• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Jbui said:
:) I was not talking about the objects falling down faster that the crushing, but flying sideways faster than the crushing advanced downward. and as I already posted earlier, in a collapse there should be nothing flying 90 degrees sideways at all. And if you are supposed to "bounce" or "spring" something sideways, you need to see that part first fall or be hit by something that falls. In the videos we see parts ejecting one after another without anything hitting them, or those pieces falling on anything.
Click to expand...

Just nonsense. From years past: Why it's obvious there could be lateral motion during top down collapse.
rwguinn said:
Because, Like most ijit CT'ers, simplicity is in the eye of the be-holder.
the fact is that air resistance is negtligible for the steel elements falling even from the top. I won't argue that. Over 9.2 seconds tiime (falling from the top, and that's an approximation for convenience) Velocity will be about 295 feet/second, or 201 mph. That is not going to be terminal velocity for a steel chunk--heck, even humans can reach that felocity jumping out of airplanes. So I won't argue that approximation--it's valid.
What they ignore is that there are lateral forces acting on beams/bars/chunks . Buckling loads cause lateral forces internal to the beam elements--or columns if you insist (they are mostly vertical, but buckling also occurred in horizontal elements)
F=MA, and F and A are VECTORS!. So, believe it or don't--I could not care less--a horizontal force due to buckling loads gives a horizontal velocity.
And one will have to get into those nasty "load path" and "load sharing" things that CT'ers refuse to believe in.
Click to expand...

Lurker said:
Imagine a beam of steel and apply a moment at each end. Imagine then that each end fails catostropically such that the stored elastic energy of the bent beam is suddenly released. The beam will displace in a horizontal direction.

This is basic engineering concerning buckling and collapse. You can simulate this by taking something with a moderate elastic modulus and bending it between your thumb and forefinger and allowing it to slide off the fingers. Note how the sample flies outwards. Kids learn this trick at an early age. Why didn't you?

Lurker
Click to expand...
GlennB said:
Drop a pencil - inclined at some angle to the horizontal - onto the edge of your kitchen table. It will be "ejected sideways" with absolutely no energy being "applied horizontally" in any active sense.

A snowplough pushing snow off the road whilst driving straight along the road would be another example.

I think the concept is known as "vectors".
Click to expand...
From 2011: Why it's an exaggeration to claim that the components were "ejected".
Gamolon said:
I've posted this before and it was ignored by Bill and his cronies. The following image was a screen shot from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkbGAzzidFI&feature=related

perimeterwall.png


This clearly shows the perimeter walls/steel falling sideways in an arc. I see no 4 ton steel section being ejected sideways by explosives. The pieces landing 600 feet away can clearly be explained by the perimeter walls falling sideways as the connections are being severed by the falling mass of debris.
Click to expand...
Some components logically would have horizontal components to their motion deriving naturally from the dynamics of the collapse. An exterior panel peeling off from the top, for example, or a structural element being pushed by a column buckling.

Anyway, these are old, long refuted claims. Collapse mechanisms are far more complex than truthers try to present them. Furthermore, as Gamalon above among others over the years has shown, truthers all too often resort to either vaguery or distortion to make their claims appear anomalous. Fact of the matter is, Jbui's claim is not based on any understanding of what happened and what's known. The objections are based on a woefully incomplete, far-from-thought-out model of what must have happened. And again, as I pointed out, they're old claims.

Further reading:
No, of course I don't expect those threads to be read in their entirety. But at the same time, there's some self preparation necessary in order to discuss the topic. Jbui: Skim the threads, look for the posts dealing specifically with collapse dynamics. Get an understanding of what is currently known. Only after that should you continue to post. Until you demonstrate that you have a grasp of the major details of the events as well as at least a general understanding of the collapse mechanisms involved, then there's nothing to discuss. You're raising objections demonstrating that you're not familiar with what actually happened. You must get up to speed first. Read highlights from those threads. Get an idea of what's already known. Then reply.


