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

[GlennB]

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.

I didn't say there was no concrete dust. Of course there was. I said the concrete ended up as expected, in pieces of varying size. That includes dust.

But while you're here - what's your source for the idea that all the WTC concrete was "pulverised to dust" ?

 

[DGM]

Dude, you say the heat had nothing to do with Columbia disaster? The shuttle burned into pieces before it ever reached the ground. And closest thing you find to a building collapse is a shuttle entry to atmosphere...

I'm not "dude".

Where did I say that or even implied that was the closest thing I could find? You asked:

Please give me an example of gravity blowing something into small pieces all over the place.

Maybe skipping all those science classes in high school wasn't a good idea.

So when do you plan to tell us what you think happened? Too honest for you?

 

[Oystein]

Jbui, you seem to have missed this post:

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.

 

[CORed]

Please give me an example of gravity blowing something into small pieces all over the place.

Rockslide. Avalanche.

Personal anecdote. Twenty-five years ago or so I was backpacking in the Grand Canyon (Nankoweap trail). While lying in my sleeping bag early the second morning of the trip, I heard the sound of a rockslide somewhere not too far away. Later that same morning, where the trail crossed some rockslide debris, I saw a lot of small pieces of wood that looked very freshly broken (no weathering). I'm pretty sure that these pieces of wood had been living pinyon pine or juniper trees earlier that morning. Had I gotten up earlier that day, I might well have suffered the same fate as those trees. No explosives. Just gravity.

 

[CORed]

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.

So what's 1% of a whole crapload (scientific unit ) of concrete? You do know that 1% != 0? Who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

 

[CORed]

I didn't say there was no concrete dust. Of course there was. I said the concrete ended up as expected, in pieces of varying size. That includes dust.

But while you're here - what's your source for the idea that all the WTC concrete was "pulverised to dust" ?

I'm pretty sure that Judy (no planes and spacebeams powered by hurricane) Wood believes that.

 

[Sunstealer]

Jbui's obviously never dropped a glass before.

 

[CORed]

Jbui's obviously never dropped a glass before.

His parents don't let him use anything but plastic.

 

[dafydd]

Jbui's obviously never dropped a glass before.

Only when the glass has been rigged with explosives and hologramatic planes have been projected on to it.

 

[CORed]

What part of "There were the expected gradations in fragment size" did you fail to understand.

All of it.

 

[Jbui]

So what's 1% of a whole crapload (scientific unit ) of concrete? You do know that 1% != 0? Who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

1% is just a visual estimate of tests of dropping concrete. Give or take 0,5%. There are plenty of examples. With WTC, we are talking roughly of 60-95% of concrete turned into dust. According to Debunker theory for Iron Microspheres we are closer to 95%. So these numbers do not have anything to do with each other.

 

[CORed]

1% is just a visual estimate of tests of dropping concrete. Give or take 0,5%. There are plenty of examples. With WTC, we are talking roughly of 60-95% of concrete turned into dust. According to Debunker theory for Iron Microspheres we are closer to 95%. So these numbers do not have anything to do with each other.

Remember what I said about "math and physics" not being the same as "pulling numbers out of your ass"?

Please show us how you calculated 60-95%, and explain how "closer to 95%" follows from the hypothesis that the iron microspheres came from fly ash in concrete.

I realize that you're either just making stuff up, or cribbing from truther sites who are just making stuff up. The point is, if you (or your sources) can't explain how they came up with something like "60-95%", it's a pretty good sign that those numbers are just made up. If you can understand this, you are well on your way to learning critical thinking.

You know, in an earlier post you said 10% of the concrete would turn to dust. The unexplained change by a factor of 10 is another pretty good sign that you're making stuff up, and aren't even bright enough to be consistent in the stuff you make up.

 

[dafydd]

1% is just a visual estimate of tests of dropping concrete. Give or take 0,5%. There are plenty of examples. With WTC, we are talking roughly of 60-95% of concrete turned into dust. According to Debunker theory for Iron Microspheres we are closer to 95%. So these numbers do not have anything to do with each other.

Show us your calculations please. Also, where did you study physics and engineering?

 

[CORed]

Show us your calculations please. Also, where did you study physics and engineering?

Jbui's got a BS in physics and engineering, and "BS" doesn't stand for "Bachelor of Science".

He's working on his Ph.D., which of course stands for "Piled higher and Deeper".

 

[beachnut]

No Physics for 911 Truth Followers

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.

??????? This explains the delusional fantasy version of 911 you have. But can you explain this in more detail? Please. I need help.
Can you show the math for the 10 percent stuff. Wow.

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.

Can you show the math for the 66 percent? Can you show the constant speed, because on 911 the building accelerated, and you said in the first part, it accelerated. Are you making this up?

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

So you say a gravity collapse with more energy than 1,040 500 pound bombs can't do it? Over one thousand 500 pound bombs can't do it? Prove it.

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.

Every CD is a gravity collapse. You are wrong about this, and every thing you say about 911. A perfect 100 percent wrong, and you do it with extra dumb claims. In CD the majority of the energy if found with releasing E=mgh. See the g? Gravity. You are debunked, but you don't know it.

 

[GlennB]

1% is just a visual estimate of tests of dropping concrete. Give or take 0,5%. There are plenty of examples.

What kind of concrete?
From what height and under what circumstances?
Has lightweight concrete ever been dropped in anything approaching the circumstances of the WTC collapses?

With WTC, we are talking roughly of 60-95% of concrete turned into dust.

And where's your source for that figure?

What's even more interesting, Jbui, is why you think CD (or nuking, or space-raying) of The Towers might lead to an extraordinary degree of concrete pulverisation (~80%) 'to dust'.

Where did you acquire your belief in all this dust?

 

[CORed]

What kind of concrete?
From what height and under what circumstances?
Has lightweight concrete ever been dropped in anything approaching the circumstances of the WTC collapses?



And where's your source for that figure?

What's even more interesting, Jbui, is why you think CD (or nuking, or space-raying) of The Towers might lead to an extraordinary degree of concrete pulverisation (~80%) 'to dust'.

Where did you acquire your belief in all this dust?

I really think it comes down to watching videos and lack of imagination. The collapses of the towers generated huge dust clouds, which obscured a lot of the details of the collapse, so to some unimaginative people, that equates to "everything turned to dust". Of course you have to ignore the enormous debris piles left behind to believe this.

 

[ergo]

No, actually. The absence of broken concrete floors or even sizable chunks (i.e., larger than fist size) in the debris pile suggests that most of the concrete was pulverized. Are you trying to rebunk something that has been common knowledge since the very event?

Many comments at the time noted the absence of large chunks of concrete, such as this article from Waste Age in November of that year:

Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks.

If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means share it. You've only had about 11 years to do so.

 

[Spanx]

No, actually. The absence of broken concrete floors or even sizable chunks (i.e., larger than fist size) in the debris pile suggests that most of the concrete was pulverized. Are you trying to rebunk something that has been common knowledge since the very event?

Many comments at the time noted the absence of large chunks of concrete, such as this article from Waste Age in November of that year:

Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks.

If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means share it. You've only had about 11 years to do so.

How large should the "chunks of concrete" have been ?

 

[Oystein]

Jbui, you seem to have missed this post:

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.