosionworld website: "DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY 'IMPLODE'?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities." This statement is disingenuous, as it purposefully does not address the collapse of WTC7, which is described in FEMA 403, Chapter 5 as an 'implosion' on three separate occasions. Page 30: "...this would explain why the building imploded..." Page 31: "...the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." Page 31: "Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded..." I trust that the above examples are sufficient to demonstrate that Protec Documentation Services is in a state of non-compliance with the above-referenced ethical standards of ISEE, and that being the case I urge you to reconsider Protec's membership in your organization. My sole motivation in this regard is to ensure that the public record of September 11, 2001 remains untainted by mis-characterization of the events that occurred on that day, especially by self-proclaimed experts in the field of explosive demolition. Thank you for your time, and I will look forward to your reply. Sincerely, [name] [address] [phone#]