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

[Jbui]

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:


[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!

Static meaning if you want to surpass the safety factor of the building and bring it down using gravity. This is of course very inefficient way. To build up kinetic energy, you need to have less structural resistance than weight on to of that, otherwise collapse slows down, like what happened with WTC2 hitting WTC3

[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?

Obviously it's much less energy, work, etc, to bring down a skyscraper with some exlplosives than gravity, otherwise CD's would be done by loading stuff on top of the building.

[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.

for the core structure to disapper, it had to be blown up. It was the single most strongest part of the building. If just the floor connections would have failed, the core would be left standing and maybe tipped over.

[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 E_A > E_B, can you define both Energies, and provide numerical bounds for both to prove that the claimed inequality is true?

When you use explosive that releases it's energy fast, you can demolish buildings, but if you release it slow, like burning some jet fuel, you are left with just a big fireball. Key is to attach the explosive right to the part which is to be demolished, direct the all the energy towards the object(shaped charge) and release the energy very rapidly(nano technology). this is how you can do the same demolition job with much less energy.

[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.

The point was to bring down the building, and I would assume that explosives were attached to core columns and places where floors were attached to outer wall and columns. The explosive was apparently derived from this patent, where other layer is thermite and other layer protects the explosive from say fire, and also produces gas when ignited producing blast wave: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799 The shredding of people happened from flying concrete/steel/other stuff and/or flying molten iron droplets. There was many different kind of trauma to the people, other dissappeared in the dust, other were in big pieces. So naturally they all got hit a bit differently. The Nature of the two-layer explosive as stated in the it produces both, thermitic reaction and blast wave.

[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?

As earlier stated, its easier and more energy efficient to break a building with
well placed explosives, than pushing it down from above.

[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!

With thermite based explosives I was talking about the patented two layer explosive, with an oxide component. so it has both heat and shockwave components. Yes there was a lot of sound - just like all the eyewitnesses etc talked about, but no, there were no typical RDX sounds. Just like in this thermite demolition patent, the advantage with thermite demolition is that is produces LESS sound. Some sound, but LESS than typical RDX:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5532449

 

[carlitos]

for the core structure to disapper, it had to be blown up. It was the single most strongest part of the building. If just the floor connections would have failed, the core would be left standing and maybe tipped over.

Have you done any research at all on this? You seem almost completely 180 degrees wrong on nearly every aspect of this event. Please do some basic research and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Spanx]

Have you done any research at all on this? You seem almost completely 180 degrees wrong on nearly every aspect of this event. Please do some basic research and stop embarrassing yourself.

I am adding this just incase someone thinks you have got the ms paint out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&feature=youtube

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

I was going to suggest something very similar except using a sledge-hammer and hitting the dead bird a hundred times.

I find it odd that anyone thinks that the only way to produce small bone fragments is to use explosives. It's bizarre.

 

[tsig]

Static meaning if you want to surpass the safety factor of the building and bring it down using gravity. This is of course very inefficient way. To build up kinetic energy, you need to have less structural resistance than weight on to of that, otherwise collapse slows down, like what happened with WTC2 hitting WTC3

Obviously it's much less energy, work, etc, to bring down a skyscraper with some exlplosives than gravity, otherwise CD's would be done by loading stuff on top of the building.
for the core structure to disapper, it had to be blown up. It was the single most strongest part of the building. If just the floor connections would have failed, the core would be left standing and maybe tipped over.

When you use explosive that releases it's energy fast, you can demolish buildings, but if you release it slow, like burning some jet fuel, you are left with just a big fireball. Key is to attach the explosive right to the part which is to be demolished, direct the all the energy towards the object(shaped charge) and release the energy very rapidly(nano technology). this is how you can do the same demolition job with much less energy.

The point was to bring down the building, and I would assume that explosives were attached to core columns and places where floors were attached to outer wall and columns. The explosive was apparently derived from this patent, where other layer is thermite and other layer protects the explosive from say fire, and also produces gas when ignited producing blast wave: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799 The shredding of people happened from flying concrete/steel/other stuff and/or flying molten iron droplets. There was many different kind of trauma to the people, other dissappeared in the dust, other were in big pieces. So naturally they all got hit a bit differently. The Nature of the two-layer explosive as stated in the it produces both, thermitic reaction and blast wave.

As earlier stated, its easier and more energy efficient to break a building with
well placed explosives, than pushing it down from above.

With thermite based explosives I was talking about the patented two layer explosive, with an oxide component. so it has both heat and shockwave components. Yes there was a lot of sound - just like all the eyewitnesses etc talked about, but no, there were no typical RDX sounds. Just like in this thermite demolition patent, the advantage with thermite demolition is that is produces LESS sound. Some sound, but LESS than typical RDX:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5532449

CD's use gravity to bring the building down.

 

[Animal]

Static meaning if you want to surpass the safety factor of the building and bring it down using gravity.

Wrong.

This is of course very inefficient way.

Wrong.

To build up kinetic energy, you need to have less structural resistance than weight on to of that, otherwise collapse slows down, like what happened with WTC2 hitting WTC3

Wrong

Obviously it's much less energy, work, etc, to bring down a skyscraper with some exlplosives than gravity, otherwise CD's would be done by loading stuff on top of the building.

Wrong

for the core structure to disapper, it had to be blown up. It was the single most strongest part of the building. If just the floor connections would have failed, the core would be left standing and maybe tipped over.

wrong

When you use explosive that releases it's energy fast, you can demolish buildings, but if you release it slow, like burning some jet fuel, you are left with just a big fireball. Key is to attach the explosive right to the part which is to be demolished, direct the all the energy towards the object(shaped charge) and release the energy very rapidly(nano technology). this is how you can do the same demolition job with much less energy.

somewhat correct.

The point was to bring down the building, and I would assume that explosives were attached to core columns and places where floors were attached to outer wall and columns. The explosive was apparently derived from this patent, where other layer is thermite and other layer protects the explosive from say fire, and also produces gas when ignited producing blast wave: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799 The shredding of people happened from flying concrete/steel/other stuff and/or flying molten iron droplets. There was many different kind of trauma to the people, other dissappeared in the dust, other were in big pieces. So naturally they all got hit a bit differently. The Nature of the two-layer explosive as stated in the it produces both, thermitic reaction and blast wave.

wrong

As earlier stated, its easier and more energy efficient to break a building with
well placed explosives, than pushing it down from above.

wrong

With thermite based explosives I was talking about the patented two layer explosive, with an oxide component. so it has both heat and shockwave components. Yes there was a lot of sound - just like all the eyewitnesses etc talked about, but no, there were no typical RDX sounds. Just like in this thermite demolition patent, the advantage with thermite demolition is that is produces LESS sound. Some sound, but LESS than typical RDX:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5532449

clueless

 

[Oystein]

Static meaning if you want to surpass the safety factor of the building and bring it down using gravity. This is of course very inefficient way. To build up kinetic energy, you need to have less structural resistance than weight on to of that, otherwise collapse slows down, like what happened with WTC2 hitting WTC3

You are mixing up two things:
a) collapse initiation
b) collapse progression (after initiation)

What you describe there concerns a)

What we are talking about in this thread concerns b), and b) only. It's the progression phase during which the top part accelerates at 70% if g, during which almost all of the dust is created, all the concrete crushed, and all the bodies (that weren't already crushed by the plan crashes or burned by the fires) were destroyed.

After initiation, we have, by definition, kinetic energy, and we have, by definition, a top part that has already overwhelmed the capacity of the first floor that brole loose. You may wish to doubt that this could have happened by fire and plane impacts alone, but that would be a different topic.

What you are doubting is that the collapse could continue, at accelerating speed, and crush all that's in the way, and fling body parts around, once it's underway.

During that time, the lower, yet undamaged part, is meeting a dynamic load, not a static load. Falling brick on your head, not resting brick.

Please stay on topic.

Obviously it's much less energy, work, etc, to bring down a skyscraper with some exlplosives than gravity, otherwise CD's would be done by loading stuff on top of the building.

Obviously? Obviously, demolition experts use gravity to bring highrises down, the explosives are only needed to get things started.

The Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, Texas, was a slender skyscraper that was explosively demolished in 2006. It had 30 stories above ground and was 116 meters high. Google it, you find many YouTube videos, too, to get a feel for what happened there. Notice the sounds of explosions, the dust clouds...

Can you guess

• how much explosives were used to bring it down?
• how much energy that was from explosives?
• how much potential energy from was converted to destruction by gravity?
• what was the proportion of energy from explosives to energy from gravity?

(Answers at the end of the post)

for the core structure to disapper, it had to be blown up. It was the single most strongest part of the building. If just the floor connections would have failed, the core would be left standing and maybe tipped over.

No. You have not the slightest idea about the absolute basics of structural engineering. The cores' were designed with floors providing lateral bracing. With lateral bracing gone and the core standing unsupported for hundreds of feet, they did not stand a chance at all against even the slightes breeze of wind.

When you use explosive that releases it's energy fast, you can demolish buildings, but if you release it slow, like burning some jet fuel, you are left with just a big fireball. Key is to attach the explosive right to the part which is to be demolished, direct the all the energy towards the object(shaped charge) and release the energy very rapidly(nano technology). this is how you can do the same demolition job with much less energy.

How fast do you want to release the energy of the explosive?

Serious question. I am asking for a velocity. Something that you express as a number, with a proper physical dimension for velocity.


How fast DOES this nano-technology release the energy you are talking about? Again, give me a number with a proper dimension!


Compare the two.
Have you done this sort of comparison?

The point was to bring down the building, and I would assume that explosives were attached to core columns and places where floors were attached to outer wall and columns. The explosive was apparently derived from this patent, where other layer is thermite and other layer protects the explosive from say fire, and also produces gas when ignited producing blast wave: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799 The shredding of people happened from flying concrete/steel/other stuff and/or flying molten iron droplets. There was many different kind of trauma to the people, other dissappeared in the dust, other were in big pieces. So naturally they all got hit a bit differently. The Nature of the two-layer explosive as stated in the it produces both, thermitic reaction and blast wave.

What about all the concrete that was pulverized?

That's a ******** patent to bring up here. What it describes has nothing at all to do with anything observed. It is pure fantasy to believe there is any connection.

Got evidence?

Thought so.

As earlier stated, its easier and more energy efficient to break a building with
well placed explosives, than pushing it down from above.

Demo experts disagree with you. They treat gravity ("pushing things down from above") as their best friend. See numbers at the bottom of this post for a representative highrise demolition.

With thermite based explosives I was talking about the patented two layer explosive, with an oxide component. so it has both heat and shockwave components. Yes there was a lot of sound - just like all the eyewitnesses etc talked about, but no, there were no typical RDX sounds. Just like in this thermite demolition patent, the advantage with thermite demolition is that is produces LESS sound. Some sound, but LESS than typical RDX:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5532449

What has this patent got to do with the rapid demolition of a building?






















Answers to the Landmark Tower questions:
1. 364 pounds of high explosives
2. 900-950 MJ
3. 7,500 - 8,000 MJ
4. About 1:10 (9 to 10 times as much energy from gravity than from explosives)

 

[ergo]

Jbui, I would suggest not answering Oystein's questions until he has answered yours. Or anyone, for that matter. Reversing burden of proof is a common strategy they employ to avoid facing the obvious. And if you get into their meandering and non-sensical questioning, the original purpose gets lost in the confusion. Just a suggestion.

 

[dafydd]

The point was to bring down the building, re other layer is thermite and other layer protects the explosive from say fire, and also prodand I would assume that explosives were attached to core columns and places where floors were attached to outer wall and columns. The explosive was apparently derived from this patent, wheuces gas when ignited producing blast wave: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5505799.PN.&OS=PN/5505799&RS=PN/5505799 The shredding of people happened from flying concrete/steel/other stuff and/or flying molten iron droplets. There was many different kind of trauma to the people, other dissappeared in the dust, other were in big pieces. So naturally they all got hit a bit differently. The Nature of the two-layer explosive as stated in the it produces both, thermitic reaction and blast wave.

As earlier stated, its easier and more energy efficient to break a building with
well placed explosives, than pushing it down from above.

With thermite based explosives I was talking about the patented two layer explosive, with an oxide component. so it has both heat and shockwave components. Yes there was a lot of sound - just like all the eyewitnesses etc talked about, but no, there were no typical RDX sounds. Just like in this thermite demolition patent, the advantage with thermite demolition is that is produces LESS sound. Some sound, but LESS than typical RDX:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5532449

You still have to prove the highlighted part. Who wanted to bring the building down? Who actually did the planning? How were explosives planted without anybody noticing? The rest of your post is just you making a spectacle of yourself.

 

[dafydd]

Jbui, I would suggest not answering Oystein's questions until he has answered yours. Or anyone, for that matter. Reversing burden of proof is a common strategy they employ to avoid facing the obvious. And if you get into their meandering and non-sensical questioning, the original purpose gets lost in the confusion. Just a suggestion.

A nice way of ignoring the facts about 911. All your truther pal's points have been debunked a long time ago. Still, everybody needs a hobby and truthers have found a lifelong pastime.

 

[ergo]

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.

No, that was not the question. But an interesting and bizarre assertion of yours. I look forward to hearing you explain it.

Jbui's question is in the link I provided.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks for funny ideas. But you should try to give me an idea how to do these both at once and only using gravity.

You don't understand physics and gravity. You will be upset when you realize your fantasy beliefs are based on your ignorance of math and physics. 10/10 physics? It failed.

CDs are a gravity collapse. You lost this one due to ignorance of science, math, and physics.

You failed to tell us how much energy is stored in the WTC before collapse, and why that can't do what we saw. In addition you don't understand CD is a gravity collapse, the main energy used in CD is mgh.

 

[Jbui]

Have you done any research at all on this? You seem almost completely 180 degrees wrong on nearly every aspect of this event. Please do some basic research and stop embarrassing yourself.

Yes, there was small part, maybe 20% of the core standing few seconds, and then it dropped straight down. If just the floor connections had failed and floors pancaked, there would have been 100% of the core, which would have stood there and maybe tipped to one side. What do you think made the spire drop like a rotten wood tower?

 

[Spanx]

Jbui, watch out for ergo he is a government paid shill, he tries to feed gullible truthers nonsense to make the truth movement look stupid.

 

[Oystein]

Jbui, I would suggest not answering Oystein's questions until he has answered yours. Or anyone, for that matter. Reversing burden of proof is a common strategy they employ to avoid facing the obvious. And if you get into their meandering and non-sensical questioning, the original purpose gets lost in the confusion. Just a suggestion.

Hehe

What ergo is really saying is: "Oystein doesn't let truthers off the hook. If you answer his questions honestly and correctly, you will eventually debunk all of your nonsense claims, and may even learn a little in the process. I (ergo) know, because Oystein has several times let me down to the point where taking my (ergo's) feet in hand and running away from the argument was the only option left to preserve my pretenses."

 

[beachnut]

Yes, there was small part, maybe 20% of the core standing few seconds, and then it dropped straight down. If just the floor connections had failed and floors pancaked, there would have been 100% of the core, which would have stood there and maybe tipped to one side. What do you think made the spire drop like a rotten wood tower?

Gravity, something you don't understand.
The core can't stand without the shell of the WTC. You should have studied the structure of the WTC, but instead you come to a skeptic forum with woo you googled. The only skill you are good at, googling lies and nonsense forum 911 truth. As if your mind has a filter to keep reality out, and nonsense in.

Better google some physics to cure your woo. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1b.cfm

You have no clue that the energy of collapse and the building destroyed the bodies and the building. You can't comprehend the physics of 110 story collapse, so you think it is CD. Now you quibble about physics and can't show your math to support you delusions.

In your world falling objects go sideways - your new physics score based on 911 claims, 0/10. You failed to get anything right as you add silent explosives to your fantasy. Where do you get the silent explosives in your fantasy from as you apologize for terrorists? Can't wait for the Pentagon fantasy. hurry

 

[ergo]

Oystein, while you are very good at arguing your points, it is also true that you make a habit of not answering others' questions. You will often enter discussions that begin with these questions while completely ignoring them.

The questions are designed for a reason. They are meant to cut through irrelevant considerations in order to get straight to a point. You yourself would save time if you would just answer the question and engage in dialogue rather than in some kind of interrogation based on faulty or irrelevant premises. I think you'd find as well that you would also get to address your points, and in a much quicker fashion.

 

[Spanx]

Yes, there was small part, maybe 20% of the core standing few seconds, and then it dropped straight down. If just the floor connections had failed and floors pancaked, there would have been 100% of the core, which would have stood there and maybe tipped to one side. What do you think made the spire drop like a rotten wood tower?

Would you honestly expect a 1000ft length of steel to be able to stand on end for any length of time.

Re the antenna drop. There are 2 yt clips in post 80, they are both truther clips and both lies.

 

[Animal]

Yes, there was small part, maybe 20% of the core standing few seconds, and then it dropped straight down. If just the floor connections had failed and floors pancaked, there would have been 100% of the core, which would have stood there and maybe tipped to one side. What do you think made the spire drop like a rotten wood tower?

Educate yourself on Euler......you might get a clue.

 

[Jbui]

You still have to prove the highlighted part. Who wanted to bring the building down? Who actually did the planning? How were explosives planted without anybody noticing? The rest of your post is just you making a spectacle of yourself.

Who? the people who wanted US taxpayers to pay 3-5 trillion for wars and homeland security, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.

The planning? big picture was planned with e.g. the PNAC -guys, the Demo itself was propably done by experts - not like the people in Oklahoma or WTC '93

How planted? According to Susan Lindauers State department friend, WTC security tapes caught 3 truck vans coming to WTC atn 3am and leaving at 5 am every night from August 23 to September 3. Ace elevator guys propably did the assembling during day time while doing "elevator maintenance". some assembling was propably done during the night time too, especially during the power down period befor 9/11. Did you know that all the Ace elevator guys left the building against regulations after the planes struck and left people stuck in the elevators? Only elevator-service guy who tried to rescue people from elevators was old WTC elevator service guy who was fired earlier.