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

[dafydd]

Noone removed the walls on either building, on the other they flew straight horizontally with explosive speed, on the other they dropped straight down with constant speed(there was acceleration only in the pulling phase).

On the other most of the concrete flew in thick cloud and filled the ground in more than one km radius, on the other thin cloud puffed during the demo, and 90% of the concrete ended on the footprint of the building.

One was done with gravity, ...and now you guys need to say, even though these two incidents had nothing in common, that the other was also gravity. Because you guys are never wrong about anything

These guys follow the evidence and do not make up nonsense.

 

[Oystein]

Jbui, you have again missed a post by me in our nice, content-rich debate - number 572:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9062175#post9062175

I find it very puzzling that you respond to me only after having been reminded.

 

[Jbui]

Jbui, you have again missed a post by me in our nice, content-rich debate - number 572:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9062175#post9062175

I find it very puzzling that you respond to me only after having been reminded.

sorry, I have very limited time to spend here, so I can respond only to few posts...I'll get into yours later, hang on.

 

[dafydd]

sorry, I have very limited time to spend here, so I can respond only to few posts...I'll get into yours later, hang on.

Spend some of your time in telling us your full theory regarding the events of 911.

 

[Jbui]

Where did you study physics and engineering? Please furnish me with your full theory regarding the events of 911. Be the first truther here to do that.

The problem actually is that too many people have a theory of the events. And another part of it is that debunkers can not stand hearing it, or study it by them selves. Watch Operation Terror - that is an easy way to hear a full story. I do not agree with all of it's content, but most of is pretty much what I think what happened.

 

[Jbui]

This is true, but for the very same reason, the following also applies to dust/tiny light particles:

Naturally, there are no heavier objects flying anywhere, because they removed all the movable building contents before the demolition was triggered, so that none would fly around.

-But with WTC it was the walls that made up much of the flying components. Why don't walls in verinages blast away?

This building is a lot smaller, with much much less air to be ejected. The depth is hardly more than 15 meters, instead of 63 at the WTC, so roughly speaking, air gets ejected at only 1/4 of the speed as happened in NYC.

And still, rapid air currents eventually spill dust over the roofs of adjacent buildings. You see, your screenshot was taken early in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

Yes, looks like there was eventually a dust cloud, and eventually, and yes, there was a non-accelerating gravity driven collapse(that lasts almost as long as the 110 floor WTC-collapse), and yes, there was a rubble pile higher that from 110 floors of wtc, and yes, everything heavier is on the footprint, like you would expect from straight down working gravity force...

 

[LSSBB]

-But with WTC it was the walls that made up much of the flying components. Why don't walls in verinages blast away?

Yes, looks like there was eventually a dust cloud, and eventually, and yes, there was a non-accelerating gravity driven collapse(that lasts almost as long as the 110 floor WTC-collapse), and yes, there was a rubble pile higher that from 110 floors of wtc, and yes, everything heavier is on the footprint, like you would expect from straight down working gravity force...
[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Pfc7WufNIhQ/SpQ1pEtjRHI/AAAAAAAAABc/x5Z-K1DAQAk/s320/balzac.png[/qimg]

How many verinage collapses were performed on buildings the same size and construction style of the WTC1 and 2? You may have noticed how the exterior sections peeled away as the top block mass came down through the floors breaking the connections.

 

[Oystein]

-But with WTC it was the walls that made up much of the flying components. Why don't walls in verinages blast away?

What do you mean? The most prominent "flying components" in my opinion were the sheets of light aluminium cladding that covered the perimeter columns. We are not talking about these.

On most videos, you wouldn't be able to see much of the smaller but not tiny fragments we are currently interested in, namely body parts such as fingers, hands, feet.

So beware of moving the goal posts and try to stay focused on what we are discussing here.

Yes, looks like there was eventually a dust cloud, and eventually, and yes, there was a non-accelerating gravity driven collapse(that lasts almost as long as the 110 floor WTC-collapse), and yes, there was a rubble pile higher that from 110 floors of wtc, and yes, everything heavier is on the footprint, like you would expect from straight down working gravity force...
[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Pfc7WufNIhQ/SpQ1pEtjRHI/AAAAAAAAABc/x5Z-K1DAQAk/s320/balzac.png[/qimg]

Ooops, too late - you just did move the goal posts!

Try to focus on the discussion we are having! It's about how small but not tiny body fragments could have blown a couple of hunbdred feet out of the crash floors when the towers collapses. It is not all the things you allude to in that post.

Concentrate! Try convergent thinking!

 

[Oystein]

The problem actually is that too many people have a theory of the events. And another part of it is that debunkers can not stand hearing it, or study it by them selves. Watch Operation Terror - that is an easy way to hear a full story. I do not agree with all of it's content, but most of is pretty much what I think what happened.

