New interview with Steven Jones.

[Bushwick Bill]

Hour two of Webster Tarpley's show yesterday. Lots of explanation for those interested in demolition of WTC.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Tarpley06.html

[petgoat]

1. Interesting program.

Dr. Jones refers us to a paper by Gordon Ross, "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the
Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1" http://www.journalof911studies.com/

He also refers us to his powerpoint slides from the LA convention,
available here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PPT_Presentations.html#Jones3

The slides refer to Dr. Kuttler's mathematical analysis of the WTC7
collapse here: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/W7Kuttler.pdf

Based on assumptions favorable to a swift collapse of B7, Dr. Kuttler
could get at best an 8.3 second collapse. The observed time is 6.6
seconds.

Information from an expert controlled demolitionist that
200-300 pounds explosives were used to take down Southwark towers
in London leads Dr. Jones to believe that 1000 pounds of explosives
could have taken down one of the WTC towers.

They have examined a sample of solidified molten metal and found the
end products of the thermate reaction. No radiation in the sample.
That the elevated amount of tritium (that would be associated with mini
H-bomb)is still trivial leads Dr. Jones to discount nuclear explosion
theories.

[hack89]

2. Interesting ..

Kuttler confirms NIST collapse time line. You notice that he only used the video that Jones provided? A sample set of one using internet video is not good science - why didn't he use any of the other available video to generate a range of times?

[hack89]

3. Only 1000 pounds? There go Hoffman's theories. nt

[petgoat]

4. Apples and Oranges. 1000 # to demolish. Something much

greater to explosively eject the dust.

Two questions, two answers.

1. How little explosives were necessary to bring down the towers.

2. How much energy was necessary to expel the dust?

[hack89]

5. So you accept Hoffman's theories?

since he wisely didn't actually do it himself, have you calculated how many tons of explosives his theory implies? Do it and then tell me what you think.

[petgoat]

6. I haven't checked Jim Hoffman's calculations. I understand

he thought the dust cloud took 10X the available potential energy to generate.

I also understand that paper is undergoing revisions.

To me, the argument that the dust cloud took so much explosives it could not
be caused by explosives is implausible when the alternative is that the
dust cloud was created by a natural collapse.

Of course if the lightweight concrete was friable, then maybe the pulverization
was easily achieved.

[Carefulplease]

7. 2250 tons of TNT !

If the expansion of the dust cloud requires 10 times the available energy then the amount of explosives necessary to produce it would be roughly 2250 tons of TNT. That is more than 10% the live weight of one tower (carpet, furniture, office supply and equipment, etc.) Does that seem reasonable to you?

Why even blow that up? Just put all that explosive on the same side of the building and, when the plane/missile/UFO hit, the tower might just topple over.

[petgoat]

8. Oh, OK. I guess the dust clouds didn't happen then. nt

[hack89]

9. But wouldn't the energy of 225 tons of explosives

also create the dust clouds? Which means that the potential energy of the towers was enough to create the dust clouds.

Do you really believe that 10 tons of explosives were placed on each and every floor of the WTC towers?

[petgoat]

10. Applying the entire potential energy of the entire fall of the

entire tower to explain the dust clouds emanating from the
top thirty floors is not legitimate.

If the dust clouds exist with no explosives at all, the
alleged impracticality of supplying enough explosives
to produce them is not an issue.

[Carefulplease]

11. You are mixing up issues...

Hoffman does not arrive at his calculation of an energy deficit because of the energy required to crush the concrete. That is just a small factor. The bulk of the missing energy -- according to him -- must account for the *expansion* of the dust/smoke cloud. This -- and not the energy to produce dust -- is roughly ten times the potential energy of the buildings.

In short, even if no energy was required to crush the concrete, Hoffman would still arrive at roughly the same energy deficit. Just read his paper. So he would still require some 2250 tons of TNT to produce his imagined pyroclastic effect.

The problem is with his flawed assumptions and impossible conclusions (dust particle size, non-mixing assumption, cloud temperature, etc.)

[petgoat]

12. You are mixing up issues...

Hoffman's "imagined pyroclastic effect" is not imagined at all. It is observed.

even if no energy was required to crush the concrete, Hoffman would still arrive
at roughly the same energy deficit.

Right. That's why I say pulverization energy is a moot point.

he would still require some 2250 tons of TNT to produce his imagined pyroclastic
effect.

So you can explain the dust clouds without 2250 tons of TNT?

So what's your point? The dust clouds can't possibly exist?

[Carefulplease]

13. The dust cloud is there.

Your reply is illogical. Hoffman's calculation of the energy required to account for the dust cloud's *expansion* are flawed. His assessment of the expansion rate is flawed as well. This is why he arrives at the ridiculous figures for its temperature and the amount of energy required. Read the post you just replied to one more time.

I'll be away for a while, so I might comment more fully in a few days if others haven't.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.