Blanchard Doesn't Buy Thermite Myth

Max Photon said:
No TAM, I don't get your point at all. What you said is really stupid.

(Blanchard made a similar idiotic comment.)

Thermite can be used as an incendiary. That is a fact. Magic Leprechaun Dust is not an incendiary.

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.

TAM, I ask you a direct question:

How did you rule out - for certain - that thermite catalyzed the fires?


Max

* * *
Click to expand...


Max, the people who work in the demolition industry found no EVIDENCE of thermite. Conceptual thought is foreign to you, so you won't grasp this point. But, it's worth repeating: the people who are capable of recognizing thermite DID NOT FIND ANY.

It is important to draw a distinction between demolition professionals, who know a great deal about thermite, and you, who knows NOTHING about thermite.

The FBI has described its investigation as the most extensive in the bureau's history. You dishonestly pretend that there was no investigation. Why do you continue to lie and how do you expect to fool people who know more and are much smarter than you?
 
Max Photon said:
* * *

Max Photon's Public Challenge to Brent Blanchard
  1. Is it possible that a significant portion of the jets' aluminum burned on impact in the presence of water and iron oxide, creating an improvised phreato-thermatic, or aluminum/hydrogen explosion?
  2. Is it possible that thermite was placed inside of perimeter box columns through their bolt-access-holes?
  3. Is it possible that thermite was placed in spandrel splice gaps?
  4. Is it possible that thermite was placed in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two floor truss top chords juxtapose at the truss seat?
  5. Is it possible that thermite was placed at gusset seats and burned the visco-elastic dampers?
  6. Is it possible that the thermite was linked together by thermite fuse?
  7. Is it possible that the thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impacts?
  8. Is it possible that thermite in box columns spewed out hot material onto debris, creating NIST numerous variations of "fires on piles of debris"?
  9. Did you ever even consider that thermite was used not to cut or melt WTC steel, but to heat it to its critical temperature?
  10. How did you and your professional colleagues rule out that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its critical temperature, to induce collapse?
ETA:

11.) What are the "telltale signs" of thermite used to heat steel to its critical temperature?


ETA2:

If Mr. Blanchard has any questions for me, I will be happy to answer them.


* * *
Click to expand...


But, Max, Blanchard is a professional and you are a know-nothing. Your lies and fabrications do not rise to the level of "answers."
 
Pomeroo:

You offer Blanchard as an "expert witness" and yet he is unable to support his own claim that 95% of the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers.

I am an expert on particle size analysis - I did such studies on radioactive dust from CANDU reactors and published a paper on it in Radiochemica Acta - so I could say 95 % of the WTC dust was larger than 100 microns. Now if I said that, would you take my word for it... just because I say so?
 
Apollo20 said:
If Blanchard is unable to explain his 95 % number, why should I believe ANYTHING he has to say?

He may be a "professional demolition guy", but right now I see him as a complete BSer with an axe to grind until he proves otherwise...

Come on Brent!

Explain the 95% or withdraw this claim!
Click to expand...

Pot meet Kettle.

TAM:)
 
Apollo20 said:
Pomeroo:

You offer Blanchard as an "expert witness" and yet he is unable to support his own claim that 95% of the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers.

I am an expert on particle size analysis - I did such studies on radioactive dust from CANDU reactors and published a paper on it in Radiochemica Acta - so I could say 95 % of the WTC dust was larger than 100 microns. Now if I said that, would you take my word for it... just because I say so?
Click to expand...

Usually, if someone is an expert in a field, I will take their word for it, if (A) they seem to be honest, and (B) if it seems to fit with what the majority of experts agree on the given point (if applicable).

Of course, with many of the "agenda supersedes the truth" truth movement, my approach may fall flat.

TAM:)
 
Apollo20 said:
I am an expert on particle size analysis - I did such studies on radioactive dust from CANDU reactors and published a paper on it in Radiochemica Acta - so I could say 95 % of the WTC dust was larger than 100 microns. Now if I said that, would you take my word for it... just because I say so?
Click to expand...
The problem is Apollo the evidence says that a siginificant amount of debris fell outside the footprints. WTC 3 is the best example because it got pounded into oblivion by the two towers.
 
But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?
 
Let's see how this fits: Brent Blanchard is a complete BSer with an axe to grind.

* * *


I remember when I first read Blanchard's paper I was stunned. Brent was so...bullying.

But now I see Apollo - arguably JREFs most prominent scientist - has found better language:

"...a complete BSer with an axe to grind..."


Indeed.


Max

* * *
 
technoextreme:

"Pounded into oblivion"?

Do I hear another Blachard speaking?

Please take a look at the photos in Joel Meyerowitz's book "Aftermath"

The book has MANY shots of WTC 3 with a lot of debris on its roof, but quite a lot of the structure still standing.

Is that your idea of "pounded into oblivion"?

Just as you apparently take the words: "a significant amount" to mean "about 95%"?
 
Apollo20 said:
But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?
Click to expand...

Well of course, in general, it would remove much of the weight of authority from his claim.

However (I know where you are going with this), it depends on whether the claim was made as fact, or whether it was a generalization to make a point.

For instance, if I say,

"Pdoherty acts like an idiot 95% of the time" do I really mean that exactl 19 out of 20 times he posts he acts like an idiot...of course not. What I mean is he has a tendency to act like a moron for the majority of his posts.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Brent Blanchard never thought to consider that thermite was used as an incendiary.

* * *


What's happening real time on this thread is both historic, and hilarious.

