Honest questions about 911

[LesliePOV]

Well let;s see-- what I can remember off the top of my head since I am not really fresh with this and considering I am up against someone who has invested about a decade professionally "around" this topic:

I think you have been and are being evasive about addressing the rough-sketch numbers of the total energies involved in these unprecedented & massively destructive demolitions observed specifically from the following:

---- formation of unprecedented, anomalous dust cloud, with apparent pyroclastic flow

----about the long-term residual heat and fires in anaerobic conditions under debris piles

--- about the anomalous (overall) undersized debris piles as compared to what is supposedly expected and typical with normal controlled demolitions

--about the apparently (unusually) finely-divided material from offices and structure that existed in the debris pile... per alleged reports of responders

---and (related to above) about the anomalous deposition of massive amounts of, again, very finely-divided, 'dust' for blocks around 'ground zero' which is again, observably uncommon to most other controlled demolitions

and finally, (and very significantly)

----about the overwhelming logistical challenges we must accept as magically achieved under conditions of total stealth and concealment to emplace the totality of chemical explosives necessary to achieve these levels of destruction observed in these demolitions... two cases of said demolitions which were 3x larger EACH than the previous world record achieved by world-class professionals- namely CDI.


also that you apparently expect us to believe that with scientists, and budgets, and 6 DECADES of 150+IQ researchers studying this, that no one has figured out to miniaturize and initiate small-scale thermonuclear or neutron bombs which could be EASILY placed, precisely sequenced and controlled whose effects would answer ALL THESE ANOMALY'S AND MORE...

You sir, are a real comedian ...as well as a cult-hero!

[BroJones]

LesliePOV:

You sir, are a real comedian .

Can you see, this is ad hominem?

Below you talk about being "evasive" - which may mean that I have not found time or interest to respond; "evasive" is not the same as "lying". My question to you was:

So you tell me, LesliePOV -- just WHAT was I lying about?

You quoted Ed Ward who accused me of "LYING" with respect to tritium. Would you address that question first, please - just WHAT was I LYING about?
In my last post, I also asked:

LesliePOV said:

Truly- an audience entranced by the obfuscation of a man of letters.

Are you referring then to me as this "man of letters", LesliePOV? If not, who are you referring to?

I await your responses. (PS -- you're not being evasive, are YOU?)

Well let;s see-- what I can remember off the top of my head since I am not really fresh with this and considering I am up against someone who has invested about a decade professionally "around" this topic:

I think you have been and are being evasive about addressing the rough-sketch numbers of the total energies involved in these unprecedented & massively destructive demolitions observed specifically from the following:

---- formation of unprecedented, anomalous dust cloud, with apparent pyroclastic flow

----about the long-term residual heat and fires in anaerobic conditions under debris piles

--- about the anomalous (overall) undersized debris piles as compared to what is supposedly expected and typical with normal controlled demolitions

--about the apparently (unusually) finely-divided material from offices and structure that existed in the debris pile... per alleged reports of responders

---and (related to above) about the anomalous deposition of massive amounts of, again, very finely-divided, 'dust' for blocks around 'ground zero' which is again, observably uncommon to most other controlled demolitions

and finally, (and very significantly)

----about the overwhelming logistical challenges we must accept as magically achieved under conditions of total stealth and concealment to emplace the totality of chemical explosives necessary to achieve these levels of destruction observed in these demolitions... two cases of said demolitions which were 3x larger EACH than the previous world record achieved by world-class professionals- namely CDI.

[BrentL]

True, it does and you have missed that arrogance is not so one-sided. Perhaps you betray your own self sir?

see how you are? do you have the courage to really seek?

http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/01/1 ... ron-nukes/

o yes, I am an idiot. I have already proven that and there is no movement trying to debunk it.
I did really seek. didnt find good answers anywhere. but the top questions still remain, and they condemn only the government.

take that entire post you linked to, and the REAL answer to it remains "so what" ????

