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

[ergo]

So you admit there are things that cause explosions that are not explosives?

This is not something I need to "admit" because it's obviously not something I would deny. In the same way that I wouldn't deny that there are things that cause explosions that are explosives. Especially when we are witnessing
1) a supposed terrorist attack
2) hundreds of witnesses, including emergency professionals, hearing explosions and saying things like "There are bombs in the buildings!"
3) millions of people around the world describing the destruction of the buildings as being exactly like implosions or controlled demolitions.
4) The obvious propulsive energy visible in all the videos of the towers' destruction.

...and more, if I cared to spend any more time on this off-topic subject, which we've already covered here ad nauseum.

Now PLEASE, STOP ASKING THIS IDIOTIC QUESTION and get back to the thread topic. Or don't post here.

 

[carlitos]

Obvious propulsive energy? Do tell.

 

[ergo]

in all the videos of the towers' destruction.

You must have missed that part. Do you have internet??

 

[beachnut]

Most of Oystein's questions here are irrelevant or based on faulty premises. Or they're irrelevant because they're based on faulty premise. When you point out the faults in his premises, you don't need to then go answer the questions that arise from that mistaken understanding.

Indeed, I'm waiting for Oystein to finish answering my questions, which continue from where he stopped. He seems to think he's done. But alas, we still have no pulverization model based on the visual evidence, witness testimony, and accepted principles of physics.

Until you magically gain the ability to differential equations, and understand physics, you will not comprehend the WTC collapse, Bazant's work, or other things about 911. Your moon size debris field will not crush the WTC identified your ability with math and physics as nonexistent.

This is not something I need to "admit" because it's obviously not something I would deny.

What is your point? You can't debunk the gravity collaspe because you can't do the physics.

In the same way that I wouldn't deny that there are things that cause explosions that are explosives. Especially when we are witnessing

There were no explosives used on 911. Do you still have an idioitic fantasy on that issue?

1) a supposed terrorist attack

It was a terrorist attack. 19 nuts, rushing the cockpit, cutting the pilots throat, and ramming the aircraft at high speed in the WTC is terrorism. Not smart terrorism on the 19 nuts part, since their plans for tomorrows attack are thin.

They were proud of their terrorist attack and you here you are, another person they wanted to kill, mocking their terror attack. You sure are ignorant on 911 issues. Do you have a problem with comprehension, or do you willfully ignore evidence and not use logic? The terror attack on 911 is common knowledge, do you have some common sense? No? Maybe? Not?

2) hundreds of witnesses, including emergency professionals, hearing explosions and saying things like "There are bombs in the buildings!"

Yep, the sound of body hitting the ground sounds like a bomb; it is called simile. Do you have any practical knowledge. Not one person said they thought a bomb was used, or made the sound they heard. You lost this round due to, simile. Beat by grammar.

3) millions of people around the world describing the destruction of the buildings as being exactly like implosions or controlled demolitions.

That is because CD uses gravity as the main energy source for CD. So CD looks like a gravity collapse. You lost this one due to knowledge of CD. You should look up stuff before you make indiotic comments based on your own opinion; you need to use math and physcis next time.

BTW, WTC towers did not look like CD. But lie anyway. It what you do best on 911 topic.

4) The obvious propulsive energy visible in all the videos of the towers' destruction.

Is?
Wait for it?
Gravity, the same as used for most the propulsive energy in CD? Propulsive? Really? How? wow?
You blew it again, due to no practical knowledge of Physics. You are on a roll.

...and more, if I cared to spend any more time on this off-topic subject, which we've already covered here ad nauseum.

You can't do physics; why? How can you be off topic?

Now PLEASE, STOP ASKING THIS IDIOTIC QUESTION and get back to the thread topic. Or don't post here.

There were no explosives used on 911, so you fantasy is doomed. You call questions, which question the idiotic fantasy you beleive, idiotic. Your fantasy evaporates in the light of evidence. No explosives. No body was blown up, they were crushed. The sounds of explosives heard, many of them were bodies hitting the ground. Not explosives. The other sounds, the loud ones, things hitting other things.

No explosive blasts on 911, no explosives. Your fantasy is safe in your head. Your explosives did 911, an idiotic claim.