Brent Blanchard of Protec and ImplosionWorld is being used as "the demolition expert" that can obliterate MAX-MIHOP.

Yet what is being exposed?

Our demolition expert NEVER CONSIDERED THAT THERMITE WAS USED AS AN INCENDIARY TO HEAT STEEL TO ITS CRITICAL TEMPERATURE!

Opps-a-doodle. Bigum Mistakeum.

And to think that innocent Protec employees' benefits are tied to the company's reputation, which is tied to Brent's loose lips.

(Steady as she sinks.)


I predict we will hear nothing but silence from BB King of Demolition.


Max

* * *
 
Last edited:
Blanchards paper was also not written as a scientific paper, nor has it claimed to be. The use of language in it is both communicative and laymen where needed. I am sure, should he need to, he could create a "scientific" sounding paper on some of the topics, but do not forget he is not a scientist like you Frank. He is an expert on Demolitions through his work experience, rather than educational training.

TAM:)
 
Apollo20 said:
But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?
Click to expand...


Frank, I have asked Blanchard to explain how he arrived at his figure of 95%. We'll see if he responds.
 
Blanchard is a voyeur I see.

T.A.M. said:
Blanchards paper was also not written as a scientific paper, nor has it claimed to be. The use of language in it is both communicative and laymen where needed. I am sure, should he need to, he could create a "scientific" sounding paper on some of the topics, but do not forget he is not a scientist like you Frank. He is an expert on Demolitions through his work experience, rather than educational training.

TAM:)
Click to expand...



To be clear, Brent doesn't actually handle explosives, or demolish structures.

He's just kind of likes to...watch.


* * *
 
Last edited:
Max Photon said:
* * *


More from Mr. Blanchard:


"...for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A
scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive
compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the
columns or simply burning off prior to detonation."


Mr. Blanchard,

Thermite in perimeter box columns could survive the cool 1100F (600C) fires no problemo. Thermite ignites at twice that temperature.

Also, I am sure you can see that thermite sitting snug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug at the bottom of a box column is not going to get dislodged.

As for placing the thermite in box columns...remember, the bolt-access-holes were not welded shut, and they were about 2/3rd of the way up a window (from the floor), so access was easy.

A net of thermite fuse was ignited by the jet's impact.


So, Mr. Blanchard, I believe there are more possibilities than you considered.

(Remember, big children admit their mistakes.)


Max

* * *
Click to expand...

Just one problem Max that is not exactly true.

hhttp://www.edpsciences.org/articles/jp4/pdf/2002/07/jp4Pr7p105.pdfttp://

J. Phys. IV France 12 (2002) Pr7-105
DOI: 10.1051/jp4:20020272

Shock wave ignition of aluminum particles
H. Tao

Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, P.O. Box 8009, Beijing 100088, China



Abstract
In this paper a criterion to predict ignition delay time is proposed that the aluminum particles can be ignited behind shock waves at the melting point of aluminum 931.7K and all of the aluminum of the particle is melted. The process of rising of temperature of particle is calculated. The ignition delay times versus Mach number of incident shock waves are obtained and compared with experimental results of aluminum particles ignition behind shock waves in oxygen with initial pressure 0.0025MPa. The results show that as particle temperature reaches the melting point of aluminum and all of the aluminum of the particle is melted behind shock waves, an aluminum particle can be ignited if gas flow behind shock waves is able to enlarge the cracks on oxide coating and cause the disruption of oxide of aluminum particle. The ignition delay time obtained by this criterion is best agreed with the experimental results as the Mach number is larger than 5.86 with the condition of experiments. If the cracks on oxide coating can not be disrupted before its temperature rises to oxide melting point, aluminum particle can only be ignited as its temperature reaches oxide melting point.
Click to expand...

I have tested thermite and thermate myself Max I do not see how they would survive.

Particle to particle friction can ignite thermate or thermite, and there is no way to prevent it. It is known as thermite sparking.

PS. 931K is 658.7 ºC so your only ignites at twice that temperature is misleading and false.

I tested Dr. Greening's AP theories, and while AP itself does not burn, AP quickly supports oxidation, one of the basic tests I did was a short circuit test, and found that the plastic on electrical wires would ignite at temperatures that were ridiculously low an over heated lamp could cause an uncontrollable AP inferno without any planes.

Frank
I am sorry the AP theory is just not something that I can support I can not prevent no matter what I try a rapid and runaway Oxidation process from the ignition sources that might have been in the buildings.
It is just not a very well conceived method do to the risk of accidentally triggering the AP and setting off a massive fire before the planes even hit the buildings.

There are a couple of ways that a controlled take down of the towers could have been done but I am keeping those to myself for now, because one I do not want Cters repeating them, and two I do not want to loose my New World Order membership, and my shills pay.

With all the experimenting I have done I can not afford to eat anywhere but the NWO cafeteria, and I am still holding out for my first shills pay check.
I guess I should have invested in Loose Change Final Cut and then I would be in on the real big pay off. :rolleyes:
 
Max Photon said:
* * *


I remember when I first read Blanchard's paper I was stunned. Brent was so...bullying.

But now I see Apollo - arguably JREFs most prominent scientist - has found better language:

"...a complete BSer with an axe to grind..."


Indeed.


Max

* * *
Click to expand...

Yes it must have been stunning to watch someone so easily crush all of your paranoid Conspiracy Theories.

As for Frank, he is a good scientist, no doubt, and one of the few who has made himself known, but we have lots of scientists on the board.

I understand, though, with his distaste for the "JREFers" why you would like him so much.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom