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

chrismohr said:
For personal reasons, the body parts of loved ones are not something I choose to debate or discuss very extensively. Others seem to be handling your questions. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I would compare this to discussion of autopsy. If something is offending, is Bush regime handing a piece of bone to the relatives and telling there will be no explanations or investigations how this was possible. You represent an honest attempt to answer the questions raised by the truth movement, so I would appreciate your take on this issue.
 
Jbui said:
I acknowlede this very well. ...
Click to expand...

You acknowledge WHAT very well? The rest of your post seems to IGNORE the message that I wanted you toi acknowledge, so please do it AS I ASKED YOU TO:



Please acknowledge clearly and verbosely, in your own words, that you now understand that >200 were affected by the plance crashes, many of which, cerainly >100, would have been shredded to pieces in the course of the plane crashes, before the collapse even started.

Take diligent note of all the bolded text, with particular attention to the hilited part - without losing sight of the non-hilited part!
 
Jbui said:
I'm trying to keep this simple, but as I stated long time ago, It's unlikely that the shredding of bodies was due only to blast trauma, since most of the people were not next to an explosive, but rather to molten metal, pulverzed concrete, etc flying with the blast wave which worked like a shotgun blast.
Click to expand...
Wait, so metal and pulverized concrete flying from a collapse wouldn't do the same thing? :confused: :boggled:
 
Jbui said:
Beachnut, about your physics: imagine tilting wtc sideways. Then accelerate it with 0,7g for 10 seconds. Tere goes 70 % of your e=mgh. Then pulverize the concrete. That is not possible if you used all the potential energy of the building - concrete does not pulverize more than c. 10% from ground impact -it crumbles to small/big pieces, but not to dust, more than about 10%. Look it up from any gravitational destruction of concrete.

Then try to take down the steel super structure wit gravity. Even with pre weakening, this would take at least 66% of the energy, where bottom 1/3 would need to be exploded, and after that there would be no acceleration, just crushing with constant speed.

...and then you need the power to shoot the building to 200m radius. You have no energy left and no energy working sideways.

In real life there is no gravity driven examples for phenomenon seen with 9/11, even for small parts of it, but plenty of examples for same stuff done with explosives.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your weakest effort yet (though all have been extremely weak). Here's a hint: There is actually a difference (though you have little hope of ever understanding it) between "math and physics" and "pulling numbers out of your ass".

ETA: When I look at pictures of the debris piles from the collapses, I see "big and little pieces concrete" all over the place, so I have no idea where you get the idea that all the concrete was turned to dust. Perhaps it's because in videos of the collpase itself, the dust obscures the bigger pieces, and you lack the ability to understand that there is stuff going on that you can't see. Yes, the collapse produced a lot of dust, but it accounted for a very small portion of the total mass of the buildings.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Wait, so metal and pulverized concrete flying from a collapse wouldn't do the same thing? :confused: :boggled:
Click to expand...
Yes, in WTC collapse that pulverized concrete and metal flying in the blast wave did just that. The problem is that in gravitational collapse there is no mushroom cloud of pulverized concrete or metal flying in the air. If you try, you will find +100 building collapses were whole bodies are digged up from rubble, and zero cases where tiny pieces of bodies are picked up from 10-200m away from the collapse footprint.
 
Jbui said:
Yes, in WTC collapse that pulverized concrete and metal flying in the blast wave did just that. The problem is that in gravitational collapse there is no mushroom cloud of pulverized concrete or metal flying in the air. If you try, you will find +100 building collapses were whole bodies are digged up from rubble, and zero cases where tiny pieces of bodies are picked up from 10-200m away from the collapse footprint.
Click to expand...

How many of those other office building collapses were 100+ story office buildings where the top block fell through the tube-in-tube design and peeled the outer shell of the building like a banana?
 
Jbui said:
Yes, in WTC collapse that pulverized concrete and metal flying in the blast wave did just that. The problem is that in gravitational collapse there is no mushroom cloud of pulverized concrete or metal flying in the air. If you try, you will find +100 building collapses were whole bodies are digged up from rubble, and zero cases where tiny pieces of bodies are picked up from 10-200m away from the collapse footprint.
Click to expand...
Do you believe gravity was not involved in the collapse? You do know most of the work in a CD is done with gravity. :confused:

What do you think happened. Cut through the BS.
 
Last edited:
Jbui said:
concrete does not pulverize more than c. 10% from ground impact -it crumbles to small/big pieces, but not to dust, more than about 10%. Look it up from any gravitational destruction of concrete.
Click to expand...

WTC concrete was not "pulverised to dust". There were the expected gradations in fragment size.

Where did you get your "pulverised" ideas? Hoffman over at wtc7.net*?

*I recall that's where he used to publish 'essays', might have been a different site with a similar name.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
You acknowledge WHAT very well? The rest of your post seems to IGNORE the message that I wanted you toi acknowledge, so please do it AS I ASKED YOU TO:



Please acknowledge clearly and verbosely, in your own words, that you now understand that >200 were affected by the plance crashes, many of which, cerainly >100, would have been shredded to pieces in the course of the plane crashes, before the collapse even started.

Take diligent note of all the bolded text, with particular attention to the hilited part - without losing sight of the non-hilited part!
Click to expand...

I acknowledge(as we spoke much earlier) that the aeroplane passengers suffered severe damage in the collision. These surely account for body pieces in two directions from the footprint. But the body parts were distributed evenly, so the plane impact did not spread most of them. Also the collapse speed was very slow in the floor were the remains of the passengers were, so there was minimal air pressure to throw them to any other direction. So most of these people described in the red dots in the Fox News map are thrown away and shredded by some other force than plane impact.
 
Jbui said:
I acknowledge(as we spoke much earlier) that the aeroplane passengers suffered severe damage in the collision. These surely account for body pieces in two directions from the footprint. But the body parts were distributed evenly, so the plane impact did not spread most of them. Also the collapse speed was very slow in the floor were the remains of the passengers were, so there was minimal air pressure to throw them to any other direction. So most of these people described in the red dots in the Fox News map are thrown away and shredded by some other force than plane impact.
Click to expand...
Why don't you cut through this asking questions BS and be truthful with people for once? Tell us what you believe happened, you know I'm right that you've already decided. No one here is stupid enough to think you haven't.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
WTC concrete was not "pulverised to dust". There were the expected gradations in fragment size.

Where did you get your "pulverised" ideas? Hoffman over at wtc7.net*?

*I recall that's where he used to publish 'essays', might have been a different site with a similar name.
Click to expand...
WTC dust had a "signature component" of iron microspheres. According to Debunkers these microspheres are from fly ash in the concrete. Now you say the concrete did not pulverize? Are you saying that Iron microspheres did not come from the concrete?
 
Jbui said:
I acknowledge(as we spoke much earlier) that the aeroplane passengers suffered severe damage in the collision. These surely account for body pieces in two directions from the footprint. ...
Click to expand...

What do you think is the most probable scenario:
  1. ALL body parts of victims caught in the plane crashes were ejected the next second, and NONE remained within the towers up until the collapses started
  2. MOST body parts of victims caught in the plane crashes were ejected the next second, and only A FEW remained within the towers up until the collapses started
  3. SOME body parts of victims caught in the plane crashes were ejected the next second, and SOME remained within the towers up until the collapses started
  4. Only A FEW body parts of victims caught in the plane crashes were ejected the next second, and MOST remained within the towers up until the collapses started
  5. NONE of the body parts of victims caught in the plane crashes were ejected the next second, and ALL remained within the towers up until the collapses started
  • Provide reasons!

My answer is: 2. MOST body parts severed by the plane crashes remained within the towers until the collapses started, and only A FEW were ejected roughly in the direction that the planes were moving.
Reason: Ony few plane parts, mostly heavy parts, were ejected, almost all of their mass remained with the towers. There is no reason why it should have been different with the bodies.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
Yes. You have simply reversed the imaginary and the common sense, and all you have managed to do in post after post of JAQing off and argument from incredulity is demonstrate a truly astounding ignorance of how anything works in the real world.
Click to expand...
Please give me an example of gravity blowing something into small pieces all over the place.
 
Jbui said:
GlennB said:
WTC concrete was not "pulverised to dust". There were the expected gradations in fragment size.

Where did you get your "pulverised" ideas? Hoffman over at wtc7.net*?

*I recall that's where he used to publish 'essays', might have been a different site with a similar name.
Click to expand...
WTC dust had a "signature component" of iron microspheres. According to Debunkers these microspheres are from fly ash in the concrete. Now you say the concrete did not pulverize? Are you saying that Iron microspheres did not come from the concrete?
Click to expand...

Do you understand the hilited sentence? If yes, please demonstrate your understanding by parsin its meaning. I.e. tell us in your own words, and for a layperson what "There were the expected gradations in fragment size" means with regard to WTC concrete.
 
GlennB said:
What part of "There were the expected gradations in fragment size" did you fail to understand.
Click to expand...
you say there was no dust, but you must say that the concrete was transformed to micron size particles. So which is it?

Look up a video of concrete being dropped, and you see what are the "expected gradations in fragment size". Dust, c. 1%, rest big pieces/small pieces/crumbles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom