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

[Reactor drone]

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?

The scale would not read a steady 70%, it would fluctuate from nothing to many times your normal weight.

On the subject of pulverisation and collapses, do you think that people and desks etc were instantly torn apart the moment a floor hit them or do you think it's a gradual process over the 70-90 floor impacts followed by the big ground impact forces?

 

[Wolrab]

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

1. Floor collapses, person inside tower is pinned between the floors. Not pinned, smashed and torn apart. Do I need to post pictures of what happens to a human being when tons of material fall on them?
2. The area the person was in gets scrambled to smaller pieces along with the remains.
3. The remains are now quite small and falling with the rest of the debris while still being pulverized. Some debris is forced laterally by collisions and air pressure, but continually fall down. A slight lateral force from several hundred feet up will send debris on a parabolic course until it comes to rest on something. That something is two blocks away. I am not surprised.

Simple maths will tell you how far a given mass will travel from plumb when acted upon by an initial force from a given height. Try it sometime.

ETA: It debris can fall on top of nearby buildings, it would be surprising if human remains did not as they are debris too.

 

[njslim]

Yea - some of our FD responded to the WTC next day with ambulance to standby

One of them recounted how walking by the debris pile saw a feet

Thats it .......

Just a foot........

 

[dafydd]

1. Floor collapses, person inside tower is pinned between the floors. Not pinned, smashed and torn apart. Do I need to post pictures of what happens to a human being when tons of material fall on them?

In the case of truthers, yes. They seem to think that the victims should have suffered minor cuts and bruises.

 

[dafydd]

Simple maths will tell you how far a given mass will travel from plumb when acted upon by an initial force from a given height. Try it sometime.

Bringing maths into trutherland, no matter how simple, will be of no avail.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Ok, so you allege there were explosives used to break the towers? Fine,

How much explosives?

To approach that question, I suggest we consider another point you raised in this thread: Required energy.

See, you also alleged that 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)

 

[Redwood]

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. Think that you are in an high speed elevator, standing on a scale that is on top of a chair that can hold the weight of 3 guys. The elevator starts descending in a very rapid speed, with 0,7G acceleration. The scale now shows that you have lost 70% of your weight, and you feel very light. The Chair held your weight well before start of the descending, and now you feel that you are flying - and the chair does not get almost any pressure at all. Do you think it should pulverize now under your feet? Then the elevator reaches ground floor, decelerates fast, scale shows, let's say 3 times your weight, and finally the chair cracks, and we can see that you have lost all the kinetic energy, i.e. you are not moving anymore.

If you accelerate at 0.7g from half the height of the Twin Towers, by the time you reach the ground your speed will be about 250 ft/sec. If you decelerate to zero at a constant rate over 100 milliseconds (this would be a relatively soft landing), your scale will shift its reading from 30% of your weight to 80 times your weight. You, your scale, your chair, and the elevator will be turned into a mass of rubble covered in bloody goo. As we say, it isn't the fall that kills you, it's the stop.

BTW, the jumpers from the Twin Towers fell from more than half the height of the towers, basically at g, and their deceleration, hitting concrete, took less than 100 milliseconds. The results weren't pretty.

Next question?

 

[Axxman300]

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

Your first failure is to assume those body parts furthest from the towers weren't thrown there as they scattered after the impact and explosions of each aircraft.

The graphic you provide makes more sense when you add arrows indicating the direction of impact of each plane. The plane that hit WTC2 impacted a floor loaded with people sitting at long desks working their phones. They didn't even have cubicles. Each tower was mostly glass, last time I checked glass doesn't handle impact or explosions well.

So right off the bat you've missed the basic fact the planes crashing into each tower sprayed, for lack of a better word, the area with body parts.

I'm not going to call you stupid. I am going to assume you have never cut yourself on an aluminum can or broken glass, and I'm also going to assume you've never stepped on a bug or killed a spider. I have done all four. Had the aluminum can been traveling at 400mph, I'd be typing this with my other hand. I can also tell you that most spiders I've crushed I pulverized.

The human body breaks down into lighter pieces, a segment of a hand, ears, feet, and other smaller body parts are light, and they can fly a long way in the situation of 9/11's crashes. Maybe you don't understand that. Those light body parts were then picked up by the rolling debris clouds and moved further away.

What you need to do is put a name to one of the body parts you think is too far from the WTC. If you can tell us one of them belonged to someone known to still be inside the building at the time of either building collapse.

Until you can do this there is nothing unusual about the scatter patterns of the remains. Even then, the physics involved in the collapse will still likely explain why they landed where they did.

 

[leftysergeant]

Since the audience demands: Silent explosions:
1. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses talking about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.

And not a damned one of them consistant with HE demolition charges.

2. we have many reporters talking live on air about - wait - not silent but audible explosions.

All manner of **** explodes in a fire. They also had no idea what the horrendous noise and dust flows from the collapses could have been other than explosions. What I saw on TV when the south tower went down looked nothing like an explosion, but the next talking head I heard described it as an apparent explosion. Massive FAIL due to falacy of language.

3.We have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vxj2yxfAM

We have total ********. This clip has been debated to death. The people did not react at all like people do to a blast of that seeming power that close. It also should have reverbrated differently in that location. Take it back where you got it. The latrine is that way.----->

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.

Prove it.

 

[Animal]

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.

<sigh> People reported the sounds of locomotives too.

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

 

[Dog Town]

<sigh> People reported the sounds of locomotives too.

For good reason!

 

[ergo]

So far Wolrab is the only one who has attempted to answer Jbui's question.

1. Floor collapses, person inside tower is ..... smashed and torn apart.
2. The area the person was in gets scrambled ...
3. The remains are now quite small and falling ... while still being pulverized.
4. Some debris is forced laterally by collisions and air pressure

So the people killed in the progressive floor collapses of the Twin Towers did not get squashed between floors, along with all the furniture. They were "smashed" and "torn apart" instantly, presumably when one floor met another, or when one floor's contents were poured? onto another (since we have yet to hear a realistic description of the "progressive collapse" through 80 - 90 floors).

So - and I apologize for the graphic description - people and furnishings did not get sandwiched between the floors coming down on each other, rather, the floors just get all "scrambled" and everything gets pulverized. And everything is also falling while being pulverized. So the things falling are not meeting any resistance below them, but they're getting pulverized against something. At the rate of 0.19 seconds per floor.

To stop this narrative here before moving on, can we say, so far, that this is the 9/11 bedunker explanation? Does someone have a better explanation of how people and things got pulverized in the progressive floor collapses of the two Twin Towers ?

 

[fitzgibbon]

We have total ********. This clip has been debated to death. The people did not react at all like people do to a blast of that seeming power that close. It also should have reverbrated differently in that location. Take it back where you got it. The latrine is that way.----->

Oh FFS!! Not the stereo explosion SFX clip again! The stupid, it burns!

Fitz

 

[beachnut]

So far Wolrab is the only one who has attempted to answer Jbui's question.

So the people killed in the progressive floor collapses of the Twin Towers did not get squashed between floors, along with all the furniture. They were "smashed" and "torn apart" instantly, presumably when one floor met another, or when one floor's contents were poured? onto another (since we have yet to hear a realistic description of the "progressive collapse" through 80 - 90 floors).

So - and I apologize for the graphic description - people and furnishings did not get sandwiched between the floors coming down on each other, rather, the floors just get all "scrambled" and everything gets pulverized. And everything is also falling while being pulverized. So the things falling are not meeting any resistance below them, but they're getting pulverized against something. At the rate of 0.19 seconds per floor.

To stop this narrative here before moving on, can we say, so far, that this is the 9/11 bedunker explanation? Does someone have a better explanation of how people and things got pulverized in the progressive floor collapses of the two Twin Towers ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6263596#post6263596

There is no need to debunk your knowledge of physics. jbui shares your knowledge of physics. Your support of 911 truth is indicative of your vast knowledge and expertise in physics.
Keep up the good work. What a fine legacy.

Can you try again, this post you made is nonsense. Could you add some math?

You forgot g...

... At the rate of 0.19 seconds per floor.
...

Where did you get this? Thin air?
It should be this...
0.869
0.397
0.314
0.272
0.245
0.226
0.212
0.201
0.192
0.184
0.177
0.171
0.166
0.162
0.157
0.154
0.150
0.147
0.144
0.141
0.138
0.136
0.134
0.131
0.129
0.127
0.125
0.124
0.122
0.120
0.119
0.117
0.116
0.114
0.113
0.112
0.110
0.109
0.108
0.107
0.106
0.105
0.104
0.103
0.102
0.101
0.100
0.099
0.098
0.097
0.097
0.096
0.095
0.094
0.094
0.093
0.092
0.091
0.091
0.090
0.089
0.089
0.088
0.088
0.087
0.086
0.086
0.085
0.085
0.084
0.084
0.083
0.083
0.082
0.082
0.081
0.081
0.080
0.080
0.079
0.079
0.078
0.078
0.078
0.077
0.077
0.076
0.076
0.076
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.074
0.074
0.073
0.073
0.073
0.072
You missed the number by 100 percent. Better luck next time.

 

[ergo]

Where did you get this?

It should be this...

It's a very rough average. Where did you get your figures?

And do you agree with the description provided by Wolrab of how people and things got pulverized in the progressive floor collapses of the two Twin Towers?

 

[beachnut]

It's a very rough average. Where did you get your figures?

And do you agree with the description provided by Wolrab of how people and things got pulverized in the progressive floor collapses of the two Twin Towers?

It is not a rough average, it is made up nonsense. Your moon size debris field of nonsense is showing.

Please do the math and show how your number is a rough average. Show us your model.

E=mgh,released in each tower. If you could do math and physics you would not be spreading lies and delusions.

 

[leftysergeant]

So - and I apologize for the graphic description - people and furnishings did not get sandwiched between the floors coming down on each other, rather, the floors just get all "scrambled" and everything gets pulverized. And everything is also falling while being pulverized. So the things falling are not meeting any resistance below them, but they're getting pulverized against something. At the rate of 0.19 seconds per floor.

They met resistance on every floor until the sides of the building started peeling away. By the time, of ocurse, you no longer have floors falling laid on a flat plane. The slabs are turned every which away and colliding randomly with each other. Thyus, we have cutting, grinding and crushing forces acting on all objects in the debris column, including bodies.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

... 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?

Why do you express incredulity at this? Look up the energy involved in the collapses. Ryan Mackey's calculation ended up being around 1.01 x 10^12 Joules available. That's not small. It's something you'd have to provide over 72,000 kilograms (which is 158,000 lbs) of high explosives such as TNT to achieve (adjust amount accordingly for other types, such as RDX) and it's also well in excess of what's needed to cause the towers to collapse.

Given that some of the internal failure modes would've imparted force laterally (remember those links I gave above? This is why I provided them. Read them for why I say this), and given the extreme amount available - far more than what was needed to fail those internal components (again, see above links), I simply do not see why you object to the notion of that much energy not resulting in human remains being scattered so far.

The argument is that the energy is more than sufficient to disintegrate human bodies, and the manifestations of those forces are not all straight down. I don't have the engineering knowledge to calculate what the horizontal force is from columns buckling, but it's undeniable that the horizontal component exists. It's implicit in the column failures and subsequent component failures resulting from that.

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.

Your post is very bad. The whole issue of supposed explosions have been dealt with years ago. It's not that people didn't hear explosions, it's that truthers such as yourself incorrectly attribute those to explosive demolitions, and not internal failures, debris landing, etc. You must read the material here:

• https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
• http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
• http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
• http://911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

About the video:

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75741
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4338001&postcount=1241

This stuff is very old, and long refuted as evidence of explosives. Your core presumption is that explosives were involved in the collapses. Which is in contradiction to what the firefighters believe (someone else can link the Firehouse forum thread or the video of the firefighter telling the truther off at Ground Zero), what engineering firms around the world have concluded (ask Arup, or the researchers at the University of Edinburgh what they believe was behind the collapses. Ditto the ICC members), what researchers from MIT, Purdue, and others have concluded, etc. The core delusion is unsupportable. And arguments such as the above show a woeful ignorance of what's known about the event.

You really need to engage in some remedial reading on the topic. Read the links provided. You need too. Don't just take the next play from the truther canon and provide yet another long refuted point; we already know about the supposed sounds of explosions, we're already familiar with the "squibs" argument, we've talked about "molten steel" years ago, etc. etc.. Do something original: Think before you post. Read the above to understand what we already know and have discussed in the past. Quit trying to argue. You're too far behind in what you know to properly understand what we're saying, as evidenced in your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of why we make fun of explosions claims. Read. It's important for you to do so before you post again.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

So...

Did the building collapse or not? Why are you taking on such an incredulous 'tude about something so simple; it's like, geez, what would you expect to happen to the things and people inside the building as it fell?

 

[Reactor drone]

In the case of truthers, yes. They seem to think that the victims should have suffered minor cuts and bruises.

That's because human bodies are 70% water and everyone knows water is incompressible therefore a building collapse can't squash someone more than 30%.