-----

Aside: Yes, folks, I know I didn't link any posts from the mother of all threads regarding collapse dynamics: The "Realistice" thread. No way I'll throw a newbie into that! It would be too mean. :D
 
Spanx said:
Originally Posted by Jbui View Post
911-body-part-graphic-fox-news.jpg

-so two planes threw all these people in all these directions? And fitzgibbon, do you need names for all these people? Let's try this again, fill in the parts 2 & 3.
1. Floor collapses, person inside tower is pinned between the floors.
2.
3.
4. few small pieces of bones of the person are found two blocks away
How did the bones get in the drainage system ?

How did the bones get in the drainage system ?
Click to expand...
-please just fill in the 2. & 3. No rats & birds explanations please, this "food" was covered in poisonous highly alkaline dust and no rat/bird would eat it.
 
Jbui said:
-please just fill in the 2. & 3. No rats & birds explanations please, this "food" was covered in poisonous highly alkaline dust and no rat/bird would eat it.
Click to expand...

You don't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

Lol rats won't eat flesh covered in poisonous highly alkaline dust but will eat rat poison :D

How did you get on with the spire clips ? That's post 80 for reference.
 
Last edited:
Jbui said:
-please just fill in the 2. & 3. No rats & birds explanations please, this "food" was covered in poisonous highly alkaline dust and no rat/bird would eat it.
Click to expand...

You are now falling into the burying your head in the sand to avoid facts yyou do not want to hear. :rolleyes:
Poison hasn't stopped rats from eating.
 
Jbui said:
--so two planes threw all these people in all these directions? And fitzgibbon, do you need names for all these people? Let's try this again, fill in the parts 2 & 3.
1. Floor collapses, person inside tower is pinned between the floors.
2.
3.
4. few small pieces of bones of the person are found two blocks away
How did the bones get in the drainage system ?
Click to expand...

Well, we know it wasn't explosives. There were no explosives detonation sounds. Explosives dogs did not find explosives. The sound of explosives detonating ~ 3,000 people, over 100 floors into small pieces would have been deafening.
4. Rain, firemen dousing fires with water. Drainage system collects water and its debris. Seems you don't know this.
 
Jbui said:
Sorry, I do not have the guys name. If I would just talk about debris would that help you? If I say computer part, do you need a model name?
Click to expand...

I'd ask if it might be found in a Boeing airliner hence its (to you) being mysteriously found away from the WTC.

Your entire premise is that you can't understand how it could happen that parts be found so far away; I've given you one vector and ElHumundo has given you the largest conveyor in post 121.

Why should you expect others to stand around and let you move goalposts willynilly?

Fitz
 
Jbui said:
you got it right, if safety factor is 3, add 200% energy, and you are close. Of course with asymmetric damage, especially with wtc2 you should see a tipping of the top with less energy. On the other hand the pulverization, ejecting the objects, accelerating the fall, heating the dust cloud and forming the molten metal requires a lot more energy than +200% of potential energy. But this is off topic, let's concentrate on the human parts flown +1000 feet away from the buildings.
Click to expand...

I think this is very much on topic, and very relevant that you carry through this line of reasoning :)

So we need 200% of the available potential energy in addition to the available potential energy to destroy the towers - in plain language: Twice as much energy.

Do you know how much potential energy there was? Ballpark figure will do. (I do know, and can provide the number)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Just nonsense. From years past: Why it's obvious there could be lateral motion during top down collapse.




​
From 2011: Why it's an exaggeration to claim that the components were "ejected".

​
Some components logically would have horizontal components to their motion deriving naturally from the dynamics of the collapse. An exterior panel peeling off from the top, for example, or a structural element being pushed by a column buckling.

Anyway, these are old, long refuted claims. Collapse mechanisms are far more complex than truthers try to present them. Furthermore, as Gamalon above among others over the years has shown, truthers all too often resort to either vaguery or distortion to make their claims appear anomalous. Fact of the matter is, Jbui's claim is not based on any understanding of what happened and what's known. The objections are based on a woefully incomplete, far-from-thought-out model of what must have happened. And again, as I pointed out, they're old claims.