Can you point us to brief (one or two paragraphs) summaries of at least two such theories, or write them out yourself? I'll give you an example of how such a theory might be summarized:

"A cell of the loose islamistic terror network Al Qaeda, organized by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, inspired and sponsored by Usama Bin Ladin, recruited 19 or 20 suicide terrorists, headed by Mohammed Atta. Five of them got flight training in the USA. They boarded four scheduled commercial planes on the morning of 9/11, hijacked them soon after take-off, killed the pilots, and crashed them into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and, avoiding a passenger-re-taking of the plane, into a field in Pensylvania, killing all aboard and many in the buildings. The spilled jet fuel started widespread fires on several floors that could not be fought. As a result of these fires destabilizing the structures, the twin towers eventually collapsed in an uncontrolled, chaotic fashion, raining debris and fire on neighboring builings, which set some of then on fire or destroyed them outright. One such neighboring building, number 7, likewise collapsed due to huge uncontrolled fires compromising the steel structure. It's collapse was uncontrolled and chaoticm, too, such that it in turned caused great damage to buildings across the streets on three sides."

See, this brief account mentions all the major events, names names and at least hints on the motivation (islamicism) of the perpetrators.

Can you do the same?

Hint: I can point to evidence for every claim I make. Your theories should likewise be backed entirely by evidence, not speculation.



Then maybe a reference or two to instances where "debunkers can not stand hearing it". Thank you.

 

[dafydd]

See, this brief account mentions all the major events, names names and at least hints on the motivation (islamicism) of the perpetrators.

Can you do the same?

That sort of thing seems to be beyond truthers.

 

[Jbui]

Can you point us to brief (one or two paragraphs) summaries of at least two such theories, or write them out yourself? I'll give you an example of how such a theory might be summarized:

"A cell of the loose islamistic terror network Al Qaeda, organized by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, inspired and sponsored by Usama Bin Ladin, recruited 19 or 20 suicide terrorists, headed by Mohammed Atta. Five of them got flight training in the USA. They boarded four scheduled commercial planes on the morning of 9/11, hijacked them soon after take-off, killed the pilots, and crashed them into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and, avoiding a passenger-re-taking of the plane, into a field in Pensylvania, killing all aboard and many in the buildings. The spilled jet fuel started widespread fires on several floors that could not be fought. As a result of these fires destabilizing the structures, the twin towers eventually collapsed in an uncontrolled, chaotic fashion, raining debris and fire on neighboring builings, which set some of then on fire or destroyed them outright. One such neighboring building, number 7, likewise collapsed due to huge uncontrolled fires compromising the steel structure. It's collapse was uncontrolled and chaoticm, too, such that it in turned caused great damage to buildings across the streets on three sides."

See, this brief account mentions all the major events, names names and at least hints on the motivation (islamicism) of the perpetrators.

Can you do the same?

Hint: I can point to evidence for every claim I make. Your theories should likewise be backed entirely by evidence, not speculation.



Then maybe a reference or two to instances where "debunkers can not stand hearing it". Thank you.

I have watched thousands of videos, listened to podcasts, etc, believe it or not, there are more than two theories of the events. Just watch all the thousands of videos out there.

And yes, it is a well known fact that people don't like to watch evidence that contradicts their world view. This phenomenon works in all other things too, like religion, political views etc. I know that very uncomfortable feeling when you are proven wrong and stupid. One needs a great self esteem to be able to handle that situation and admit the times when you are wrong. Untill you can prove that you have managed to change your mind after having been proven wrong, and actually learned something, you can not say that you have learned anything.

I have noticed that it is very very hard for people here to even admit that suicide bomber who blows his bones in pieces all over the place is actually a proof that explosives do that to a body, and not the opposite.

 

[Jbui]

What do you mean? The most prominent "flying components" in my opinion were the sheets of light aluminium cladding that covered the perimeter columns. We are not talking about these.

On most videos, you wouldn't be able to see much of the smaller but not tiny fragments we are currently interested in, namely body parts such as fingers, hands, feet.

So beware of moving the goal posts and try to stay focused on what we are discussing here.


Ooops, too late - you just did move the goal posts!

Try to focus on the discussion we are having! It's about how small but not tiny body fragments could have blown a couple of hunbdred feet out of the crash floors when the towers collapses. It is not all the things you allude to in that post.

Concentrate! Try convergent thinking!

I have proven here one point:
Gravity driven collapse like a verinage, only blows dust, and nothing heavier. The heavier stuff than dust stays on the footprint, like in this picture:

for heavier dust you need a blast wave.

And also we would need the collapsing floor first to pin the body to be crushed, and then some other force than puff of air to blow those pieces horizontally, and even then that force would have to be carrying that piece of bone for 200m distance, if a puff of air just blows 10-20m.

An explosive breaking up a body and a blastwave throwing it 200m away is not a theory, it is a proven fact that we all agree.

You guys have hard time even coming up with a crazy theory for this phenomenon. Air puff, ping pong, spring, your Finnish colleagues came up with a spring board theory...

 

[Oystein]

I have watched thousands of videos, listened to podcasts, etc, believe it or not, there are more than two theories of the events. Just watch all the thousands of videos out there.

This is a beatiful example for much of what's wrong with you people: Your attention and your thinking diverges. These thousands of videos do not converge on anything resembling a coherent, complete theory - they diverge into many many, often conflicting and contradicting, anecdotes of preceived anomalies, with no attempt at reconciling them to a model of reality that fits all the available evidence.

the result is that you, jbui, are unable to give us an alternative theory. Any alternative theory.

, have nothing. Nothing at all. Or else you could have given me an answer. You failed. And you will continue to fail, and fail completely till the day that you die, if "watch thousands of videos" is your idea of stating a theory.

And yes, it is a well known fact that people don't like to watch evidence that contradicts their world view.

You, jbui, FAIL to even write down, let alone reference, anything that contradicts our world view. See, our "world view", as far as 9/11 is concerned, is the theory (a complete, convergent, concise, convincing theory) that I outlined in my previous post. If you want to challenge it, you must eventually present a rival theory. A theory that is complete, convergent, concise and convincing.
You didn't
You can't
You never will.
Never ever.
Till the day that you die.

I know that very uncomfortable feeling when you are proven wrong and stupid.

I am sure you do.

One needs a great self esteem to be able to handle that situation and admit the times when you are wrong.

Seems like you lack that self esteem.

Untill you can prove that you have managed to change your mind after having been proven wrong, and actually learned something, you can not say that you have learned anything.

Right.
And you have not learned a thing.
And you very likely never will. Because you think watching thousands of youtube videos is a proper way to learn.

I have noticed that it is very very hard for people here to even admit that suicide bomber who blows his bones in pieces all over the place is actually a proof that explosives do that to a body, and not the opposite.

That's because it isn't. You got the logic - the simplest example of formal logic, backside front.

 

[dafydd]

I have proven here one point:
Gravity driven collapse like a verinage, only blows dust, and nothing heavier. The heavier stuff than dust stays on the footprint, like in this picture:[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Pfc7WufNIhQ/SpQ1pEtjRHI/AAAAAAAAABc/x5Z-K1DAQAk/s320/balzac.png[/qimg]
for heavier dust you need a blast wave.

And also we would need the collapsing floor first to pin the body to be crushed, and then some other force than puff of air to blow those pieces horizontally, and even then that force would have to be carrying that piece of bone for 200m distance, if a puff of air just blows 10-20m.

An explosive breaking up a body and a blastwave throwing it 200m away is not a theory, it is a proven fact that we all agree.

You guys have hard time even coming up with a crazy theory for this phenomenon. Air puff, ping pong, spring, your Finnish colleagues came up with a spring board theory...

Still no complete version of the events of 911 and still no evidence.

 

[dafydd]

You didn't
You can't
You never will.
Never ever.
Till the day that you die.

At least truthers have a lifelong hobby. They will never change reality or history.

 

[Jbui]

Still no complete version of the events of 911 and still no evidence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9078936&postcount=580

 

[LSSBB]

I have noticed that it is very very hard for people here to even admit that suicide bomber who blows his bones in pieces all over the place is actually a proof that explosives do that to a body, and not the opposite.

I have noticed that you have yet to realize your example applies only to people with explosives strapped to their body.

I know it's hard for you to admit you are wrong, so I understand the error.

 

[Spanx]

So there remains a question: How did these people end up up to 600 feet away from the towers in small pieces, if they either had to be fying in the air to reach the 600feet, or be inside the towers for their bodies to suffer the damage to be ground up in small pieces. How can they be in two places at the same time? Also, which theory, if not explosion, would you use for scattering of the bodies to 300-600 feet radius: "ping pong"-theory or the "spring"-theory?

Jbui

Are you claiming the body parts extended 300-600 feet further than the debris ?

 

[Jbui]

Oystein. Let's summarize your theory of the missing 1100 bodies and little pieces of bones scattered in 200m radius:
people in the planes were torn apart and collapsing ceiling caused the air to blow these people out of the window.

OK, so here we have maybe 100-200 people in pieces, blown out of the window, and flying maybe 10-30meters.

We still need a theory for throwing the bones 100-200m away and mechanism to turn up to 1500 people into small pieces and then throw them those long distances.

And again, my version is not a theory, it is a fact that an explosive does that exactly that. And we all know it, you just do not even admit it. Except that I guess you agree with this guy: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8883027&postcount=19
-that you only need explosives to blow a person all around the place in small pieces, BUT that does not mean that NWO-people are involved in it. But I guess we all agree now that Al Qaeda did not put explosives in WTC towers....

 

[Oystein]

I have proven here one point:
Gravity driven collapse like a verinage, only blows dust, and nothing heavier. ...

Please go back to my last post before today - some days ago. I made a few arguments there that you now failed to consider. For example the easy observation that this verinage example is of a much much smaller building, with a much much smaller floor area, which would generate much much lower air speeds.
Also the obvious fact that a builing prepared for verinage demolition is emptied of any larger than dust contents that the air puffs might blow around.
Also the obvious fact that you could not see in such images or videos if any pieces the size of bones or body fragments get blown far - they are too small to register with the low video resolution.
Also you failed to address my objection that only dust puffs are as limited in distance as the dust puffs that you see in the video.
Also the obvious observation that even this small verinage example eventually does result in fast air currents racing over neighboring buildings.

In other words, you failed to concentrate on the discussion we are having.
This sort of failure to concentrate yout thoughts, to attempt on a convergent explanation, is the very reason why you will continue to fail with such things as long as you live.