Impotent ‘Explosives’ and Steven Jones’ Self-Contradictions.

I was reading Steven Jones’ paper again (well, conspiracy theorists will keep referring to it) and I thought in the interests of newbies to 9/11 CTs and for the record, I would write something addressing one of the main players in the Twoof Moovmint, instead of playing whack-a-mole with minor 9/11 deniers’ faulty reasoning.

In his most recent paper, in the September edition of the Journal of 911 Studies, Jones actually claims, “unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated.”

However, he then proposes, “pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple explanation for the observed detonations followed by complete building collapses”

My initial quote appears after he refers to the following picture:
http://physics911.net/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg

Jones comments: “North Tower during top-down collapse. Notice mysterious horizontal plumes far below pulverization region. Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. “

He then refers to the following eyewitness accounts of ‘explosions’ which he somehow believes support his argument that explosives were used:

- "“For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)”

- "“And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too... I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things around, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever." (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008.)”


If these are explosives (not explosions), they have no effect on the collapse at all. Why?
A) the basement examples occur well before the top-down collapse has commenced, and cause no visible structural damage to the towers’ integrity;
B) the few tiny ‘squibs’ occur well after the progressive collapse has commenced and cause no demonstrably visible total structural failure.

How can anyone in their right mind say that these examples are evidence of explosives used to demolish the towers? If they are explosives, they serve no purpose, and are as much use as a teapot made of chocolate.