I'm familiar with Jeff King's articles on the so called pyroclastic flows. To my knowledge he is the originator of the concept and one of the first, if not the first, to begin collecting evidence for a controlled demolition to present on the Internet.
I have a high regard for his efforts, but am uncertain volcanic eruptions are analogous to building implosions. I would also question that the behavior of the dust alone amounts to a smoking gun. At present, if I were to hang my hat on a single piece of evidence that is easy to demonstrate, I'd probably pick debris being ejected far below the progression of the collapses as being the most bullet proof. And of course, WTC 7 is so obviously an implosion, with the penthouse falling into the center of the building first, I doubt any other explanation could be treated seriously.
Would air trapped between the floors be compressed, and account for the ejection of dust? How dense were the debris clouds? How much of the dust was created by the mechanics of a one billion pound building falling a quarter mile? etc.
From videos of other implosions I've seen, the debris clouds at the WTC weren't anything like what appears to be typical of implosions. I believe some of that may be accounted for by the simple absence of blast blankets used in commercial implosions, but how much is "some"?
If for the sake of argument we take Ray's figure of 2% of the materials being converted to dust by gravity, 2% of 1 billion pounds is is 20 million pounds. Did the dust clouds contain more or less than 20 million pounds of material? If it was more, how much more? At what point would the difference constitute a smoking gun?
It's not that I doubt the buildings were brought down with explosives. The point I'm trying to make is arguments such as those presented by Hoffman are invalid on their face. It's all cotton candy. At first glance it looks big and wonderful, but when you bite into it, you find very little substance and a lot of hot air. |