You should take some math courses to learn differential equations. Math is good, your fantasy on 911, is easy on your mind, but bad if you are trying to be rational.

 

[dafydd]

Do you have internet??

I do. And when I switch it off the truth movement disappears. There are only an handful of truthers and all they do is post nonsense on the net.

 

[000063]

This is not something I need to "admit" because it's obviously not something I would deny.

Of course not. You just keep talking about explosions, keep implying explosives were used, and then ignoring people who ask you if explosions necessarily mean explosives. Over and over. For years. Sometimes you try a verbal soft-shoe to dodge the question, while still not answering it.

In the same way that I wouldn't deny that there are things that cause explosions that are explosives. Especially when we are witnessing
1) a supposed terrorist attack

Because all terrorist attacks use bombs,

2) hundreds of witnesses, including emergency professionals, hearing explosions and saying things like "There are bombs in the buildings!"

Bomb threats were called in. No bombs were found. For all of the firefighters saying things sounded like bombs and they heard explosions, not one is a truther, or supports a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't think I've ever hear a firefighter actually say the buildings had bombs in them. No one has found evidence of the bombs in the rubble, or been able to explain where that evidence went.

3) millions of people around the world describing the destruction of the buildings as being exactly like implosions or controlled demolitions.

Except for the part where they were done in occupied buildings, didn't require weeks/months to set up, didn't pre-weaken the walls, had no signs of barotrauma on people who were actually in and near the buildings when the "charges" went off, and the "millions of" people were basing that assessment of what the collapse looked like on their own layman's knowledge. The vast bulk of CD professionals, when asked, say it wasn't CD.

Say, since the survivors in the building included firefighters, did any of them say they heard bombs?

The closest CD to the evidence is verinage, which is pretty close to what happened, but it was done by fires and planes instead of hydraulics.

4) The obvious propulsive energy visible in all the videos of the towers' destruction.

Yes, it's called gravity. We're all familiar with it.

...and more, if I cared to spend any more time on this off-topic subject, which we've already covered here ad nauseum.

No, you've tried to evade a question and are now attempting to change the subject. Like always.

Now PLEASE, STOP ASKING THIS IDIOTIC QUESTION and get back to the thread topic. Or don't post here.

It's not an idiotic question. It's just one you refuse to answer. If you wanted to stay on topic, you would not have spammed your usual list of nonsense.

You must have missed that part. Do you have internet??

All the videos? So you could easily show it to us in just one, right? Also, I thought you wanted to get back on topic.

 

[ergo]

To get back to the questions Oystein ignored...

No. You forgot to add the potential energy that gets converted to destruction eventually, to the tune of 3.6 meters of free fall every 3.6 meters - it doesn't matter by the way if free-fall actually happened. Every time your 100,000 tons worth of building structure drop 3.6 meters - and come to a full stop eventually, no matter what the effective acceleration, it all (mostly) gets converted to destruction.

Is it 3.6 m or is it 23.5?

Nope, because (as Bazant's very first limiting case model showed) the actual load-bearing steel structure could never absorb the 3.6 meters worth of potential energy that get converted to destruction each time the top part drops another 3.6 meters, let alone absorb the kinetic energy already accumulated. That's why kinetic energy / speed increases floor by floor by floor.

[Leaving Bazant's erroneous and debunked model alone for now...]

1) You seem to be inventing energy sources here. There is only one mechanical energy source in your model: gravity. It is expressed either as potential energy (not yet converted to kinetic energy) or as kinetic energy. Kinetic energy in this case is expressed as the movement of mass downwards, as per gravity, and/or as the energy used in the destruction of intervening matter. When that kinetic energy from gravity is spent in destroying the intervening building structure, much of it is lost in heat, sound and deformation. You are also talking about pulverization into fine particles here. Considering the materials in the building, and the time frame we're talking about (i.e., not geological epochs) this requires an energy source beyond mere gravity.

2) Weren't the floors being pulverized during these floor collisions? If not, when did things get pulverized? Remember, I am asking you to provide a pulverization model here.

