• 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 and ergo,

do I understand you correctly: You assert that the victims were torn to shreds by explosives, right?
 
The question, in a nutshell, is here, Oystein. It might be more productive to answer this first.
 
Thanks for going offline and not replying ergo, it says alot ;)

As for jbui's map. If you look at his map you will see the measurements are taken from the centre of the wtc complex and not from the buildings themselves.

So all in all another Truther BS FAIL :D
 
I would advise Jbui to conduct the following experiment to answer his/her questions.


Take a small dead bird (don't kill a bird for this experiment find one already dead).

Place the bird on a cinder block.

Drop another cinder block onto the lower one from thirteen feet above it.

Take the resulting debris and chuck it all into a cement mixer along with some scraps of wood, plastic, aluminum and some steel rebar bits.

Turn the cement mixer on and run for a few minutes.

Squirt in about 150 mL of lighter fluid into the mixer.

Light on fire.

Walk away and come back two months later.

Observe and report.
 
ergo said:
The question, in a nutshell, is here, Oystein. It might be more productive to answer this first.
Click to expand...

What's that question? "You, Oystein, assert that the victims were torn to shreds by the 'meat grinder' or 'Cuisinart' action of the progressive floor collapse, right?"

Yes, that is my assertion.

Now you:

Do you, ergo, assert that the victims were torn to shreds by explosives?


Please keep in mind the context of what I am debating in this thread, that gave rise to my question. The context is "available vs. necessary amount of energy", as Jbui suggested earlier that there was not enough energy available to destroy the towers.
 
As for how things get ejected:

Place a pile of nails, staples and toothpicks on an anvil.

Bring down a ten pound sledge hammer onto the pile with full force.

Observe, report and book an appointment to get a tetanus booster shot.
 
Travis said:
As for how things get ejected:

Place a pile of nails, staples and toothpicks on an anvil.

Bring down a ten pound sledge hammer onto the pile with full force.

Observe, report and book an appointment to get a tetanus booster shot.
Click to expand...
Thanks for funny ideas. But you should try to give me an idea how to do these both at once and only using gravity.
 
Jbui said:
Thanks for funny ideas. But you should try to give me an idea how to do these both at once and only using gravity.
Click to expand...

Jbui, do I understand you correctly: You assert that the victims were torn to shreds by explosives, not by any effects of a gravitational collapse, right?
 
Oystein said:
What's that question? "You, Oystein, assert that the victims were torn to shreds by the 'meat grinder' or 'Cuisinart' action of the progressive floor collapse, right?"

Yes, that is my assertion.

Now you:

Do you, ergo, assert that the victims were torn to shreds by explosives?


Please keep in mind the context of what I am debating in this thread, that gave rise to my question. The context is "available vs. necessary amount of energy", as Jbui suggested earlier that there was not enough energy available to destroy the towers.
Click to expand...

Ok, still waiting for good examples for that 1-4 point question. Meanwhile I have noticed that people here do not specialize in thinking, answering etc, but calling opponents idiots and trying to mock any tiny thing they can find in their arguments, whether or not it has anything to do with the big picture. Anyways to continue the conversation, I'll give you some idea what I think happened. First, what does not shred human in pieces.
1. Gravity. As seen in picture of a 9/11 jumper, 300-400m free fall body was intact.
2. Being in collapsing building(examples from only under 10 story buildings) - no evidence of people with with more than severed limb, mostly just crushed or survived people.
3. normal explosive blast from say +10m away. This depends of course on the blast, but just a mere blast wave from 10m away usually just gives you normal blast trauma, like we saw with al Zarqawi.

Now what does sherd human in pieces:
1. Shotgun blast from nearby - small pieces of metal flying through the body
2. Explosive vest detonated - strong blast wave from nearby, and going to different directions, i.e. head flies in the air, pelvis hits the ground first etc.

And what I think happened to people in WTC:
detonations vaporized floors etc and threw stuff like concrete with strong force against peoples bodies, which acted a little like a shotgun blast, shredding the torsos. Also the microspheres which were found in the dust in quantities of 150 times more than normally found, came from those thermite based explosives, which flew as molten small iron drops through the bodies, burning and shredding them apart and throwing them in those dust clouds 100-1000 feet away from the building.

Now you can go a ahead and ridicule this speculation as much as you want to, but I still ask you to provide your own example for how did a floor collapsing due to gravity, shred people in pieces and throw them 1000 feet away.
 
Jbui said:
...
And what I think happened to people in WTC:
detonations vaporized floors etc and threw stuff like concrete with strong force against peoples bodies, which acted a little like a shotgun blast, shredding the torsos. Also the microspheres which were found in the dust in quantities of 150 times more than normally found, came from those thermite based explosives, which flew as molten small iron drops through the bodies, burning and shredding them apart and throwing them in those dust clouds 100-1000 feet away from the building.
...
Click to expand...

Great, thanks for this detailed assertion!

So I summarize:
  • You think that explosives shredded both people and a large part of the building
  • You believe that the explosive energy provided to do this was at least 200% of the potential energy (gravity) of each tower
Is that a fair rendering of what you claim so far? I'll attend to details such as "thermite based explosives" later. I just want to be clear about what you actually assert, so that I don't build a strawman.

If I get your claim right, I will then provide some numbers in the next step to help us assess the plausibility of your assertions.
 