I mean, saying Steve lied (dont believe it anyway, see his response) DOES NOT ANSWER the questions raised. to be short and blunt, building 7 did not fall for the reasons stated. that much is OBVIOUS. the rest becomes confusing, and I dont care to much to wallow in it any more. I know I am being lied to by my government, and suspect we have obtained that "sole management" clause.

Steve is my friend but I would rather sit in his home and discuss alternate energy or the Book of Mormon (I still assert that so many of you are missing what he could teach about that book!) than 911. I know he is not a charlatan or a liar. when you attack him you only break yourself on his character. he may be wrong or right, but he is honest and good. you do yourself a disservice making it personal.

have a good day.
Brent.

[farfromhome]

True, it does and you have missed that arrogance is not so one-sided. Perhaps you betray your own self sir?

see how you are? do you have the courage to really seek?

http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/01/1 ... ron-nukes/

....

Steve is my friend but I would rather sit in his home and discuss alternate energy or the Book of Mormon (I still assert that so many of you are missing what he could teach about that book!) than 911. I know he is not a charlatan or a liar. when you attack him you only break yourself on his character. he may be wrong or right, but he is honest and good. you do yourself a disservice making it personal.

have a good day.
Brent.

Well said. I was reminded that President Packer asked us not to use MOCKING like those in the great and spacious building used.

How many times have we seen people come in here and start the personal attacks on Dr. Jones? Jesus said that his disciples would be persecuted. We also see this in Lehi's dream.

LesleiPOV:

You sir, are a real comedian

Personal attacks? what the heck lesliepov? stop it. sayanara sir.

Oh one last question from a previous discussion I recall drjones asked -- How would the nuclear bomb once it cut through 100 floors of steel and concrete, what would stop it? what would contain the thermonuclear fire-ball?

I think he asks a good question -- since these "bathtubs" that the Towers sat in were bascially intact. SO - can you answer his question about containing a "live thermonuclear fire-ball"? good luck.

[LesliePOV]

Right. I kind of expected this from the good professor.

more evasion... and supporters taking out of context quotes re; my response to them bringing up arrogance. Now the good Dr wants to play philadelphia lawyer? and focus on the tritium? I never called you a liar. True Ed Ward IS calling you a liar... I was addressing logistics and observable anomalies which the mainstream 911 movement and you help to deny and avoid.

These are not small or extraneous or irrelavent details... but do as you wish... so be it.

Please see the 'meat' of the my last post wherein laid out several issues/ anomalies not answered that you should already have in your 'answers to FAQ arsenal, much like a missionary would be prepared to lay out his position and already prepped on certain common concerns...

Or are these beneath your consideration as a scientist?

[LesliePOV]

I think he asks a good question -- since these "bathtubs" that the Towers sat in were bascially intact. SO - can you answer his question about containing a "live thermonuclear fire-ball"? good luck.

I am happy that you feel he asks a good question... about the nuclear 'state of the art' in what, the '70's? are you kidding? you dont' think that really smart weapons scientists have been working on that issue for about 40 years already?


That question HAS been answered by those more competent than me... but I missed that he had asked me that. So perhaps we can allow the good Dr to address the FAQ's I put forth to him and stop bobbing and weaving?

So, these issues will get buried and go unanswered with the help of you and the legion of emotional sympathisers?

Very scientific.... and cult-like....

waiting i-)

[BroJones]

Thanks BrentL and farfromhome for kind respectful words.

Right. I kind of expected this from the good professor.

more evasion... Now the good Dr wants to play philadelphia lawyer? and focus on the tritium? I never called you a liar. True Ed Ward IS calling you a liar... I was addressing logistics and observable anomalies which the mainstream 911 movement and you help to deny and avoid....

Or are these beneath your consideration as a scientist?

It appears that you are dripping with insults and sarcasm, LesliePOV.. I am not playing "philadelphia lawyer" and I have no problems addressing your questions (not "beneath my consideration as a scientist") if you will definitively put aside the personal attacks and apologize for them.
That's my condition.

Also, I'd like to know Lesliepov if you disagree with Ed Ward calling me a liar -- since your linked to his webpage that calls me a liar (unfairly as I noted) in its title and text.

[LesliePOV]

Ok, that is reasonable, and I take it that your offer is in good faith. I hereby apologize for offense you have inferred from the context of my linking Ed Ward's having called you a liar.

You might be a really funny guy but you are correct, I don't actually know whether you are a comedian- I just felt I was getting the run around from you on questions I repeatedly posed.

I will tone it and the sarcasm down then. Are we on the same page here?

-L

edit: PS. I am not specifically INTERESTED IN THE TRITIUM, Sir. It was never one of my questions and ED wards case I don't believe rests entirely on that tritium issue... I was pointing to other things... neither did I excerpt him calling you a liar and include it in the post.

[BroJones]

I hereby apologize for offense you have inferred from the context of my linking Ed Ward's having called you a liar.....

-L

Hmmm... one thing yet:

Also, I'd like to know Lesliepov if you disagree with Ed Ward calling me a liar

[LesliePOV]

See edit above.

as to whether Ed Ward can call anyone a liar... He should not unless he can prove it.

as to how I feel about you personally? Are we getting into a serious long-distance relationship? (see now I am a comedian-- but I'll be sure and keep my day job)

I just wanted some questions answered. Can you do that for me now? I'l check in later.

thanks

[BroJones]

---- formation of unprecedented, anomalous dust cloud, with apparent pyroclastic flow

I have personally examined WTC dust samples and samples from well-known demolitions, using optical and electron microscopes. What is truly "anomalous" about the WTC dust samples is the presence of the red/gray chips AND the presence of abundant iron-rich spherules -- discussed in our peer-reviewed published papers. The red material (along with out DSC tests) in particular demonstrates the presence of thermitic material in the WTC buildings. Ignition of thermitic materials will cause molten iron which in turn will heat the dust clouds.

----about the long-term residual heat and fires in anaerobic conditions under debris piles

I've discussed this many times - long-term heat consistent with the ignition and burning of remaining thermitic materials over a long period of time. These substances do NOT require oxygen; they produced enormous heat in anaerobic conditions.

--- about the anomalous (overall) undersized debris piles as compared to what is supposedly expected and typical with normal controlled demolitions

I've already answered that in this thread, and referenced FAQ#3 from AE911Truth.org; see that. In short, the Towers were taken down in top-down fashion and approx 90% of the steel beams were ejected horizontally so that only approx 1/10th of the beams landed in the footprint. Consistent with use of high explosives; as also the observation of numerous HUMAN BONE fragments at long distances from the Towers (e.g., atop the Deutsche bank building, as reported.) Inconsistent with pancaking-floor theory (NOVA and Popular Mechanics).

--about the apparently (unusually) finely-divided material from offices and structure that existed in the debris pile... per alleged reports of responders

No, I did not find that the dust was unusually finely-divided when compared with dust from well-known demolitions. Indeed, there were large chunks of concrete and window glass and fibrous material in some samples taken closer to the WTC site. I mention here in particular the sample provided to us by Jeannette Mackinlay whose apartment was very close to the Towers, and whose window was broken as the south Tower fell such that dust filled her apartment - including the large chunks of material mentioned. I have spoken several times with Bob McIlvaine whose son perished in one of the Towers. He showed me his son's wallet, which survived the destruction quite intact.

---and (related to above) about the anomalous deposition of massive amounts of, again, very finely-divided, 'dust' for blocks around 'ground zero' which is again, observably uncommon to most other controlled demolitions

Again, not so "finely divided" per my observations with microscopes, compared to dust from other controlled demolitions. The broad extent of the dust clouds may relate to the tallness of the structures and the prevailing winds that dust, and the use of high explosives (and gravitational forces) to pulverize substantial quantities of material. But again, we see large clouds of dust also in "conventional" controlled demolitions.

and finally, (and very significantly)

----about the overwhelming logistical challenges we must accept as magically achieved under conditions of total stealth and concealment to emplace the totality of chemical explosives necessary to achieve these levels of destruction observed in these demolitions... two cases of said demolitions which were 3x larger EACH than the previous world record achieved by world-class professionals- namely CDI.

NO - not magically achieved, and I have discussed how explosives could be implanted near the CORE columns which are NOT visible to the office workers or the public generally. The Towers were designed with office space in surrounding the walled-off central columns and elevators. Placing explosives (with nano-thermite igniters perhaps) on core columns is not logistically impossible at all. This would probably have been done with imported workers IMO, who may not have been aware of just what they were doing, but billed as maintenance. Note (as one example) the foreigners in a van videotaping the Towers destruction and rejoicing in this tragedy. They were reported to local police and arrested - but, under orders of the Attorney General, were deported rather than tried.

[LesliePOV]

---- formation of unprecedented, anomalous dust cloud, with apparent pyroclastic flow

I have personally examined WTC dust samples and samples from well-known demolitions, using optical and electron microscopes. What is truly "anomalous" about the WTC dust samples is the presence of the red/gray chips AND the presence of abundant iron-rich spherules -- discussed in our peer-reviewed published papers. The red material (along with out DSC tests) in particular demonstrates the presence of thermitic material in the WTC buildings. Ignition of thermitic materials will cause molten iron which in turn will heat the dust clouds.
I believe you when you descibe the thermite as anomalous.. but I was referring to the size of the cloud and the AMOUNT OF DUST OVERALL... unique even.

----about the long-term residual heat and fires in anaerobic conditions under debris piles

I've discussed this many times - long-term heat consistent with the ignition and burning of remaining thermitic materials over a long period of time. These substances do NOT require oxygen; they produced enormous heat in anaerobic conditions.True but to be burning glowing weeks later? this implies a mass of thermite that you've already denied when you 'incorrected' me on the rough ratios I was trying to ascertain

--- about the anomalous (overall) undersized debris piles as compared to what is supposedly expected and typical with normal controlled demolitions

I've already answered that in this thread, and referenced FAQ#3 from AE911Truth.org; see that. In short, the Towers were taken down in top-down fashion and approx 90% of the steel beams were ejected horizontally so that only approx 1/10th of the beams landed in the footprint. Consistent with use of high explosives; as also the observation of numerous HUMAN BONE fragments at long distances from the Towers (e.g., atop the Deutsche bank building, as reported.) Inconsistent with pancaking-floor theory (NOVA and Popular Mechanics). Hmm... 90%? Yes, of course high explosives= no disagreement. but again the AMOUNT of explosives required was at least double the previous Guinness world record-- JL Hudson dept store '98 which took 288 man days just to load explosives. to big a risk of discovery between security, bldg maintenance, elevator maintenance and various and sundry other trades, IT, cabling, electricians plumbers... those core columns would be really busy as a infrastructure / communications chase area... to high a risk that placement would disturb something that someone will notice and discover.... sorry, I know buildings and have done construction work in unoccupied and occupied,,, during and after hours excerpt quote from CDI website regarding 'loading' explosives: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. end CDI quote... Dr. this is 288 man days to load explosives in a bulding less than half the size of ONE TOWER there is no getting around the math involved

--about the apparently (unusually) finely-divided material from offices and structure that existed in the debris pile... per alleged reports of responders

No, I did not find that the dust was unusually finely-divided when compared with dust from well-known demolitions. Indeed, there were large chunks of concrete and window glass and fibrous material in some samples taken closer to the WTC site. I mention here in particular the sample provided to us by Jeannette Mackinlay whose apartment was very close to the Towers, and whose window was broken as the south Tower fell such that dust filled her apartment - including the large chunks of material mentioned. I have spoken several times with Bob McIlvaine whose son perished in one of the Towers. He showed me his son's wallet, which survived the destruction quite intact. Nolo Contendre

---and (related to above) about the anomalous deposition of massive amounts of, again, very finely-divided, 'dust' for blocks around 'ground zero' which is again, observably uncommon to most other controlled demolitions

Again, not so "finely divided" per my observations with microscopes, compared to dust from other controlled demolitions. The broad extent of the dust clouds may relate to the tallness of the structures and the prevailing winds that dust, and the use of high explosives (and gravitational forces) to pulverize substantial quantities of material. But again, we see large clouds of dust also in "conventional" controlled demolitions. I think you missed my emphasis... sorry I was not clear.... anomalous in amount of course and obviously so compare to other bulding demolitions that also typically use HIGH EXPLOSIVES

and finally, (and very significantly)

----about the overwhelming logistical challenges we must accept as magically achieved under conditions of total stealth and concealment to emplace the totality of chemical explosives necessary to achieve these levels of destruction observed in these demolitions... two cases of said demolitions which were 3x larger EACH than the previous world record achieved by world-class professionals- namely CDI.

NO - not magically achieved, and I have discussed how explosives could be implanted near the CORE columns which are NOT visible to the office workers or the public generally. The Towers were designed with office space in surrounding the walled-off central columns and elevators. Placing explosives (with nano-thermite igniters perhaps) on core columns is not logistically impossible at all. This would probably have been done with imported workers IMO, who may not have been aware of just what they were doing, but billed as maintenance. Note (as one example) the foreigners in a van videotaping the Towers destruction and rejoicing in this tragedy. They were reported to local police and arrested - but, under orders of the Attorney General, were deported rather than tried.

Yes, I kind of think you are proposing a bit of magic here. This is not like smuggling prisoners out in large laundry carts like in the movies..... This is massive a massive undertaking... safely 600 man-days of labor each tower... the math here refuses to support a gang of laborers not knowing what they are really doing. I don't imagine you have managed skilled or unskilled construction workers against a deadline much

Okay well, thank you for the response.

[BroJones]

I've discussed this many times - long-term heat consistent with the ignition and burning of remaining thermitic materials over a long period of time. These substances do NOT require oxygen; they produced enormous heat in anaerobic conditions.

True but to be burning glowing weeks later? this implies a mass of thermite that you've already denied when you 'incorrected' me on the rough ratios I was trying to ascertain

There was another type of thermite present that I have written much about, besides the super-thermite you refer to above when I corrected you.

You really might want to see what I have said in numerous talks, available on you-tube, also in my papers. I invited you to read the Fourteen Points paper, if you care to understand my research findings regarding 9/11. And I disagree with your man-power (over) estimates, but think I should refer you to my previous publications now as I try to get back to alt-energy research, and family things.

Farewell.

[LesliePOV]

To the person that brought up the waterproofing 'bathtub' that was built to protect (make possible) the excavation of the basements, subbasements and foundation of WTC, and how it was not compromised: This is a good question and a seeming refutation of the idea that a small nuke device could have been employed there because that the bathtub was intact.... My response is four-fold:

1. Sub-kiloton nuclear devices (backpack nukes) were actually developed about the time I was born--- late 1950's

here is a picture----- It is launched by a 'recoilless rifle'. it was equivalent of about 20tons TNT. this is .o2 kilotons/// the lower practical limit for a fission reaction. obviously this would have left highly radioactive in the classic sense 'fallout' everywhere. but this was 1957-58 and the Hiroshima was only 12 yrs prior to that. Do you think that man in the picture could carry the 50-lb warhead in a 'backpack'?



2. Shaped-charges focus and direct the blast from high explosives. This is an old idea that has been used ever since 'plastique' was molded into the bottom of a cut-off champagne bottle. the explosive material it self from the way and shape it burns as produced a 'jet' effect. Also 2b: Claymore charges are also directional high-explosive. Directional explosions is a principle that only works with high explosives... not black powder. Not ANFO.... fertilizer bombs.

3. Nuclear explosives are the epitome of 'high-explosives' a directional nuclear explosive blast? Hmmm how long do you think weapons designers OR CIVIL ENGINEERS have wanted that? think of the possibilities. So now, instead of a blast equal in all directions, I can have a directional nuke blast? Up? Down? elliptical? One of the original big promises of the 'atom for peace' (in the 50's) of this technology besides power generation was EXCAVATION!!!

3a... I understand there was also the SADM Special Atomic Demolition Munition developed in the 1960's. Wiki that one....

4. The Manhattan project developed a weapon used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 5 years... a never before, one of a kind unprecedented source of destructive energy... Given 10 times that span of time do you really think there is now no MAN-PORTABLE way to demolish a building in a controlled manner without the traditional sound, visual, seismic and radiation signature that someone stuck in a Hiroshima mindset of 1945 could not conceive of?

[Digitali]

http://vimeo.com/63768498" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - what does the evidence show (as opposed to forming a theory and then finding pieces to fit it)? Great presentation.

[MsEva]

The research I have done on 9 11 is probably minimal compared to anyone here. And I can't say that I am that scientific minded...but one thing I do know is that Dr. Jones is NOT a Liar!

[InfoWarrior82]

How in the world did UNEXPLODED bits and pieces of military grade explosives end up in the WTC dust? Maybe the nano thermite/thermate fairy happened to be visiting NYC that day and decided to sprinkle it all over? This kind of military explosives could only be manufactured in a handful of places on earth. None of it could have been done in the caves of Afghanistan... and especially not in the high rise apartment of Mrs. Thermite Fairy.

[LesliePOV]

How in the world did UNEXPLODED bits and pieces of military grade explosives end up in the WTC dust? Maybe the nano thermite/thermate fairy happened to be visiting NYC that day and decided to sprinkle it all over? This kind of military explosives could only be manufactured in a handful of places on earth. None of it could have been done in the caves of Afghanistan... and especially not in the high rise apartment of Mrs. Thermite Fairy.

Are we referring to something other than the flakes Jones says are thermite?

[LesliePOV]

And I disagree with your man-power (over) estimates,

Okay here is a perfect example of: a baseless, yet presumably authoritative attempt to deny the obvious reality of an endeavor:

It is a matter of public record that a building half the square footage of ONE of the World trade towers, according to the Controlled Demolition Inc's. own website, and from which I previously both linked and cut/pasted the relevant excerpted DATA of how many man DAYS WERE REQUIRED to load explosives. And the good Dr simply 'wishes to disagree? on what basis.. this is simple math, sir.

With a wave of the hand then Professor, we can just ignore that the previous world record demolition was half the size of one of the twin towers and took 288 man/days? That is 12 men multiplied by 24 days. is my math wrong? this Guinness World record was in '98. WTC 3 yrs later. how did things get so much easier in 3 yrs to save all this labor then that I am over-estimating in your opinion?

Perhaps the assumption / presumption being that the WTC core columns were so obviously poorly designed and weak? And that the explosive emplacement of a building twice the size of JL Hudson (and more than twice the height) would nevertheless be the same job or perhaps easier? I think that is a bit insulting to the designers of the building but okay... is this what you are saying?

Also, what about the exterior structure? 14" box columns on 1 meter spacing with spandrels to tying them together... these exterior wall assemblies were three stories tall, staggered in placement (uhh for strength not decor mind you) and craned into place. This exterior network of structural material would seem to be its own demolition problem... apart from the core columns. A look at the construction videos suggests these are quite strong, if only supplemental.

I honestly dont see how this makes the demolition SIMPLER THAN THE JL HUDSON STORE...

So Dr how to do you propose to back up the idea that I am OVERESTIMATING THE EMPLACEMENT JOB.

THE SMALLER JOB (BY HALF) TOOK 288 MAN DAYS. What on earth would cause such an educated man to make such an unfounded statement?

Trying to understand what would SUPPORT this type of thinking....

What would be your considered estimate then?

Of course there is this major labor saving idea that there were a just a handful of mini/micro-nukes emplaced instead...

Is that the basis of my overestimation? in that case, I would probably have to concede that this would the practical way to solve the contended labor disparity.

thank you very kindly.

[BroJones]

Well then, let's ask some questions of you, LesliePOV, about this Controlled Demolition INC. (CDI) website upon which you base so much; you write:

according to the Controlled Demolition Inc's. own website, and from which I previously both linked and cut/pasted the relevant excerpted DATA of how many man DAYS WERE REQUIRED to load explosives. And the good Dr simply 'wishes to disagree? on what basis.. this is simple math, sir.

With a wave of the hand then Professor, we can just ignore that the previous world record demolition was half the size of one of the twin towers and took 288 man/days? That is 12 men multiplied by 24 days. is my math wrong? this Guinness World record was in '98.

1. In the case you cite on which you are basing so much -- did explosives at the bottom initiate the demolition, as is conventional? or was it, rather, a top-down demolition? (I hope you know the difference.)

Let's start with that simple question, and go from there. I eagerly await your answer.

[LesliePOV]

Okay so you are back in it now? okay

I am attempting to use a 'rough sketch' approach to answer why a building twice as big as the PRIOR WORLD RECORD DEMOLITION WOULD NOT need twice the explosives to bring it down...

You dont think this is an obvious question?

[LesliePOV]

JL Hudson was an amalgam of several different phases of construction, the CDI website says. Therefore each had its own unique failure mode... which complicated the demolition application and sequencing, whereas the Twin Towers were, by comparison WAY more homogeneous and consistent. The WTC towers were more consistent in their construction so what? Each of them were still twice the floor space and 4 times taller...

And you tell me I am overestimating?

If you know so much about the details of what is required to take the towers down then what is your estimate of the probable amount?

Again, rough sketch answers do seem to come more readily from Ed Ward... is this the real issue?

[BroJones]

Cool! evasion! you did not answer my question!
Now let's get serious, if you are expecting me to quantitatively compare apples and orange-ribbons, then NO thank you!

So again, kindly address the very straightforward question, will you? Perhaps you missed it somehow,

1. In the case you cite [a CDI demolition example] on which you are basing so much -- did explosives at the bottom initiate the demolition, as is conventional? or was it, rather, a top-down demolition? (I hope you know the difference.)

Let's start with that simple question, and go from there. I eagerly await your answer.

ps - I'm heading for bed, looking forward to your answer in the morning.
ttfn

[bobhenstra]

Interesting, A nuclear shaped charge that fires in only one direction, I've got news for you Leslie, not even a conventional shape charge fires in one direction, they explode in all directions, only the copper formed shaped charge part of it fires in one direction.

Yes there are mini nukes, but they too explode in all directions. As far as the tritium goes, it's the fusion part of "some" thermonuclear weapons. and because it is fused by the heat of a fission bomb, the tritium (all of it) is changed into a different matter, you might want to ask Steve--the scientist-- about the tritium after fusion!



Bob

[BroJones]

@all: Who do you think does the most damage to the unity and progress of the Truth and Justice Movement --

1. Those who defend the official 9/11 narrative?
or
2. Those who do not, but who belittle and defame other "truthers" who do not support their particular pet-model of how the Towers came down?

It is one thing to discuss the merits of one hypothesis or another, using scientific evidence and experiments in an effort to find truth. It is another to go after the PERSON with ad hominem attacks.