Exactly. This has been accounted for. By Bazant (limiting case for deformation/buckling of steel structure) and Greening (adding pulverization). The energy thus dissipated per story is less than the potential energy differential released by the fall through the height of one story.

And that is why kinetic energy increases floor by floor by floor.

Again ignoring the supernaturally derived energy here, Greening I believe only discussed the energy required to pulverize concrete. And again, how does the kinetic energy increase when each floor is getting pulverized in its collision with the next?

No. If you slam thousands of tons of hard stuff on tiles, wallboard, concrete, fire-resistant foam, and do so repeatedly, your gonna crush much of that to crumbles and dust.

Most of the dust was from such materials.

And what happened to the "hard stuff"?

It appears that you have never read Greenings papers on the topic of concrete comminuition in the WTC, or else you wouldn't write such ignorant nonsense.

Greening was discussing concrete only. What do you have to say about the comminution of heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, carpeting and other materials?

On the contrary, yes, the particle-ization of all some of the buildings' contents, particularly concrete and gypsum, suggests exactly that. It has been shown that this is PRECISELY what must be expected from just that sort of collapse.

What wasn't particle-ized? Do you have evidence of steel flooring, heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, carpeting, and, I'm sorry, but large human body parts?

Why should such human shreds, particularly the smaller ones, not get ejected with the air that's pushed out the windows as the volume of air in a floor is reduced from over 14,000 cubic meters to nothing in a fraction of a second?

What we're really looking at here is how the bodies 1) got "shredded" in pancaking floor collapses, and 2) how pancaking floors would eject these contents if most of their own structure has also been particle-ized (in your model).

Nothing obvious here: There were no audible detonations loud enough to be ascribed to explosive charges sufficient to sever structural steel.

Many reported audible explosive sounds. You also cannot say what detonations from the inner core of fully furnished buildings would sound like from half a kilometre up in the sky. Can you?

To all but the deluded fringe, the appearance of the towers was that of gravitational collapses.

Source? Most at the time commented how the "collapses" looked like implosions/controlled demolitions. Even Bazant claimed to speak for structural engineers when he commented that "few were expecting the towers to collapse" [paraphrase].

Especially to the experts. Remember Danny Jowenko? What he thought about the twin towers and CD? You think you are smarter about the look of CDs than Danny Jowenko was?

To Danny Jowenko, it was obvious that the twin towers could not possibly have been explosive demolitions.

I'm not sure what Jowenko said about the towers. I wonder if his opinion was based more on the projected difficulty in bringing down such towers with such (relative) precision. Furthermore, we know he thought WTC7 was a classic implosion.

 

[LSSBB]

This is not something I need to "admit" because it's obviously not something I would deny. In the same way that I wouldn't deny that there are things that cause explosions that are explosives. Especially when we are witnessing
1) a supposed terrorist attack
2) hundreds of witnesses, including emergency professionals, hearing explosions and saying things like "There are bombs in the buildings!"
3) millions of people around the world describing the destruction of the buildings as being exactly like implosions or controlled demolitions.
4) The obvious propulsive energy visible in all the videos of the towers' destruction.

...and more, if I cared to spend any more time on this off-topic subject, which we've already covered here ad nauseum.

Now PLEASE, STOP ASKING THIS IDIOTIC QUESTION and get back to the thread topic. Or don't post here.

Because if you acknowledge that there are other causes for explosions besides explosives (which is the truth), then you acknowledge that explosives aren't the de facto answer and thus the fact that explosives were heard does not in and of itself, prove there were explosives. Since fires and collapses produce explosive noises, and we have proof of fire and collapses, then adding explosives does not create a more perfect answer, only an additional level of complexity to the theory.

ETA: And it is on topic, because you raised explosions as an additional point of evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

What we're really looking at here is how the bodies 1) got "shredded" in pancaking floor collapses, and 2) how pancaking floors would eject these contents if most of their own structure has also been particle-ized (in your model).

But you're not looking for answers, you just want your theory validated.

1. The floor collapses were not even, or straight down. In every video available multiple ejections of debris clouds are visible flying in multiple directions as each floor gives way. What the average person sees is a smooth downward destruction of each tower, but in fact the towers tear themselves apart - unevenly - floor by floor.

What tore the bodies apart? What was on the ceiling? florescent lighting, electrical wiring of multiple grades. Ceiling tiles are held in place by aluminum frames. Then there's the ceiling itself, which is also the floor above it, which means steal supports.

Then let's look at the walls...oh look - PLATE GLASS. As the floor above collapses that glass is going to shatter with explosive force. It can only go 2 ways. If some of the windows on each floor blow inward people on those floors are cut to pieces in the instant before the ceiling comes down. This is (obviously) enough time to blow some of those parts out the now glassless windows with the force of air from the oncoming (really really heavy) floor.

This answers #1.

#2 - You are misrepresenting Oystein's explanation. You are using particle-ize to equal turning to dust, but he means taking a single, floor of concrete, and breaking it into smaller pieces.

Here's a fun experiment; you'll need a friend. Find a construction site, or somewhere that public works is busy with a jackhammer. Collect cement pieces ranging in size from your thumb to a fist-size.

Have your friend throw each one of these pieces at your head. Record the results.

If you are feeling really solid in your 9/11 theory, take a cement piece (particle) at least the size of your forearm, go to a parking garage, or tall building at least two stories tall. Have your friend drop - not throw - the larger concrete particle and you catch it.

Let me know how this all works out for you. Science is fun.

 

[swright777]

Ergo, do have a problem with not finding and heavy oak desks, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, or carpeting in the rubble pile? IIRC the fires in the rubble burned for about 100 days. My guess would be that much of the flammable materiel in the rubble would have burned up and what wasn't flammable would not resemble it's original form.

 

[ergo]

The fires burned inside the rubble pile. Meanwhile, cleanup work carried on up top. Where were these items visible in the rest of the rubble pile? According to those who were on the pile, they weren't.

 

[Oystein]

Is it 3.6 m or is it 23.5?

You still don't understand my simple model. If you did, you'd know how idiotic this question is.

Let me walk you through it slowly, and ignore the more complex stuff for a while. We can't debate the complex if you fail at the simple.

1. How high where the towers before the collapse? I say: 415 meters.

2. How high were the towers after the collapse? I say less than 15 meters

3. What was the time of collapse going from start height (1.) to finish height (2.)? I say: About 16 seconds. Perhaps 17 or 18 seconds, perhaps 15 seconds.

4. By how much did the roof of the towers drop during that collapse time (3.)? I say about 400 meters.

5. Given the answers to 3. and 4., what was the average speed of the roof during the collapse? I say 400 m / 16 s = 25 m/s.

6. In the case of the North Tower, how high was the collapse initiation zone? I say it was about the 80th floor, which was about 300 meters high.

7. In the case of the North Tower, how high above ground were the floor trusses of the 80th floor after the collapse had stopped? I say between 0 and 10 meters.

8. In the case of the North Tower, how much time did it take the 80th floor to descend from initial heigh (6.) to final height (7.) above ground? I say about 14 seconds. Perhaps 15, perhaps 13.

9. In the case of the North Tower, by how much did the roof of the towers drop during that collapse time (8.)? I say almost 300 meters.

10. Given the answers to 8. and 9., what was the average speed of the 80th floor during the collapse? I say 300 m / 14 s ~= 21.5 m/s.

All these answer are, I think rather uncontroversial. I didn't spend much time verifying exaxt numbers, and you are invited to give me your numbers - they should't be far off though.

[long snip - that has to wait until ergo understands the basics]
...
I'm not sure what Jowenko said about the towers. I wonder if his opinion was based more on the projected difficulty in bringing down such towers with such (relative) precision.

His opinion was based mainly on the observation that explosives would not have survived the fires, as the collapses initiated at the fire floors.
IIRC, he also mentions the difficulty of preparing the charges without being noticed by tenants.

He explains that a demolition expert, such as himself, aims at getting a collapse going with explosives, and then let gravity do the rest. That's the basic concept of explosive demolition.

 

[ergo]

Oystein, I understand your "logic" just fine. As I said here, you are working backwards from a result that cannot be explained gravitationally and trying to apply it to a post hoc gravitational model. I'm not sure if this is actually what a post hoc logical fallacy is, or if it's a logical fallacy of a different kind. I might look it up later. Regardless, it is a logical fallacy.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, I understand your "logic" just fine.

No. you don't.

As I said here, you are working backwards from a result that cannot be explained gravitationally and trying to apply it to a post hoc gravitational model. I'm not sure if this is actually what a post hoc logical fallacy is, or if it's a logical fallacy of a different kind. I might look it up later. Regardless, it is a logical fallacy.

Nope.

As the towers DID collapse from 415 meters height to not very much above ground in under 20 seconds, their potential energy WAS in fact converted to destruction and some heat - no matter how that happened. If you want to think "explosive CD", that is fine by me for the purpose of my model.

Do you understand that?

Do you agree that the roof dropped about 400 meters in under 20 seconds?

Do you agree that the 80th floor dropped almost 300 meters in something lime 15 seconds?


If you can't agree with these observables, there is nothing to debate with you.

 

[ergo]

As the towers DID collapse from 415 meters height to not very much above ground in under 20 seconds, their potential energy WAS in fact converted to destruction and some heat - no matter how that happened. If you want to think "explosive CD", that is fine by me for the purpose of my model.

In your model, the towers collapse, yes. But the conversion of potential energy is only relevant to your model, not "no matter how that happened". The whole premise of the explosives hypothesis is that another energy source besides gravity is necessary to wreak that degree of destruction. So, even if we accept your model, which we don't, your statement about the conversion of potential energy of the buildings "no matter how that happened" is wrong.

Do you agree that the roof dropped about 400 meters in under 20 seconds?

No, I do not. The roofs of both buildings disappeared after the first few seconds of failure. The top parts of the buildings appear to destroy themselves; in the case of WTC2, to implode in on itself. In what videos do you see the roof "dropping" to the ground?

If the roofs were intact as they dropped through 80 floors of intact buildng, then they would never have reached the ground. Obviously.

Do you agree that the 80th floor dropped almost 300 meters in something lime 15 seconds?

No, I do not. Nor, according to the model you propose, could that be what happened. You are proposing a pancaking collapse with floors colliding into those below them successively, and somehow pulverizing themselves and all their contents in doing so. Therefore, and to reiterate:

1) there is no floor to drop that distance if it is already pulverized, and

2) if it was intact (which negates your pulverization model) it is physically impossible for it to drop through 79 more intact lower floors in that space of time. And indeed, the video record and reports from the rubble pile indicate very clearly that this is not what happened at all.

If you want to talk about observables, please indicate what sources you are drawing your "observations" from.

 

[Oystein]

...
No, I do not. The roofs of both buildings disappeared after the first few seconds of failure.
...

They disappear???
They turn to nothing or what??

 

[ergo]

Not sure if I should wait for the rest of your reply, or if this is the best you can do...

 

[Oystein]

Not sure if I should wait for the rest of your reply, or if this is the best you can do...

No. Just answer.

If you really think they really disappeared, you are more insane than Judy Wood.
Where did the roofs go, ergo? Mass cannot disappear, as you know, unless it's turned to energy (radiation).

Did the roof turn to radiation, or did it disappear from this universe?

(And you KNOW of course I am talking about the material that the roof was made of, amd its mass. I know that the roof didn't remain undamaged and in pristine shape)

 

[ergo]

Oystein:

In what videos do you see the roof "dropping" to the ground?

Please and thank you.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein:

Please and thank you.

I am blind. I can see no video.
Doesn't change the fact:

Before the collapse, the roof was 415 meters above ground.

After the collapse, less than 20 seconds later, it's mass was about 400 meters further below.

You denied this and claimed the roof "disappeared".
If you stand by that claim, you are more insane than Judy Wood.

Where was the mass of the roof 20 seconds after collapse began, ergo? Regardless of videos, regardlless of model, regardless of what I can see. Just asking reality.
The mass did not disappear.
The mass was not turned to radiation as in E = mc²The mass didn't stay up there at 415 meters.
The mass did not just drop 3.6 meters and then hovered at 411.4 meters.
Where did the mass go in less than 20 seconds, in reality, ergo? Even in YOUR reality?