8/3/2019 PROTECr

1/4

Reply to PROTEC: An open letter toRichard Gage at AE911Truth.organd Jim Hoffman at 911research.wtc7.net

Dear Mr.s Gage/Hoffman -

First let me commend you for having taken up the gauntlet of 911truth!

I have been following the investigation of "911 truth" since about2003/2004, when I first became curious about some of the dust recoveredat/around "ground zero" in NYC following the spectacular "failures"of the Twin Towers on the morning of September Eleventh(see "Explosions or Collapse?The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories,"by C. Thurston -http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html).

There was a very fine - talc-like - powder, consisting mainly ofpulverized concrete -later mixed with heavier deposits of the "pyroclastic flow"

generated by the "collapse(s)"(the clouds of dust generated by/during the failuresof the Twin Towers were described by Jeff King -aka "Plague Puppy" - as having been similar to the pyroclastic flowsseen in volcanic eruptions -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_P2JyU27sg&feature=relatedorhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg).

This prompted me to avidly follow the work of the FEMA/BPATteams, and the work of the House Science Committee and theFDNY, as well as a Weidlinger Associates study commissioned by WTCleaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc

(seehttp://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/enr_silverstein1.html)all of which of course culminated, finally, in the NIST studies.

Note that I am not a structural engineer. I am, however, sufficientlyversed in "bonehead physics" and mechanics for "dummies"to at least follow critiques of, for example:

1) the "elastic dynamic analysis" of Bazant and Zhou"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis"www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC- see"Explaining the Collapses With Elastic Dynamic Analysis"

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/bazantzhou.htmland"Explosive demolition? A response to Bazant and Zhou"http://www.911-strike.com/demolition-pro-con.htm;(and also, G Charles Clifton -"Collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers"www.hera.org.nz/PDF Files/World Trade Centre.pdf)

and/or

8/3/2019 PROTECr

2/4

2) the rudimentary momentum transfer analysis attemptedby Manuel Garcia, Jr. (together with Pierre Sprey,"technical reviewer" for CounterPunch) -"We see conspiracies that don't exist: the physics of 9/11"http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html- see" 'Hand Waving' the Physics of 9/11,"by David L Griscomwww.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf;

and

3) the somewhat more sophisticated "energy transfer" analysis attemptedby F. R. Greening,"Energy Transfer In the WTC Collapse"www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf(also see, Addendumwww.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdfand"The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1"

www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf);see"Addressing Faulty Assumptions of Greening and Others in WTC Momentum TransferCalculations"http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/

and, finally (and especially),

4) Gordon Ross's"Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storys of WTC 1,"www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf(with a correction by 'Newton's Bit' -http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html

"Newton's Bit to Gordon Ross & The Journal of 9/11 Studies"http://911guide.googlepages.com/newtonsbitand"A Review of Energies and How They Are Dissipated of WTC 1 & 2, by Newton's Bit,"http://911guide.googlepages.com/newtonsbit2).

While the PROTEC report to which I refer in my subject heading("A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7"www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf)is, in my opinion, largely yet another exercise in "hand waving" (and self-promotion), still, it does rather precisely indicate the main objection toa "controlled demolition" hypothesis with regard to the failures of the Twin Towers

- viz., that *if* we are NOT allowed to use potential energy to bring down the Towers(as in a normal demolition, where gravity does most of the main "work," explosivesserving mainly to remove structural "impediments" - that is, supports),then how much explosive materiel would be required?This question is followed immediately by: Is this reasonable?

Which is to say that I think architects & engineers for 911 truthand/or 911Research need - urgently! -to MODEL the building failures under an hypothesis of a top-to-bottom type of demolition,like those seen (putatively) on the morning of September Eleventh...

8/3/2019 PROTECr

3/4

if, indeed, this has not already been done.(If so, I have not seen - am not aware of - such a model.)

I fear that the result of this fundamental calculation(i.e., how much explosive materiel would be required) may beas confounding to an "explosives" or a "demolition" hypothesisas any of the criticisms of NIST's (non)explanation of the failures of the Towers(in both cases, NIST posits a "progressive total collapse").

Note that Jim Hoffman, in his calculations in"Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following theCollapse of 1 World Trade Center,"http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.htmlonly takes into account the amount of concrete -estimated by Hoffman to be 90,000 tons - and not any of the steel.

Gregory H. Urich, in"Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energyof World Trade Center Tower 1,"gives a total figure of 288,100 metric tons - of both steel and concrete -

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm.

It was estimated that about 14 tons of high explosive materielwould be necessary to "pulverize" the concrete(http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276245.shtml);so, we may calculate that **at least** 3 times this amount would be necessary to"bring down" just WTC1...

(Here I can't help but think back to the "confetti steel" seen during the "collapse.")

Simply for the sake of argument, I am assuming that "dis-integrating" steel requires "about"the same amount of energy as pulverizing concrete... ... ...

Granted that this is at best a very "rough" calculation...It, nonetheless, points to a perhaps fatal objection raised (if only indirectly)by Blanchard in the PROTEC "report."

While it would have taken several weeks (at a minimum) to have rigged the Towers(and/or Building 7) for a conventional (bottom-up) controlled demolition,one can only speculate how long it would have taken to rig *each* of the Towers with 42 tonsof explosives ... even supposing exotic materials like "nano-thermite" was used(see"Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters,"by Michael Greenhttp://www.911review.com/articles/green/PardonOurDust.htmland

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade CenterDisaster,"Niels H. Harrit et alhttp://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGMand"The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites,"by Kevin Ryan

journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf).

8/3/2019 PROTECr

4/4

And, quite aside from questions of "access" (to the buildings) and the length of timenecessary, the question remains: How would one do it?

**HOW** would one "lay in explosives" so as to bring down the Towers in the way we saw onSeptember Eleventh? (Clearly a top-to-bottom cascade of "catastrophic failure.")

Has/can AE911Truth and/or 911Research produce(d) a model that answers (or at least attemptsto address)this last question?