2 questions re 1120 'Missing bodies' from WTC 1&2 & media complicity in mass murder

[Jbui]

That's not true, it's that the arguments put forth which attempt to dis-prove the commonly held narrative are often idiotic. I'm fine with that but please try and acknowledge answers given to your questions.

I have to say I'm positively supprised how nice answers I got, thanks a lot for everyone!

 

[Jbui]

Given the height of the main towers, something from an upper floor landing two blocks away doesn't have to be a matter of being flung by explosives. Simple deflection, or anything else that adds a bit of a horizontal component to the travel can be the cause. We're talking 110 story skyscrapers here; anything even halfway up just needs a small bit of horizontal force added to get it to land far away from the base. It doesn't need to be done by explosives.

Truthers need to think about these things before stating them.

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible? It's of course natural, that things bounce sideways few meters, maybe 10-20 meters, but tell me how do you first get a floor on your head, and get crushed, and then your body bounces 200 meters sideways, and at some point of this, your body turns into 1000 small pieces?

 

[Scott Sommers]

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible?

I am neither an engineer nor a physical scientist. But in some sense, that makes me better qualified to respond to a statement like this. Eleven, almost 12 years after the event, and this is David Chandler leading the charge in this? I hate to say this, but he is a high school teacher. My father was a public school teacher for his entire adult career, so I hesitate to slur them as a profession, but it is not my habit to look for technical expertise amongst their ranks. You should realize that for almost everyone in the world, if it comes down to a high school teacher and any one of the engineers, scientists or even firefighters who post here, where do you think the voice of credibility is perceived to be coming from?

But don't we have Dick Gage and his expert army of interior designers, park planers and computer programmers? Go check their credentials. Even in their own words they are almost all as I describe.

I don't know who you are. Maybe you come from the kind of background that's impressed by a guy who teaches high school physics or someone with an architect's license even if all they do is draw pictures of new parks for the city. I think this is a poor standard of expertise to be appealing to, and a better course of action for a Truther on the JREF might be to explain why anyone should care what David Chandler has to say.

 

[Spanx]

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible? It's of course natural, that things bounce sideways few meters, maybe 10-20 meters, but tell me how do you first get a floor on your head, and get crushed, and then your body bounces 200 meters sideways, and at some point of this, your body turns into 1000 small pieces?

If you look at the link in post 31 you can see the towers are still standing in the back ground.

Which bodies were thrown 200m due to the collapse ?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Or if you go to pieces in a high speed plane crash dive from 10000m, then it proves that gravity in a building collapse can throw you 2 blocks away and turn you into small pieces?

Uh...are you forgetting the momentum of the body in the airliner? I assume that your assumption is that the impact with the WTC should've stopped everything dead (so to speak)? If so, even a cursory Google will show the bits of UA 77 that continued out the other side after the impact; why would it surprise you that bits and body parts from airliner passengers, crew and hijackers was found 2 blocks away?

Fitz

 

[Scott Sommers]

I hate to post twice on such a retarded topic, but there is a David Chandler cloud tag. I'm sure all your Truther questions and more can be answered by a little effort.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=david+chandler

 

[GlennB]

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible?

Easily. Stored potential energy, like a spring. The arrow travels much faster than the drawing of the bow. Go squeeze an orange pip.

It's of course natural, that things bounce sideways few meters, maybe 10-20 meters

How do you arrive at that figure? Looks like you just picked it out of thin air. Ejecta from WTC1 struck WTC7. Why shouldn't body parts be part of that ejecta?

, but tell me how do you first get a floor on your head, and get crushed, and then your body bounces 200 meters sideways, and at some point of this, your body turns into 1000 small pieces?

Because you become part of the debris that's being thrown around.

And then some more of the building lands on your already dismembered body. And those remains are maybe subject to necessarily crude clean-up operations.

Jbui, welcome, but it really isn't good enough to say "I don't see how.....".

 

[The Big Dog]

About the eneregy. The buildings fell with 0,7G acceleration, so 70% of the total energy went in just accelerating the fall of the mass. 30% was left to crush the parts below. But with safety factor of 3, you would need 300% of the potential energy to crush the building. That is why in CD's they blow up the lower 1/3 of the building to get that energy to crush a skyscraper.

Wow, oh man.

When I drop stuff it falls at 100% acceleration, so it has no energy at all! I am going to start an exercise program called "energetic falling."

/Wow.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Of course some floors might collapse in building like WTC 1&2 if something was dropped on the floors, but then the core structure should still stay in place. Instead that part was blown into pieces as well

You should use JREF's wonderful search function. This particular argument has been discussed-t0-death repeatedly. Once you've availed yourself of the discussions so far, if you have unanswered questions have at it

I would like to see some of this on the videos of the event. All I see on the videos are wall ejecting horizontally.

The ejecta is lightweight material being forced out of weak spots in the WTC exterior. The descending structure would've acted like a piston forcing lightweight sideways from the weakest points.

HTH
Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Wow, oh man.

When I drop stuff it falls at 100% acceleration, so it has no energy at all! I am going to start an exercise program called "energetic falling."

/Wow.

I'll do the late night infomercial for you. It's as (if not more) sensible as anything I've seen. [/derail]

Fitz

 

[Justin39640]

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible? It's of course natural, that things bounce sideways few meters, maybe 10-20 meters, but tell me how do you first get a floor on your head, and get crushed, and then your body bounces 200 meters sideways, and at some point of this, your body turns into 1000 small pieces?

A body, a desk, a computer is expected to survive, intact, a collapse from almost a thousand feet up? All that falling, twisting steel acted like a giant meat grinder, shredding (not "blowing up") everything it came into contact with.

Ejections are from collisions. The outer walls had nowhere else to go but outwards for the most part.

Don't forget that the jumpers (before the collapses) pretty much exploded when they hit the ground. Would you expect a human body, in free fall for a thousand feet, to remain intact when it hits the concrete plaza or streets, too? C'mon.

You're proposing silly ideas so yes some of us think that's kinda dumb. Just sayin'

You should go back and study just how fragile your body really is.

 

[Justin39640]

Oh and the core needed the outer walls to stand and vise-versa. The core DID stand after the initial collapse for a few seconds. Too thin, too heavy, too tall, too damaged. It then collapsed too.

 

[beachnut]

...
In building collapses, people are found dead or alive, but usually in one piece. I have not found any building collapses where people were blown into pieces, but several cases where all people stayed intact. Please find one example where in a building collapse, people where blown into pieces / thrown 2 blocks away.

...

E=mgh
The energy released on 911 in each tower.
This is over 130 tons of TNT released in each tower.
Ask yourself is 130 tons of TNT energy is enough to smash all people into small pieces as seen on 911?
What do you think?

Over 200 500 pound bombs enough? ... all the energy was in the collapse, no blast effects wasting the energy, all the energy was used to crush the building and people into small parts.

... physics?


130 TONS of TNT energy during each collapse. 911 truth lies.

Please name a building like the WTC which collapse and the people were not destroyed and spread over 19 acres? BTW, some people survived in the lower core stairs, not destroyed.

In the USAF, low speed crashes (low energy), large parts survive; high speed crashes, small parts survive. 911 truth uses BS to fool people who fail to think for themselves and do the math, do the physics, and understand science. No one in 911 truth is using science to understand 911, they using science to fool people.

The government story, where ever that is, is easy to verify because we have the data, the video, the RADAR data, etc. We own the government, you are the government, it is your story.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible? It's of course natural, that things bounce sideways few meters, maybe 10-20 meters, but tell me how do you first get a floor on your head, and get crushed, and then your body bounces 200 meters sideways, and at some point of this, your body turns into 1000 small pieces?

LOL... the collapse didn't progress at a rate consistent with free fall; that's why some objects reached the ground first. It wasn't propulsion, it was building resistance.

And if there's a horizontal component that makes something travel sideways "10-20 meters" halfway to all the way at the top of the buildings, how many feet would that be by the time it hit the ground? Things won't go sideways, then suddenly stop and fall straight down. That's not even cartoon physics.

Think, man. Think. It's not that hard.

 

[beachnut]

CDs are primarily gravity collapses, like the WTC gravity collapse due to impact/fire

David Chandler has measured speeds of flying objects and some are ejected faster than the collapse progresses - how can that be possible? It's of course natural, that things bounce sideways few meters, maybe 10-20 meters, but tell me how do you first get a floor on your head, and get crushed, and then your body bounces 200 meters sideways, and at some point of this, your body turns into 1000 small pieces?

Poor David is wrong, and you are inspired to asked questions based on David's wrong claims, claims of CD, silent explosives, no blast effect explosives, zero steel with blast effects, nothing blown up, everything crushed. OK.
You think your government is spreading lies, but David is Christ-like, and never lies, or can be wrong? lol

I would be skeptical of David's work, he seems to be wrong on all 911 issues. If he could show his work, the math, and why a gravity collapse would not eject the material, then it is BS. You have stated a bunch of nonsense not supported with evidence. Nothing was ejected faster than the collapse, because the ejections are the collapse. Do you make up this stuff, it is dumb.

Did David Chandler prove the energy of collapse, E=mgh, was not enough to eject objects, even large objects hundreds of feet? How tall were the WTC towers?

Do you understand in a CD the primary energy used to destroy the buildings is E=mgh, released by small sets of explosives placed in precut areas. Means all CDs are primarily gravity collapses.

911 truth failed to mention CDs are mainly gravity collapses. Why?

 

[Oystein]

Given the height of the main towers, something from an upper floor landing two blocks away doesn't have to be a matter of being flung by explosives. Simple deflection, or anything else that adds a bit of a horizontal component to the travel can be the cause. ...

The funny thing is, many truthers expect from a natural collapse that towers would topple, i.e. lean to the side such that the top part falls fully outside the footprint.
While that is an unrealistic and actually quite stupid expectation for the entire tower, it is exactly what happened to significant parts of the perimeter walls, which, stripped off of the pancaking floor trusses, fell outward and toppled "like tress" - and that accounts for most of the large steel that fell a distance away from the footprint. So something happens that truthers expect . and they still think it's suspicious!

The old story: Falling into footprint is proof for CD, and falling outside is proof for CD, too.
Just as the fighter jets were both stood down AND shot down flight 93.
Just as thermite must have been used because there were no sounds of explosions, AND thermite is an explosive.
Just as Jowenko is an expert to be believed when he said 7 was CD, and was wrong and not an expert when he said 1 and 2 were not.

 

[Oystein]

...
About the eneregy. The buildings fell with 0,7G acceleration, so 70% of the total energy went in just accelerating the fall of the mass. 30% was left to crush the parts below. But with safety factor of 3, you would need 300% of the potential energy to crush the building. That is why in CD's they blow up the lower 1/3 of the building to get that energy to crush a skyscraper.

But if you just use Gravity you can barely crumble concrete, not pulverize, you can crush objects like desks, not pulverize, you can move stuff down, not 100-200m sideways.

Yes, let's talk about energy!

You may be surprised, but these numbers have already been crunched before, and it is fairly easy (for a good structural engineer) to estimate the energy needed to break the structural supports - it is much much less than then potential energy of gravity stored in a 415 meters tall building.

Acceleration 70% of G (that is a rough number, and it may be incorrect, but let's not quibble here, argument doesn't change if it's 60% or 80%) means that less than 30% of the potential energy suffices to break structural supports, and yes, that is fully in line with those calculations I talked about. The balance to 30% is available to do additional destruction, such as pulverizing gypsum wallboard, some concrete, and of course office contens, from desks to people.

But the collapse doesn't stop there! In fact in can be shown that later in the descent, acceleration goes down dramatically to the point where velocity is almost constand = acceleration near zero. That means that later in the fall, near 100% of the potential energy is available to do work on the structure and its contents.

But the collapse doesn't stop there!
When all the remaining structure hits the ground, all the kinetic energy is used to crush even more stuff (and a minor proportion of heat).

So in fact, almost 100% of the potential energy is eventually converted into mechanical work to destroy steel conectors (minor proportion), crumble concrete (major proportion) and all the other stuff, including people.

The numbers have been crunched for example by the team of Bazant, Le, Benson and Greening, if memory serves. The latter, Frank Greening, has gone into detail to calculate how much energy is needed to get concrete down to the observed particle size distribution, and the result he comes up with is right there in the ballpark of available potential energy.




But now suppose the gravitational energy does not suffice, i.e. what is needed to crumble the towers is much more than was available from gravity alone! How much additional energy would you need? Twice as much? Before I continue, I want you Jbui, to commit to an answer here. If the potential energy from gravity stored in a tower does not suffice, in your opinion, how much more do you need then?
1% more?
5% more?
25% more?
100 % more?
500% more?
Pick the minimum with which you could live!

 

[beachnut]

Actually Solid oak desks should have also been there, crushed like gravity and tons of steel crushes them. Not pulverized all over Manhattan.

pul·ver·ize
1. To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
2. To demolish

Oops, pulverized is crushed. ..., that takes care of that problem.
Energy released is E=mgh, equal to 130 tons of TNT in each tower. Enough energy to crush, to pulverize anything.

About the energy.

How much is it?

The buildings fell with 0,7G acceleration, so 70% of the total energy went in just accelerating the fall of the mass.

WHAT? This is BS

30% was left to crush the parts below. But with safety factor of 3, you would need 300% of the potential energy to crush the building.

Who made up this nonsense?

That is why in CD's they blow up the lower 1/3 of the building to get that energy to crush a skyscraper.

In CD they release E=mgh to destroy the building. Using a little bit of explosives to let gravity to the work - it is called business, you don't waste money on explosives, you let nature do the work, you harness gravity. 911 truth has no clue, they are always in a fantasy.

But if you just use Gravity you can barely crumble concrete, not pulverize, you can crush objects like desks, not pulverize, you can move stuff down, not 100-200m sideways.

False statement. And you are ignoring the massive parts of the WTC which are doing the "crushing".

If this was true, KE (kinetic energy) weapons would not work, a gun could not kill. 911 truth is better named, 911 Lies, or 911 Fantasy/Fiction/Nonsense.

 

[Jbui]

.... I think this is a poor standard of expertise to be appealing to, and a better course of action for a Truther on the JREF might be to explain why anyone should care what David Chandler has to say.

just explain why the debris ejected at higher speed than the collapse progressed. Resorting to ad hominem attack is just a way to say you have no arguments.

 

[Reactor drone]

About the eneregy. The buildings fell with 0,7G acceleration, so 70% of the total energy went in just accelerating the fall of the mass. 30% was left to crush the parts below. But with safety factor of 3, you would need 300% of the potential energy to crush the building. That is why in CD's they blow up the lower 1/3 of the building to get that energy to crush a skyscraper.

But if you just use Gravity you can barely crumble concrete, not pulverize, you can crush objects like desks, not pulverize, you can move stuff down, not 100-200m sideways.

You may want to look at the difference between average acceleration and instantaneous acceleration. As an example, I could jump off a 100m high structure and belly flop onto the pavement. With nothing to slow me down apart from wind resistance I'd acelerature at close to 9.8m/s/s and reach a speed of around 44m/s before coming to a stop in about 0.25m (about the thickness of a human body) reaching accelerations of 3900m/s/s or about 400g. Average acceleration is quite survivable but instantaneous acceleration is not.