Well, since we received a warning about OT posts in another thread, maybe this is the better place to continue this discussion with Griff.
It looks like the explosives needed HAVE been done for you already.
Notice that the quote and the links have all the info needed to figure this out for yourself.
This is from Ryan Mackey's whitepaper that he did in response to DRG's junk.
"Regarding Dr. Griffin’s preferred theory, it should be pointed out that explosives rarely
impart much momentum to solid objects, unless the explosive is actually contained –
material making up a solid casing will be fragmented and sent at high velocity (i.e. shell
fragments), but nearby solid objects will hardly move at all. This is because explosives
create a pressure shock that moves at supersonic speeds. The explosive may exert a high
pressure on nearby objects, but the pressure rapidly “washes over” those objects and thus
does not have time to impart a large impulse. Unless the pressure wave is somehow
contained, the wave will rapidly move beyond nearby objects, at which time they are no
longer accelerated. This effect is reminiscent of big-wave surfing – a truly large wave
moves too fast for a surfer to gain much of a push from it and it will simply pass him by,
unless he has either a longer, faster board or is towed into the wave by a jet ski.
For a worked example, Rememnikov  presents a typical charge of 100 kg TNT
exploding at a distance of 15 meters. A series of objects placed at this distance would
experience 272 kPa or just under 40 PSI, but would only experience the overpressure for
17.2 milliseconds, including the reflection of the blast, after which the pressure wave has passed the objects. Let’s assume we’re discussing a
section of unattached, hollow square
steel column 3 m high by 20 cm wide, with walls 4 cm thick. This object presents a
maximum of 0.6 m2 to the blast front, so it experiences a maximum force of 272 kPa x
0.6 m2 = 163,200 N for 17.2 milliseconds, for a total impulse of 2807 Newton seconds.
It should be noted that the simplified calculation above grossly overestimates the total
impulse, because we have assumed the peak pressure is sustained for the entire duration,
when in reality a lower average value is expected. The actual expected impulse per
facing area, seen in Table 1 of Rememnikov’s paper, is a mere 955 kPa-msec, or only
573 Newton seconds imparted to our column as above. We therefore are using a very
generous estimate, almost five times higher than we actually expect. We will use our
simplified estimate rather than the lower, more accurate number to silence any doubts
that we have potentially underestimated the maximum imparted velocity.The total impulse is equal to the mass of the object times the change in
velocity. In this
case, our column contains 256 cm2 x 3 m of steel or 76,800 cm3 of steel, for a mass of
approximately 600 kg. The column would, therefore, be accelerated by 2807 N s / 600
kg = 4.7 meters per second, or about 10 miles per hour – hardly a remarkable value
compared to the ricochet scenario described above. In order to propel this column at the
speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT
equivalent – very large and clearly audible explosives indeed, even accepting our
generous assumptions above.
What these examples prove is that, while explosives can impart large objects with a
significant velocity, it requires either enormous explosives indeed, or very large
explosives at extremely small distances. Gravitational energy is capable of ejecting steel
comparable distances until the explosives reach many tons of TNT equivalent in size.
Also missing from Dr. Griffin’s analysis is that, if large pieces of steel were propelled by
explosives, then smaller pieces should have traveled further still – as a material shrinks in
size, its surface area to volume ratio rises. A piece of steel scaled down by 50% would
experience four times less impulse, but would weigh eight times less, and thus receive
twice as much initial velocity. This means that, if explosives had propelled steel
fragments, we would see small pieces propelled much further than large pieces – and this
is not the case. If explosives had driven a large fragment 600 feet, then very small pieces
would have been ejected like shrapnel, damaging buildings and killing onlookers at
distances of hundreds or even thousands of meters; this too did not happen. "
Info on blast effects on buildings:
Please don't handwave this away Griff. It would be encouraging to at least see some sort of intellectual vigor in falsifying your working hypothesis
that TB's were used to "blow" the ext columns 500'....