"Actually it was the mainstream media and other professionals who stated first that it looked like a controlled demolition."
Where? I've never seen any claims of controlled demolition on CNN, MSNBC, Time, NYTimes, Newsweek, etc., but I've seen the claim made countless times on conspiracy fantasy sites like Prison Planet, etc.
And "Professionals"? Yes, but only one in the field of controlled demolition. And only in reference to WTC 7 (he doesn't believe that CD was used on towers 1 and 2; he argues the opposite). And who was only shown video. And who's opinion runs counter to the general engineering consensus.
Other "professionals" include a chemist, a dental engineer... a History and Philosophy of Science Professor... Beware of making an appeal to authority in that manner. You are not citing the areas of knowledge behind the authorities when you do so in the way you just did. Or maybe you are, but you're proving that those areas of knowledge are no better than the average persons, and lacking when compared to professionals in the engineering, construction, and demolitions fields.
"Has any evidence been provided that collapse initiation will lead to global collapse? If not, then the issue is unsettled leaving the door open to alternative theories. Or has any evidence been presented that asymmetrical damage would lead to a symmetrical collapse due to a failure at all critical points?
That's no rebuttal. The 5 oldest, most commonly raised and debunked claims are discussed at sites that many have referred you to on countless occasions. You are not defending them by talking about "leaving the door open to alternative theories", "theories" which require far more deus-ex-machina than anything in what you derisively call the "official story". Harping on whether collapse initiation does not prove anything about free fall, fallling into own footprints, or molten steel. The issue is not unsettled in a manner that allows impossible explanations.
"Blanchard if I'm not mistaken contradicts another CD specialist by stating that it would require vast amounts of explosives to bring the building down when an earlier statement by an CD expert stated that it would not take a large ammount.
Irrelevant. First of all, that's not a charge discussed by either Blanchard or Hoffman; as a matter of fact, Hoffman makes the claim that more than normal were used:
"... the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions..."
Second of all, two experts differing in degree in regards to the amount that would be necessary in a hypothetical situation is far from proving that any were actually used at all, and it doesn't overcome the logistics problems associated with planting such explosives.
"Have you contacted a CD company and asked them how they would have brought the buildings down through CD considering the design of the building?
Better yet, do you think terrorists who planted explosives would do so just like a traditional CD?"
What are you responding to here? That's Hoffman's quote disputing how Blanchard characterizes CD. And yes, that is a good question - to put to Hoffman. Why would a CD company deviate from standard practices?
Also: I thought the whole argument was that the
government planted the explosives, not the terrorists. This is a
government plot, isn't it?
"Do you agree with this assessment? I do not and I'm not an expert. It appears in the footage the path of least resistance would have been a tilt and fall over to the side where there is no resistance."
Appeal to incredulity. You're pitting your assesment against a professional in the field, who's leaning on the body of knowledge in that profession. Plus, you're reiterating the Judy Wood tree theory, which ignores the multiple points of failure available in a building. Try addressing Blanchard's point:
"A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downard upon being weaked or tipped off center to a certain point."
"Quote:
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.
I call this "Smart Air" as the air some how choose to ignore some floors when ejecting, in some cases travels several floors down and ejects, etc. etc. I would have thought you would seen the air exiting symmetrically through the windows, not through single points in the building. But I'm not an expert so I can't point that out.
Who knows why that happened? Some internal structure may have collapsed faster than others? There's no way I can know for sure. But, how does your criticism support the idea of explosives? I thought the whole argument behind falling-into-own-footprint - and, incidentally, free fall - was the symmetry and evenness of the collapse. Pointing out irregularities and lack of symmetry supports the argument of random events happening within the building, and against the use of explosives. Why would a demolitions team be uneven in detonating planted explosives? Wouldn't that create the possibility of failure?
Of course he provides no scientific evidence that explosives were not used as Hoffman points out. At one point many moons ago on SLC, this excuse has been parroted as exploding pop machines! LOL! Blanchard ignors the entire body of public knowledge, video, audio, and eyewitness testimony.
That's turning the argument on it's head. There is no proof of explosives use. Every single thing that has been presented has been answered, from Jones's "discovery" of thermite to the possibility you laugh off: Large objects hitting the ground. The "entire body of public knowledge" is nothing more than misinterpretations of events. Video and audio analysis do
not support the idea that explosives were used, and merely asserting so does not make it true. And eyewitness testimony? Every one that I've seen has proven to either be a quote taken out of context, a made up character, or (in the case of Willie Rodriguez) a real person who honestly believes what he says, but who's accounts are contradicted by others. That's hardly conclusive proof.
"Cherry picking sections and single statements while ignoring the entire rebuttal is a fallacy and some might argue dishonest.
What? The fact that some of us didn't choose to tackle the whole work somehow undoes the accuracy of our analysis? Hoffman is wrong, and the fact that some of us, myself included, didn't comment on each and every fallacy he built doesn't mean we were dishonest; it means nothing more than us being selective about what to comment on. Nothing more. And calling the rebuttals "Cherry picking" is itself dishonest; in my case, I selected specific examples rather than write a huge treatise exhaustively discussing each and every point. Why? Because I got my overall point across in selecting those few, limited examples. The fact that I or others didn't take on the whole work doesn't invalidate a single thing about the flaws we did point out. You cannot invalidate our arguments by pointing out we were selective in what we chose to discuss. The most you can criticize is that we didn't address a point you might consider valid. That's it. What we discussed is valid and accurate. Hoffman's analysis is
not excellent, and just on the points I myself raised,
not logical or well argued.
Swing... Hoffman's rebuttal is not excellent. It's poorly written and utilizes weak logic. It is much less a rebuttal than it is a complaint, and it doesn't disprove or debunk Blanchard's analysis. Again, I wonder why people cling to it so. It's so flawed.