Oystein said:
Great, thanks for this detailed assertion!

So I summarize:
  • You think that explosives shredded both people and a large part of the building
  • You believe that the explosive energy provided to do this was at least 200% of the potential energy (gravity) of each tower
Is that a fair rendering of what you claim so far? I'll attend to details such as "thermite based explosives" later. I just want to be clear about what you actually assert, so that I don't build a strawman.

If I get your claim right, I will then provide some numbers in the next step to help us assess the plausibility of your assertions.
Click to expand...

Part 1 OK
PART 2 Not. breaking the building with static weight on top is much harder, than just cutting the columns etc. So much less energy was used, since it was used smartly. Also the steel was not cut with mere blast wave, but thermite based charge which cut through the steel like hot knife thourgh butter, thereby requiring less energy and producing less noice.
 
Jbui said:
Part 1 OK
Click to expand...
Thanks. So you think that explosives shredded both people and a large part of the building


Then a lot of doubtful statements. I put numbers in square brackets behind details I'll comment, as to not break the readability of the text by breaking it down to multiple single quotes:
Jbui said:
PART 2 Not. breaking the building with static [1] weight on top is much harder than[2] just cutting the columns etc. [3] So much less energy was used [4], since it was used smartly. Also the steel was not cut with mere blast wave [5], but thermite based charge which cut through the steel like hot knife thourgh butter, thereby requiring less energy [6] and producing less noice [7].
Click to expand...

[1] "static": Strawman. No one claims that "static weight" crushed the structure below. Everybody claims instead that dynamic weight did it. Do I need to explain the difference? It's easy: Place a brick on your head and see how that feels. No drop the same brick on your head from 3 meters up and tells us how that feels differently, and why!

[2] "is much harder than": You make a comparison and claim that some property A has a greater value than a property B. A being: How "hard" it is for "weight" to break the building. B being: How "hard" it is to "just" cut the columns. So, in terms of formal argument, you have claimed an inequality to be true. But have you actually evaluated A and B? Since we are talking about a physical phenomenon, it should be possible to state A and B in objective physical terms, they must have the same dimension to be comparable, and then your job would be to show that A > B, numerically.
So, can you provide a lower bound for A, and an upper bound for B?
And what are we talking about here, anyway? Energy? Power? Force? Work?

[3] You think of "columns etc.", so I assume you chiefly think that columns failed as the tower collapses progressed at ca. 70% of g. This is largely not true. The main failure mode was the breaking of floor joist-to-column connectors, which required a lot less energy, work, force and/or power than "cutting" columns, for the simple reason that these connectors were thinner, and designed to hold much smaller loads (only their share of the weight of1 office floor, rather than a share of the weight of the entire tower section above up to the roof). It is a matter of observation that both the core and perimeter walls remained upright and in large connected slabs when the floors crushed down. Much of the perimeter peeled off in large slabs only then, and a good portion of the core likewise only fell seconds after all the rest had gone, including all the concrete and the body parts.

[4] "much less energy was used" See [2] - you now say specifically "energy" when making this claim of an inequality. Have you evaluated this inequality? I.e. when you claim that EA > EB, can you define both Energies, and provide numerical bounds for both to prove that the claimed inequality is true?

[5] "steel was not cut with mere blast wave"
May I remind you that you claimed in a post earlier today: "detonations vaporized floors etc and threw stuff like concrete with strong force against peoples bodies, which acted a little like a shotgun blast, shredding the torsos." - and you implied that explosions away from people would not shred them to pieces. So while you need to talk about the steel, you must not forget to also discuss the explosives that you imply were attached to the concrete floors, away from the steel columns and columns connectors.

[6] "thermite ... requiring less energy": Now you specifically seem to be claiming that thermite needs less energy to cut through columns than ... what? Please define what you compare this too. Explosives? Or the buckling of steel members through dynamic overloading? Which failure modes are you thinking of? And again, can you provide objective reasons for why you think that some A > B?
For starters: How much thermite would it take to cut ... a steel piece from WTC that you may freely choose?

[7] "thermite ... producing less noice" You claimed earlier that there were "thermite based explosives". Explosives, able to crush concrete and cut steel, by definition produce noise: The work to break material that an explosive does is through a shockwave, and that shockwave is identical to the noise you here - it literrally IS the very sound that does it. Or are you now insinuating that thermite was used to quietly melt steel? Or some melting, some shockwave action? Think about this, and try to get a feel for how oxymoronic your fantasy is!
 
Jbui said:
Meaning how to shred people and throw them 1000 feet away with gravity.
Click to expand...

Simple, hijack a plane,slam it into a skyscraper them just wait for it to collapse.

Of course you need to load the building with HE first. It's the only way ;)
 
Oystein said:
[1] "static": Strawman. No one claims that "static weight" crushed the structure below. Everybody claims instead that dynamic weight did it. Do I need to explain the difference? It's easy: Place a brick on your head and see how that feels. No drop the same brick on your head from 3 meters up and tells us how that feels differently, and why!

[
Click to expand...

One small point. There are two issues involved.

The static load of the building, not in its corrected column alignment, would have caused the structure to collapse.

The dynamic load of the falling structure at one floor to floor height drop would have caused the structure to collapse even if the columns had aligned perfectly with the columns below.
 
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