Further reading:
No, of course I don't expect those threads to be read in their entirety. But at the same time, there's some self preparation necessary in order to discuss the topic. Jbui: Skim the threads, look for the posts dealing specifically with collapse dynamics. Get an understanding of what is currently known. Only after that should you continue to post. Until you demonstrate that you have a grasp of the major details of the events as well as at least a general understanding of the collapse mechanisms involved, then there's nothing to discuss. You're raising objections demonstrating that you're not familiar with what actually happened. You must get up to speed first. Read highlights from those threads. Get an idea of what's already known. Then reply.


-----

Aside: Yes, folks, I know I didn't link any posts from the mother of all threads regarding collapse dynamics: The "Realistice" thread. No way I'll throw a newbie into that! It would be too mean. :D
Click to expand...
Thanks for indepth answer. Since you are better familiar with those threads, why don't you fill in the 4-part question:
1. Floor collapses, person inside tower is pinned between the floors.
2.
3.
4. few small pieces of bones of the person are found two blocks away

I'm sorry I keep insisting on this, but it is the point of this whole topic - what force both "fragged" people into tiny pieces and shot them over 1000 feet away. All I have heard so far is:
1. they were in aeroplanes - but this doesn't explain the fact that human remains were evenly in all directions:
911-body-part-graphic-fox-news.jpg

2. Rats and birds moved them around - pieces were covered in 3 inches of dust, and they were e.g. bone fragments or charred pieces - nothing to feast on.
3. There are debunker theories for ejecting steel beams, I will not get into those now, What I'm looking for is a force that both shred people into small pieces and blew the 1000 feet away.
now we all saw the explanation that a vest of dynamite will put a guy in small pieces and throw the pieces all over the place - and that proved to all debunkers that explosives can not put a body in pieces nor throw it all over the place...so I ask you, do you have any other explanations?
 
Last edited:
Jbui said:
"... .Maybe you should go easier on the lolz...OK. 70% of the gravitational energy was used to accelerate the fall of the tower. So there was even less force against the supporting structure. ...
Click to expand...
You are so lost with physics. This proves you don't do physics, but you keep doing your cartoon physics. That is being generous.

This is the worse physics seen since the moon sized debris field failed to destroy the WTC.
 
Jbui said:
What I'm looking for is a force that both shred people into small pieces and blew the 1000 feet away.
Click to expand...

Not to mention how an alleged progressive floor collapse turns a building into a "meat grinder" or "Cuisinart" in the first place, to borrow a crude and insensitive term from the 9/11 bedunker movement.

Appreciate your posts, Jbui. Hope you stick around, but will understand if you don't.
 
3 stories of part of WTC 3? Analogy to the Towers? No

Jbui said:
try this: http://www.whale.to/b/280207wtc3.jpg
Edited by LashL: 
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.


So WTC3 stopped free falling WTC2 debris, but for some reason WTC2, which was build to hold 110 floors, could not stop the collapse after (imaginary) buckling of few columns.
Click to expand...

Wow, you show a building destroyed by a few parts of a tower, and think the tower with the entire mass can stop the entire mass minus the small mass which destroyed WTC 3.

Let us see how WTC 3 did for the day.
1111aWTC3destroyed.jpg

Wow, 22 stories destroyed by parts of WTC towers. While the towers had to endure the mass not ejected. Sorry, you analogy is stupid. Your analogy failed.

Plus you have no conclusion as you spread nonsense using delusional physics first invented by 911 truth.


WTC 3 totaled by the collapse, as were 1 and 2. Your analog to support your silent CD claims is nuts.
 
Crazy Fysics, 911 truth style

ergo said:
Not to mention how an alleged progressive floor collapse turns a building into a "meat grinder" or "Cuisinart" in the first place, to borrow a crude and insensitive term from the 9/11 bedunker movement.

Appreciate your posts, Jbui. Hope you stick around, but will understand if you don't.
Click to expand...

No surprise you fall for lies from 911 truth. Here is a person who comes and asks questions knowing he will not accept the answers, and keeps the lies you love.

Like your failed physics, jbui has his own failed physics where 70 percent of all the potential energy is used to accelerate the WTC to .7g.

Two new faces in fysics, a 70 percent version of fysics to match the fantasy CD, and a moon size debris field fysics.

Why are you explosives used in your fantasy to apologize for terrorists silent?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You are so lost with physics. This proves you don't do physics, but you keep doing your cartoon physics. That is being generous.

This is the worse physics seen since the moon sized debris field failed to destroy the WTC.
Click to expand...
well, tell me if you stand on a scale that goes from top of the WTC1 to bottom with steady 0,7G acceleration, how much does the scale show?

I have to admit I'm skipping one very important fact - especially in the case of WTC1, there is no top part after few seconds. So I'm just using my debunkers imagination when talking about the top part that crushes the structure below.
 
Jbui said:
well, tell me if you stand on a scale that goes from top of the WTC1 to bottom with steady 0,7G acceleration, how much does the scale show?

I have to admit I'm skipping one very important fact - especially in the case of WTC1, there is no top part after few seconds. So I'm just using my debunkers imagination when talking about the top part that crushes the structure below.
Click to expand...
You are talking gibberish, you make no sense. You debunk yourself with idiotic claims of nonsense.

You can't tell us the potential energy in the WTC, you are not doing physics.

You did not come to learn, you came to spread stupid.
Jbui said:
well, tell me if you stand on a scale that goes from top of the WTC1 to bottom with steady 0,7G acceleration, how much does the scale show? ...
Click to expand...
You make no sense, this is gibberish.

Your posts debunk themselves, the 10/10 physics failed.
Your posts are nonsense. Like the failed WTC 3 stopped the WTC tower debris, a classic 911 truth self-debunking delusion. 22 stories reduced to ruble. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1111aWTC3destroyed.jpg
 
Last edited:
silent detonations

Since the audience demands: Silent explosions:
1. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses talking about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.
2. we have many reporters talking live on air about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.
3.We have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vxj2yxfAM
4. and believe or not, you can edit tapes and take some explosion sounds away, so that eyewitnesses and reporters talk about explosions, but debunkers don't hear them in the videos.
 
Jbui said:
Since the audience demands: Silent explosions:
1. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses talking about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.
2. we have many reporters talking live on air about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.
3.We have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vxj2yxfAM
4. and believe or not, you can edit tapes and take some explosion sounds away, so that eyewitnesses and reporters talk about explosions, but debunkers don't hear them in the videos.
Click to expand...

Wow, edit tape. I have talked with people who were there on 911; oops, you are making up excuses for your failed fantasy born in ignorance. No sounds from explosives, you are stuck with silent explosives. Your fantasy is safe.

Wow, you are right, I have to join you now. We have sounds, like explosions. Oops, they are sounds of things hitting each other. Oops, you are using simile to support your crazy fysics.

You mean this?
Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Click to expand...
What did they really hear?

BTW, on 911 no one heard explosives. People heard sounds of murder by 19 terrorists, the ones you apologize for with bad physics, and gullible nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Jbui said:
Since the audience demands: Silent explosions:
1. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses talking about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.
2. we have many reporters talking live on air about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.
3.We have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vxj2yxfAM
4. and believe or not, you can edit tapes and take some explosion sounds away, so that eyewitnesses and reporters talk about explosions, but debunkers don't hear them in the videos.
Click to expand...

You expect a huge building to collapse silently? Hilarious. I have asked every truther here to give me their full theory of the events of 911. Be the first one to do so, including details of which explosives were used and how the building was rigged with nobody noticing groups of men wiring up the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom