Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Building a Case Against Controlled Demolition, Inc.

  1. Default Building a Case Against Controlled Demolition, Inc.

    We know the buildings came down from explosives. Now who might have done it?
    Emphases
    mine

    When the buildings came down on 9/11 immediately the speculation arose that it was a controlled demolition. Many of us waited in anticipation for someone in the demolition industry to come forward and speak to that possibility. None came forward.

    The most qualified person in the world to do so would have to be J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated (CDI). Strangely, as we will see, Mr. Loizeaux did come forward, one day after the collapses, and was perhaps the first person to go on record that the collapses occurred simply due to the plane crashes and subsequent fires, and exactly as with the NIST report, he completely ignored WTC7.

    Controlled Demolition, Incorporated is seen as a world leader in the use of explosives to “implode” structures to allow their safe and efficient removal. CDI is a small company based out of Phoenix, Maryland, a scant 50 miles from the nation’s capitol.

    The company is privatly held- no SEC filings, no stockholders, and no board of directors. It’s a small family company started by Jack Loizeaux in 1947 and passed on to his two sons and his grand daughter. Available documents indicate that the company employs some15 to 20 people.

    Where it began

    http://www.tdn.com/articles/2006/05/...ory/news01.txt
    Meet Trojan's demolition crew
    Saturday, May 13, 2006 11:49 PM PDT
    By Barbara LaBoe

    …But it wasn't until a farmer asked if he could apply his stump removal technique to an old chimney that Jack Loizeaux turned his eyes toward demolition. Figuring a chimney was just a large brick tree, he decided all he had to do was take a notch out of it and then blow the legs on the side he wanted it to fall, Stacey Loizeaux said.

    Soon, others were calling for his explosive expertise, "And bing, bang, boom, word travels fast and he got a call from Washington, D.C., asking if he could take down a building," Stacey Loizeaux said.

    The year was 1947 and the CDI company was born. Today it employs 15 people in its Phoenix, Md., headquarters (international agents also help coordinate jobs) and workers travel the globe taking down buildings.

    http://www.uga.edu/gm/399/FeatImp.html
    In 1957, the Washington, D.C. city planner asked Jack to blast an eight-story apartment building on the plot of land where the U.S. State Department
    stands today.
    …in 1963, the U.S. Navy asked Jack to blast its Texas Tower radar platform, a three-story behemoth standing on three 180-foot tall concrete legs in the ocean 140 miles off the coast of Massachusetts. The prospect of blasting it was hard enough, but as an added twist Jack had to ensure the demolished structure didn't sink to the ocean floor, where it would further impede shipping.
    Jack filled the building with a shipload of Styrofoam so that once he knocked the legs out, the platform would float. For his plan to work, though, he had to place the explosives so the structure would dive toward the water after implosion; if it hit flat, it would shatter and sink. To complicate things even more, Hurricane Hazel brewed up just as Jack was loading his explosives. He left the radar platform in a rowboat amid 40-foot waves and, from a distance, watched as his plan worked to a tee.
    "I risked my whole future blasting that tower, but I did it," Jack says proudly.

    Just 10 years after Jack imploded his first building, the Loizeauxs were getting big jobs all over the country. They blasted three buildings in Dallas in 1969; a housing project in St. Louis in 1972; a 32-story apartment building in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1972; the massive Traymore Hotel in Atlantic City in 1972; the Biltmore Hotel in Oklahoma City in 1977; and a high-rise apartment building in Saudi Arabia in 1981.

    Jack Loizeaux created a small family owned company that, early on, caught the eye of the Federal government. As his kids, Mark and Doug, grew up they began taking on responsibilities and Stacey, Mark’s daughter came into the business as well. Then came one of their biggest assignments to date…

    The Test

    The Washington Times
    May 22, 1997, Thursday, Final Edition
    Business booming for Md. family
    BYLINE: Christine Montgomery; THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    SECTION: Part C; METROPOLITAN TIMES; LIFE TIMES; Pg. C8
    LENGTH: 1710 words
    DATELINE: PHOENIX, MD.

    The ruins of the Murrah building, imploded and hauled away a little more than a month after the explosion that killed 168 persons, was one of the few high-profile jobs for which Miss Loizeaux [Stacey] has not been on site during the critical moment.
    She helped remove FBI files and to close on the $215,250 contract to demolish the building, but then she began having nightmares. She pictured herself walking through the shell, seeing body parts, baby toys and other personal effects. Two years later, her eyes still get glassy and her shoulders shake almost imperceptibly when she speaks about it.
    "My dad and uncle came back from Oklahoma very affected," Miss Loizeaux says.
    Because of CDI's reputation, Mark Loizeaux got the call from officials in Oklahoma within a day of the blast. They wanted his help. He flew to Oklahoma two days later, inspected the broken structure and decided quick removal with explosives was the best course of action from a "structural, social and psychological point of view," he says.


    Test Passed; On To Lots More “G” work


    It seems CDI is on speed dial with every federal agency and office in the country.

    http://www.tdn.com/articles/2006/05/...ory/news01.txt
    Meet Trojan's demolition crew
    Saturday, May 13, 2006 11:49 PM PDT
    By Barbara LaBoe

    From 1995 to 1996, CDI blasted 23 high-rise federal housing projects around the world. Last year, CDI's crew worked 49 of 52 weekends, sometimes blasting three different structures on three different continents in one day.
    CDI acts as special consultants to the Army Corps of Engineers, the FBI, Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. State Department, among others. They have aided in the removal of Soviet radar facilities in Latvia and, as part of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund formed under the START treaty, they help remove Soviet-installed nuclear weaponry from former Soviet states.
    In the wake of last year's U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,U.S. government officials tracked down Mark on his cellular phone in Puerto Rico, telling him CDI was on standby.Two days later they called back, saying there was nothing even the Loizeauxs could do.
    "I'm not going to lie to you and say that when I hear an earthquake or a bomb has hit that it doesn't immediately cross my mind that we may be going there," says Stacey.

    So CDI is, without a doubt, the go-to company when the military, the FBI, or other branches of Government need demolition done quickly and cleanly. This small family company has done work for the government in Mozambique (demolishing the never completed Four-Season’s Hotel to make way for a U.S. Embassy), In Lebanon:


    Engineering News-Record
    January 7, 2008
    American Firm Carefully Clears Bombed-Out Bridge
    BYLINE: James T. Parsons
    SECTION: News; Pg. 17 Vol. 260 No. 1
    LENGTH: 502 words

    More than a year after the end of the 2006 Lebanon war, a mid-December blast ripped away a 215-meter portion of the Mudeirej Bridge--a key link in the nation's primary east-west route. It was not a renewal of hostilities, but a carefully choreographed demolition.
    Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI), Phoenix, Md., executed the $150,000 job as part of a $30-million reconstruction project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

    Destroyed missiles in Bulgaria:


    BBC Monitoring Europe - Political
    Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring
    September 12, 2002, Thursday
    Bulgarian SS-23 missile engines destruction method selected by Defence Ministry
    SOURCE: BTA web site, Sofia, in English 12 Sep 02
    LENGTH: 469 words
    Text of report in English by Bulgarian news agency BTA web site

    Sofia, 12 September: "The engines of Bulgaria's SS-23 missiles will be destroyed in Bulgaria, at places other than military practice grounds," Defence Minister Nikolay Svinarov told a news conference Thursday 12 September . "The Defence Ministry has already formulated a position authorizing the application of the destruction method. The method involves neither seismic nor environmental hazards."
    The project contractor, CDI Controlled Demolition Inc., is expected to select a subcontractor later in the day or on Friday at the latest, Svinarov said.

    Is it any wonder that CDI was called in shortly after 9/11 to coordinate the cleanup and disposl of the debris? In addition to that, CDI was also awarded the contract to demolish the Deutsch Bank:

    Engineering News-Record
    August 9, 2004
    CM Firm Sought To Manage Damaged Bank 'Deconstruction'
    BYLINE: Staff
    SECTION: Construction Week; Ground Zero; Pg. 7 Vol. 253 No. 6
    LENGTH: 102 words

    The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. hopes to award by Sept. 1 a construction management contract for "deconstruction" of the 42-story former Deutsch Bank tower that was badly damaged in the 9/11 attack. …and Controlled Demolition Inc., … will handle actual demolition.

    Their Biggest Job Yet

    So what did CDI have to say when the buildings collapsed? Did they come out and speak to the amazing similiarity that the collapses of the three buildings had to controlled demolition? Well one thing is for sure. J. Mark Loizeaux didn’t keep mum. He was very definitely in the press and very vocal. See what he says
    THE DAY AFTER THE ATTACKS:

    The Washington Times

    September 12, 2001, Wednesday, Final Edition
    Towers are leveled by gravity, fire
    BYLINE: Cheryl Wetzstein; THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    SECTION: PART A; NATION; DAY OF INFAMY; Pg. A9
    LENGTH: 466 words

    The two airplanes that smashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers may have destabilized them, but a deadly combination of fire, energy shifts and gravity brought down the skyscrapers, one of the nation's leading experts in demolition said yesterday.

    "When we take down structures with explosives - implosion, if you will - the explosives don't bring down a building - gravity does," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. in Phoenix, Md., "and that's exactly what happened today. The airplanes did not bring down the structures. Gravity did."
    The massive, 110-story World Trade Center towers were especially sturdy, with load-bearing, re-enforced steel-mesh walls, said Mr. Loizeaux, who has 35 years of demolition experience and whose company brought down the terrorist-damaged Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the Seattle Kingdome and several other stadiums across the country.
    When the jet aircraft - both Boeing 767s - struck the towers yesterday, they damaged sections of the skyscrapers' outer metal columns and their internal connections to floor slabs. Together, these structures carry much of the buildings' weight, and once they were damaged, the weight shifted, "immediately overloading other sections of the buildings," Mr. Loizeaux said.
    The impacts from the planes probably also "knocked a lot of the fireproofing off the remaining columns," he speculated.

    As the fires from the exploding planes burned out of control, they heated up the metal in the buildings, he said. "The hotter metal gets, the softer it gets. Eventually it yields."
    The World Trade Center towers, he added, were built to withstand many kinds of forces, including wind and earthquake, but not large airplanes moving at 300 mph. "No one designs for that," he said. "That's like designing a structure to be hit by a meteor. What are the odds? The odds are changing, aren't they?"

    Doesn’t that sound exactly like the NIST conclusions? The day after the event? How did he know about the “fireproofing knocked loose” line? Sounds like he was given a story and he couldn’t wait to tell it. Here you have the world expert in controlled demolitions trying to explain that the towers were not one.
    A month later, in the New Yorker, Mark was even more detailed:


    The New Yorker
    November 19, 2001

    THE TOWER BUILDER;
    Why did the World Trade Center buildings fall down when they did?
    BYLINE: JOHN SEABROOK
    SECTION: FACT; A Reporter At Large; Pg. 64
    LENGTH: 8000 words

    Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "
    Before September 11th, the largest building ever to be imploded by accident or design was the J. L. Hudson department store, in Detroit, with 2.2 million square feet of floor space, which C.D.I. "dropped" on October 24, 1998. To do their work, Mark Loizeaux and his brother Doug need to understand the same forces and formulas that structural engineers study, but instead of using that knowledge to erect buildings they use it to take them down. They are structural undertakers, which may explain why Mark, when confronted with the spectacle of the crippled buildings, lacked the sentiment that builders feel for their creations-that innate sympathy which helped blind the engineers of the World Trade towers to the reality of what was about to occur. "I thought, Somebody's got to tell the Fire Department to get out of there," Loizeaux told me. "I picked up the phone, dialled 411, got the number, and tried it-busy. So I called the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management"-which was in 7 World Trade. "All circuits were busy. I couldn't get through."
    Loizeaux said he had an enhanced video of the collapses, and he talked about them in a way that indicated he had watched the video more than once. "First of all, you've got the obvi ous damage to the exterior frame from the airplane-if you count the number of external columns missing from the sides the planes hit, there are about two-thirds of the total. And the buildings are still standing, which is amazing-even with all those columns missing, the gravity loads have found alternate pathways. O.K., but you've got fires-jet-fuel fires, which the building is not designed for, and you've also got lots of paper in there. Now, paper cooks. A paper fire is like a coal-mine fire: it keeps burning as long as oxygen gets to it. And you're high in the building, up in the wind, plenty of oxygen. So you've got a hot fire. And you've got these floor trusses, made of fairly thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the impact. And you have all this open space-clear span from perimeter to core-with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid right through that space to the core, which doesn't have any re- inforced concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working-the sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are likely cut. So what's going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below-bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall."
    Loizeaux said that when he demolishes buildings he sometimes tries to make the top twist and fall sideways, which can generate enough "reverse thrust" to push the rest of the build- ing the other way. "The top part of the south tower almost did fall off, which is what would happen in most buildings. Did you see how, when that top part started to fall, it began to rotate? If that piece had kept going out, it probably would have pushed the rest of the building the other way as it fell. But those long trusses saved the day-they gave way, guided that top downward just like a bullet through the barrel of a gun, and mitigated the damage." He added, "Let me tell you something. Far more people would have died if those buildings had been built differently. A conventional frame building would have fallen immediately-no question. Only a tube structure could have taken that hit and survived."

    Again, a word-for-word precursor to the NIST report. He had an extrordinary knowledge of the structure of those buildings while most of us were just beginning to learn about them. And where did that “enhanced video” come from?
    But even more telling, why did he not address the collapse of WTC7? Wouldn’t that one have been even more interesting to a man like Mr. Loizeaux? Not a peep. The silence is deafening.
    I found another interesting fact. CDI was first incorporated only two months before this event occurred:


    Controlled Demolition, Inc.

    Incorporated by J Mark. Loizeaux and Douglas K. Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition, Inc. is located at PO Box 306 Phoenix, MD 21131. Controlled Demolition, Inc. was incorporated on Monday, July 09, 2001 in the State of FL and is currently active. C T Corporation System represents Controlled Demolition, Inc. as their registered agent.

    Source: Public Record data from Florida Department of State - Division of Corporations

    http://sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe...s_filing_type=

    Incorporated as a foreign corporation
    http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2001/0711/30464283.tif

    What would possibly motivate CDI to incorporate only two months before 9/11?

    http://www.activefilings.com/en/info...advantages.htm
    Incorporating helps separate your personal identity from that of your business. Sole proprietors and partners are subject to unlimited personal liability for business debt or law suits against their company. Creditors of the sole proprietorship or partnership can bring suit against the owners of the business and can move to seize the owners’ homes, cars, savings or other personal assets. Once incorporated, the shareholders of a corporation have only the money they put into the company to lose, and usually no more.

    Was this a prophylactic measure just in case something went wrong?

    If I were planning the destruction of those three buildings on that day, I would want a young, hungry group of people who had the experience and expertise in bringing down buildings, exactly as found in CDI. Small, insular, family operated with a great reputation of working for and with the government, CDI is a very likely suspect in these demolitions.

    And, characteristic of the sick, cynical world we are living in, after the deed was done, CDI received a contract to clean up and dispose of their own destruction.

    It is my hope that this thread can bring forward further research that may show even more clearly that these few people were the “trigger men” (and lady) behind this horrific event.
    "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."

    -Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses

  2. #2

    Default Any examples of military-CIA "previous" with CDI?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Clemens View Post
    We know the buildings came down from explosives. Now who might have done it?
    Emphases
    mine

    When the buildings came down on 9/11 immediately the speculation arose that it was a controlled demolition. Many of us waited in anticipation for someone in the demolition industry to come forward and speak to that possibility. None came forward.

    The most qualified person in the world to do so would have to be J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated (CDI). Strangely, as we will see, Mr. Loizeaux did come forward, one day after the collapses, and was perhaps the first person to go on record that the collapses occurred simply due to the plane crashes and subsequent fires, and exactly as with the NIST report, he completely ignored WTC7.[SIZE=2]
    Fascinatiing, Bruce - a hypothesis well worth the pursuit. Can we find anything on CDI colloborating with CIA/Pentagon ops prior to 9/11?

  3. #3
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Rigby View Post

    Fascinatiing, Bruce - a hypothesis well worth the pursuit. Can we find anything on CDI colloborating with CIA/Pentagon ops prior to 9/11?
    Agreed. This is great research and fascinating, and a critical episode to expose Bruce. People are more open to the truth about 911 than they are the truth about JFK.

  4. Default A Second Corporation Registered Shortly before 9/11

    Same people, different entity:

    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Maryl...n-3935238.aspx

    D.M.L. Corporation

    Incorporated by Douglas K. Loizeaux and J Mark. Loizeaux, D.M.L. Corporation is located at PO Box 306 Phoenix, MD 21131. D.M.L. Corporation was incorporated on Monday, August 13, 2001 in the State of FL and is currently active. C T Corporation System represents D.M.L. Corporation as their registered agent.

    Source: Public Record data from Florida Department of State - Division of Corporations

    State of Florida Incorporation Record for D.M.L. Corporation

    State: FL State #: F01000004278 Filing Type: Foreign for Profit Created: 8/13/2001 Status: Active
    "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."

    -Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses

  5. Default Again, Mark Loizeaux Takes the Administration's Viewpoint

    Emphases mine

    From ENR: Engineering News-Record; 2/28/2005, Vol. 254 Issue 8, p5-5, 2/3pToward Better Design

    Letters to the editor


    From my perspective as a demolition contractor who worked at the World Trade Center and at catastrophic fire and earthquake sites worldwide, dealing with failed yet standing structural systems, I also have to lean toward a conservative approach. No matter what we do from a design-construction standpoint, a terrorist will find a way around what we do.
    This is one case where I agree with U.S. policy — taking the war to the terrorists before they bring it to us. Better we spend money in that regard than on over-design and over-construction that will never, ever, be enough.
    Mark Loizeaux
    President, Controlled Demolition Inc.
    Phoenix, Md.

    ~~~~~~~~
    By Leslie Erdosy, P.E.; Lawrence Fischer, P.E. and Mark Loizeaux
    Copyright 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Copyright of ENR: Engineering News-Record is the property of McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
    "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."

    -Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses

  6. Default A Letter to One of the Directors of the National Demolition Association

    Here we go...think I'll get an answer????

    Christine Reed
    BRANDENBURG INDUSTRIAL
    SERVICE CO.
    2625 S. Loomis
    Chicago, IL 60608-5414
    Phone : 312-326-5800
    Fax : 312-326-5065
    reechr@brandenburg.com

    Hello, Ms. Reed,

    I am an independent researcher who is looking at the situations with the World Trade Center's buildings on September 11th, 2001 from an engineer's perspective.

    There are problems with the official story. And the Loizeaux brothers' Controlled Demolition, Inc. has taken a very strong position in the media that the failures of the buildings were simply due to the aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. This is a position that is increasingly difficult to justify as more facts come out.

    I noticed that John Loizeaux was a 2000 Lifetime Acheivement Award winner of the NDA. Yet after that, he and his company seem to be reletively absent from the scene.

    I had hoped to use the Loizeaux's expertise in controlled demolition to better understand the events of 9-11, but strangely, they have never addressed the wierd collapse of WTC 7 that happened later that day. This is a building failure that would seem to be the most interesting of all of them from the standpoint of a demolition contractor. It exhibited every indication that the building was brought down under prearranged, controlled demolition.
    If it was not, I would think that demolition contractors would be quick to tell the media why it wasn't a pre-arranged demolition. Yet your industry is silent on the matter.

    I am writing you in hopes that you would be willing to speak to several specific points:
    What is your position on the building collapses on 9-11 (including WTC 7)? Do you believe they all were simply the result of the impacts of the aircraft? From what you have seen, do you think that people who believe that the collapses of these three buildings may have been a controlled demolition are simply wrong?

    From what you know of Controlled Demolition, Inc, do you have any reason to think that Mark Loizeaux's position that it was all caused by the two hijacked airplanes is not accurate?

    I would very much appreciate any information you would be willing to provide.
    Best wishes,
    Bruce
    "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."

    -Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses

  7. Default

    For the last week I have been scouring the web, Lexis Nexis, MD and FL Dept. of State business listings, tax, IRS and court case listings, demolition forums, anything to find a link between CDI and the three 911 building demolitions. All I have been able to find so far is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that J. Mark Loizeaux, if not CDI Inc. was involved. Much of that evidence is based on Mr. Loizeaux's on-the-record statements after the event, as evidenced in above posts.
    Today, I located a very interesting blog post from last summer that continues to add to that mountain. All these revelations serve to continue to push me to dig deeper and go farther. I know something is out there waiting to be found. Meanwhile, Mr. Loizeaux, you "doth protest too much, methinks."


    9/11 Blogger
    Wednesday, July 9, 2008
    It is difficult for me to know where to begin peeling away the layers of misinformation the BBC peddled to their audience in last weeks exposé on the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center in New York. There are so many people out there grinding away at the production, I don’t feel the need to repeat what they have already done with journeyman-like effectiveness, yet there is something that I have yet to see addressed that I feel is crucial to exposing the overall lack of trustworthiness of the piece. And there is another related aspect of it, that I feel may in fact, be almost an unintended admission, of sorts.
    At issue? Mark Loizeaux’s direct misrepresentation of fact and Peter Hayden’s uncanny admission.
    I have to admit that I have been studying a little on the process of controlled demolition. A theory that I have been working on, that I submitted here, a month ago, led me to CDI, Mark Loizeaux’s family company.
    It’s impossible to look into the process of controlled demolition without eventually turning pages on the CDI website. They wrote the book. I mean they really wrote the book. Mark’s father is credited with creating the process and the business itself. So these guys know a thing or two about bringing buildings down in a hurry.
    Now in all fairness, the BBC piece did cover the fact that CDI has been suspect in the controlled demolition theory of the Trade Centers since it began. And they talk about the reason…
    They were brought in almost immediately after the attack to help with the clean up.
    Now, logically speaking, the people who are convinced that 9/11 was an example of a very well constructed controlled demolition, would have to view that fact as a big clue.
    Let’s face it; if a group of rogue elements in the government were going to blow up a building on the QT, would they bring in a demo company to help with the clean up if they weren’t in on it? Of course not. Those people would recognize certain things that others wouldn’t, and so the gig would be up, and people would go to prison.
    It would be stupid to bring in a company of demo experts to “clean up” your secretly demoed site. And if anything, these people are not stupid.
    So, people looked at CDI right off the bat.
    But one thing I don’t know if others found in their CDI research is something interesting that I came across a month ago, and it has been nagging at me, so I think I will toss it in here. I am not saying that CDI “did it”, but it is rather interesting.
    This is from a Washington Technology article dated 12/16/02 Vol. 17 No. 18, titled “Survival Guide: Mark Loizeaux, demolition expert”;
    “WT: Once a project starts, how do you manage risk?
    Loizeaux: At the site, we track very carefully the chain of custody, the ownership of debris, hazardous materials, things like that. We track everything from cradle to grave in writing.”
    I understand that this is a very dangerous business and that extends to the litigation of damages after the charges go off as well. People who are born into this life must also develop very stringent habits of covering their own asses, inside the buildings and out. Before the demo and afterwards. They have to or someone is going to sue them for a foundation crack in an adjacent building that was there a year before the demo, and they would lose everything. It must become second nature for them. Like a code. Because in their line of work they could lose everything in a flash, including their lives.
    They leave nothing to chance, even cleaning their brass, so to speak. They would have it no other way. And there is CDI, on site, in charge of the “clean up”. Interesting to me at least.
    Which makes me wonder why Mark Loizeaux would make such a glaring error as to say something on this program that is clearly untrue? And it is proven untrue by his own website.
    At 27:23 into the BBC piece they introduce Loizeaux, correctly, as one of the foremost experts on demolition. He not only shows the J.L. Hudson building demolition, but mentions it by name as holding several world records for demolition. He probably shouldn’t have mentioned that one, for several reasons.
    He says it took months to “prepare the structure” and took months “to set the charges. Months”. But that’s just not true, according to his website;
    “CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.”
    What took so long, according to the website, was the design of the implosion because there were 12 separate sections to the 2.2 million sq. ft. building. All built at different times, with different construction techniques. And no drawings of the building.
    Now compare that to Building Seven. 47 floors, as opposed to the Hudson buildings 30 levels; the Hudson building had 2.2 million sq ft of floor space, where Building Seven had roughly 45,000 sq ft per floor totaling… 2.2 million sq ft.
    So, theoretically, the demolition requirements would be similar and the design part would certainly be easier. Now, that would mean, that the actual charges if they used a 12 person team could be set in 24 days. Or, if they used 20 people… you do the math. But this is all factually based on real world experience provided by CDI’s own site.
    So it didn’t take “months and months” to set those charges and by extraction, it wouldn’t take that time to have prepped Building 7.
    But that wasn’t the misstatement that I was referring to. I just threw that one in for the fun of it.
    At 31:10 into the piece, Mark Loizeaux commits what I know to be a misrepresentation of fact. He claims that yes, some of the windows facing the building were blown out, but, he says if explosives of the type that would be needed to cut the columns were used, then, he says, “…all of the windows on the surrounding buildings would be blown out all the way around. No way around it.”
    Yet, on Mark’s own website, the same exact page that we talked about the other misinformation from Mark, he clearly boasts about how that job posed a significant problem with the surrounding historic structures and there old glass, and they were able to demo the Hudson building, another steel framed structure, without cause hardly any window breakage. On the sides facing the buildings!
    “Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern.”

    “There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion,…”
    Unbelievable. The arrogance of these people. He mentions the one job that he has detailed on his site as being very successful in keeping from breaking vintage windows facing the building that was demo’d.
    Not to mention the fact that they didn’t ‘break the windows all the way around the buildings”. “No way around it”? Apparently there was on the Hudson building. Which was, by the way, dropped in 1998. Three years before 9/11.
    And that brings me to the last point, which is directly tied into CDI again.
    During the video, Peter Hayden is addressing the issue of fore knowledge of the collapse of Building 7 and he says something very, very interesting. He says they had a ’special engineer’ with seismic equipment who told them around 12:00 that day that Building 7 would fall in 5 hours. And of course, he was correct. At 5:21pm, Building 7 came down.
    Now, why would a ‘special engineer’ be there in the first place with seismic equipment shooting a building fire? Did he just happen by? And how did he get so accurate with the seismic equipment that it could tell the rumblings of regular office fires?
    Here’s the payday boys and girls (I know you have been waiting for it): the continuation of the quote from CDI’s reporting on the J.L. Hudson building
    “…cracked before the implosion, according to Dave Miller of Schnabel Engineering, the third party geotechnical firm hired to do pre/post blast surveys and record the vibration from the blast. Miller said that the vibration from the fall of the structure was well within allowable limits as recorded at adjacent properties.”
    That’s right. CDI and Mark cover their asses so much, that they bring in engineers with seismic equipment to record the blast before and after in order to make sure no other damage is done to other buildings.
    Is this why the ’special engineer’ was on site on 9/11?
    "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."

    -Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses

  8. #8

    Default

    http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/m...aux_family.htm


    Meet the Loizeaux Family of Controlled Demolition Inc. The Company who removed the rubble/evidence from Ground zero and the Oklahoma bombing.



    The company is headed by Mark Loizeaux out of Baltimore. In February 2000, a Federal Jury Indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking members and employees to donate to the campaign of Elijah E Cummings, a Democrat Representative for Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998, but the Loizeaux brothers and the company were acquitted in September 2000.Controlled Demolition have been awarded Federal Contracts worth billions of dollars. One such contract was for the demolition and removal of the remains of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma that had been previously hit by a terrorist bomb. The rubble of this building was carried away to a landfill site operated by BFI Waste.
    This landfill site is guarded twenty four hours by armed security guards employed by Wakenhut Corporation. George Wakenhut is a long term friend of George Herbert Walker Bush. The Wackenhut Corporation has been implicated in the supply of Chemical Weapons to Saddam Hussein.


    Timothy McVeigh's defence lawyers were refused access to this rubble and to the security camera evidence showing the presence of ATF agents (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) in full combat gear prior to McVeigh's supposed arrival (also given in a sworn affidavit by one witness). Despite having their offices in the Alfred P Murrah building, no ATF personnel were injured. The ATF had supposedly been McVeigh's target. Many employees, including at least one judge, had been warned not to go into work that day.

    Seismic instruments at Oklahoma Geological Survey detected two explosions at the time the Alfred P Murrah building was hit and the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Commission said that many witnesses reported two explosions. It has also been pointed out that the Agricultural Fertiliser made bomb supposedly used by McVeigh in the Ryder truck could not have damaged the Alfred P Murrah building to the extent it did.

    McVeigh was executed by lethal injection.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    McVeigh was a patsy, but look at this from CDIs own website! -

    Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building

    As the initial rescue operations continued, General Services Administration, the owner of the Murrah Building, contacted Robert Hill, Vice President of the Dallas-based structural engineering firm, Brockette, Davis & Drake and Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland to evaluate the integrity of the structure and to identify the extent of demolition required for that portion of the structure which did not fail in the initial collapse. Robert Hill quickly determined that the main tower of the Murrah Building was damaged beyond repair and that the safest methodology for demolition of the damaged structure was implosion.

    While final decisions concerning the demolition were being made, CDI was contracted by the GSA to salvage sensitive government paperwork from the building prior to demolition.

    Someone in power trusts these guys with their secrets!!!:bandit:
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 05-27-2009 at 06:45 AM.
    “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Clemens View Post
    <snip> .... And that brings me to the last point, which is directly tied into CDI again.
    During the video, Peter Hayden is addressing the issue of fore knowledge of the collapse of Building 7 and he says something very, very interesting. He says they had a ’special engineer’ with seismic equipment who told them around 12:00 that day that Building 7 would fall in 5 hours. And of course, he was correct. At 5:21pm, Building 7 came down.
    Now, why would a ‘special engineer’ be there in the first place with seismic equipment shooting a building fire? Did he just happen by? And how did he get so accurate with the seismic equipment that it could tell the rumblings of regular office fires?
    Here’s the payday boys and girls (I know you have been waiting for it): the continuation of the quote from CDI’s reporting on the J.L. Hudson building
    “…cracked before the implosion, according to Dave Miller of Schnabel Engineering, the third party geotechnical firm hired to do pre/post blast surveys and record the vibration from the blast. Miller said that the vibration from the fall of the structure was well within allowable limits as recorded at adjacent properties.”
    That’s right. CDI and Mark cover their asses so much, that they bring in engineers with seismic equipment to record the blast before and after in order to make sure no other damage is done to other buildings.
    Is this why the ’special engineer’ was on site on 9/11?
    Some good solid stuff there Bruce, especially the above quoted bit - for me anyway. I've read most of DRG's books + hundreds of the papers he references. Also lots of the general 911 sites stuff and I haven't seen most of what you mention at all. Especially significant it seems to me is the on-site Seismic contractor. As you say it fits soooo neatly with everything else I've seen and heard about the WT7 'collapse'
    Peter Presland

    ".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
    Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'
    "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
    Claud Cockburn


  10. Default

    This thread underscores how those who do take down building carefully engineer how it will be done.

    It could be argued that the demolition of the WTC site would demand the same sort of concerns about damage to adjacent properties or it could be precisely the reverse... don't let it look too much like a recognizable CD.

    I would say in the case of the twins there was no concern about what the destruction would do to neighboring properties and it shows... debris is scattered hundreds of feet from the location of the twin towers.

    I don't think anyone could predict the moment the plane strikes that the towers would collapse and the remark that the south tower would come down first because it was hit lower down is not logically consistent with a top down gravity driven collapse unless there was some mechanism to move the axial load off the columns.

    The claim could be justified by proposing that the plane strike damaged columns and took them out of service and this began a progressive sequence which required more and more columns to be unload leaving fewer and fewer to carry the axial loads until their yield point was reached, they buckled and the top descended.

    Why would the unloading and overloading proceed 2 times as fast in the south tower? What was the mechanism which unloaded one column after the next? The only thing going on of a natural cause was fire and the accelerants were being consumed at presumably the same rate. It can even be argued that less jet fuel entered the south tower leaving only office contents to fuel the fire to weaken and unload a column.

    But it should be noted that a weakened column at 80 would take significantly more heat that to weaken one at 97 as they were more massive on 80. Further the WTC1 strike was aligned with the center of the long axis of the core... hitting columns 503, 504, 505 and 505... while at WTC 2 it stuck the short side at the corner involving 1007, 1008, 907 and 908.

    Further the prevailing wind was fanning the flames of the north tower fires and the opening of the south tower was in the lee of the wind and absent a fresh supply of air to fuel the flames.

    I see no natural reason for the south tower to fall first. I think Loiseaux knows something and he is not letting on.
    Last edited by Jeffrey Orling; 05-16-2012 at 09:49 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •