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

[GlennB]

Idea of collision? Like when two object accelerate, hit each other and in;
....
B) real life, their motion stops, and all their kinetic energy is used in breaking up their structure...

Absolute nonsense. What's scary is that with a moment's thought you could think of a hundred examples of damaging collisions where 'their motion' doesn't stop. And yet you typed that drivel instead.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Verinages are of course done to much smaller buildings, since you can not do a verinage to a steel framed building, and you can not do a skyscraper without strong steel columns.

I bow to your expertise on the types of construction suitable for demolition by verinage, but that's not really addressing the question.

The point I was actually driving at with my question is that the demolition is planned so that the crushing of floors occurs at the lowest practicable height. Also, it is often a requirement to construct a bund wall to contain the spread of debris from the site and you'll doubtless have noticed that preparation works involve removing all of the windows (to remove the hazard of flying glass, but also allowing air the maximum passage to escape) as well as stripping the interior of everything, including non-structural internal walls.

So you really are comparing apples and oranges when you liken prepared demolitions at low level with an unprepared collapse occurring hundreds of metres up in the air.

Your personal incredulity does not appear persuasive. So if you want to persuade people that debris any larger than dust should not have travelled further than 20m from the base of the buildings, I'm afraid you may have to show us more of how you worked that out.

 

[fess]

Please debunkers, think. Think before you start writing. Obviously here are two different things we are talking about. If you build a high tower, and then hit it on on side -what happens? it falls over. Like in so many demonlitions that went wrong. Or when you were a kid and your tower fell down. Or when you cut a tree. Only a perfect demolition manages to take tower straight down. Buildings are never perfectly symmetric inside, so even with perfectly symmetric plane damage, the WTC2 would have propably tilted. In case of WTC1 the collapse would have probably stopped...and of course the collapse would not have even initiated without the charges....

But, if the collapse would have started, (with verinage pulling or with some other help) and the towers had been pre weakened like verinage-buildings, so that the collapse would be able to continue, we would expect to see same results as in verinages, that is gravity taking it all down in one pile. Not blasting stuff 200m away. Of course both buildings would need to be pulled from the middle, WTC1 would not have come down many meters, since the damage was so high up. The momentum of the upper block would have been enough just for crushing couple some 10-20 floors.

So two things, they should have tilted, and they should not have blasted themselves in 200m radius. Talking about footprint is of course confusing if you have not started using your head in the first place.

Why is it that you tell debunkers to think, but yet you don’t follow your own advice? The towers are not even similar to trees is any way shape or form.

You mention explosion and implosion in the same post… you do realize there is a difference between the two… no?

Oh, and by the way, thermite is not an explosive.

There is no, nor has there ever been any evidence of explosives being used in the demolition of the towers. So where do you come up with this theory?

As for pre-weakening the buildings, how big of a crew would that have been? And, why is it that no one noticed this happening? Were they stealth workers?

 

[fess]

Human body differs from concrete so that the skin can not be cut in pieces with gravity. There is just no examples of cutting this leather jacket we all are wearing in tiny bits with gravity. So you have this unexplained phenomenon first. The you have the 100-200m flight. And the fact that we can do them both with (thermite based) explosives, and we see how hard it is to even come up with a crazy theory to even try to explain this without the explosives.


Just look at the verinage piles, look at WTC3 after WTC2 came down, look at WTC7 pile, look at any classic demolition implosion pile, look at anything that came down with gravity. They are all in nice pile, no heavier stuff is blasted anywhere.

Can you give me one example of a building the size of the towers where the verinage technique was used to demolish it?

 

[beachnut]

We all take physics here. It is not optional...and i got 10 from my last course.

You flunked the practical. It is physics, why parts are spread out, and people crushed. Simple physics. Like many, we claim to of made the grade but we can't apply the knowledge practically.

You failed to learn how to use physics. You have yet to show why parts can't be ejected from the collapse using math or physics. Your CD claims are idiotic nonsense based on fantasy.

 

[swright777]

We all take physics here. It is not optional...and i got 10 from my last course.

I wouldn't brag about getting a 10. In most of my college courses I got 100 or close to it. But that was a long time ago, maybe the bar has been lowered since then.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Jbui
Human body differs from concrete so that the skin can not be cut in pieces with gravity. There is just no examples of cutting this leather jacket we all are wearing in tiny bits with gravity. So you have this unexplained phenomenon first. The you have the 100-200m flight. And the fact that we can do them both with (thermite based) explosives, and we see how hard it is to even come up with a crazy theory to even try to explain this without the explosives.


Just look at the verinage piles, look at WTC3 after WTC2 came down, look at WTC7 pile, look at any classic demolition implosion pile, look at anything that came down with gravity. They are all in nice pile, no heavier stuff is blasted anywhere.

So obviously it wasn't a CD.

Tsig, you just don't understand! Of course it was a controlled demolition! But it was designed to not look like a controlled demolition! So the fact that it doesn't look like a controlled demoliton proves that it was a controlled demolition!

 

[beachnut]

Human body differs from concrete so that the skin can not be cut in pieces with gravity. There is just no examples of cutting this leather jacket we all are wearing in tiny bits with gravity. So you have this unexplained phenomenon first. The you have the 100-200m flight. And the fact that we can do them both with (thermite based) explosives, and we see how hard it is to even come up with a crazy theory to even try to explain this without the explosives.


Just look at the verinage piles, look at WTC3 after WTC2 came down, look at WTC7 pile, look at any classic demolition implosion pile, look at anything that came down with gravity. They are all in nice pile, no heavier stuff is blasted anywhere.

Can you get a refund on your physics class? It failed.

 

[Redwood]

Verinages are of course done to much smaller buildings, since you can not do a verinage to a steel framed building, and you can not do a skyscraper without strong steel columns. The higher the tower, the more risk you have it tilting to one side, like happened here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkyH4EMpyv8
Once it starts tilting, it's gonna fall. Unless you have rigged it up to the top like WTC2...

The folks who developed the verinage technique say it can be used with any construction technique, including steel framing. But they're French. You know how those French can lie!

Oh, and you'd better tell the tenants in the Petronas Towers to abandon the buildings ASAP. You do know that they are 100% reinforced concrete, don't you?

Tell me LSSBB, why don't you ask Redwood, since he brought this up, what is this shoving mechanism, and how can it blast heavy steel and light body parts to 200m distance?

Tell ya what, Jbui, why don't you do some science and calculate the maximum distance any perimeter columns could have fallen from the towers. (Maybe some of the top professionals at A&E 911T could help you if you get stuck.) From this, calculate the force necessary to propel them the extra distance, then figure what kind of explosive charge or whatever has that ability. I think you'll find that linear shape charges such as are commonly used in demolitions just won't do it. David Chandler's nanothermite rockets, or barrels of black powder next to the walls, maybe?

Plus the outer structure had to be cut loose from the floors, so it had to be rigged too. Result was that you had to use so much explosives that the walls would fly 200m sideways.

Tell ya what, do some "back of the envelope" type calculations and estimate the force exerted on the uppermost floor impacted by the upper section. (This is your only chance to arrest the collapse.) From there, look up the yield strength (I'm not an engineer, I'm probably using the wrong term here) of the connections between between the floor joists and the core and perimeter columns. Report back with your results. Maybe your A&E 911T friends can help out. I can show you how to do some rough calculations.

 

[tsig]

So obviously it wasn't a CD.

So obviously it was not classic implosion where you use gravity for major part of crushing and also try to avoid collateral damage.

Tsig, you just don't understand! Of course it was a controlled demolition! But it was designed to not look like a controlled demolition! So the fact that it doesn't look like a controlled demoliton proves that it was a controlled demolition!

Jbui already beat you to it.

 

[LSSBB]

We all take physics here. It is not optional...and i got 10 from my last course.

I took Physics too! Small world. I got a Bachelors in Physics and a bachelors in Astrophysics. Switched to Mech E. for my MS.

Sorry, but I claim that only explosives can do it, and we all know they can, you say it's shoving, ping ponging, puffing, springing - so please demonstrate how it actually happened, you have the burden of proof for your own theories.

There was no one single big exxplosion, but many of them, and throwing a 100kg steel beam or piece of bone 200m only needs that explosion to take place next to that object. There are videos of reporter yelling HUGE EXPLOSION, but no explosion is heard on the tape...do you wonder what happened there?

Funny thing with eexplosions, as described by eyewitnesses. Heck of a lot of them aren't from explosives. Watch a real CD with a full sountrack. Those explosives have a characteristic sound.

Say, how much explosives would you need to throw that material that far? Oops, there's that pesky math again.

By the way, I don't have to demonstrate anything. you're the one trying to convince the world that something no one saw, no one admits to, and no one found real evidence of actually happened.

 

[Jbui]

Tsig, you just don't understand! Of course it was a controlled demolition! But it was designed to not look like a controlled demolition! So the fact that it doesn't look like a controlled demoliton proves that it was a controlled demolition!

I'm not sure if you guys are trying to be sarcastic or what, but please, take a deep breath and think.

It was supposed not to look like TRADITIONAL implosion demolition. No RDX, no rigging of the bottom 3rd etc.

Yet, it did have the characteristics of use of explosives, even though not characteristics of RDX. The sounds were different, because they were from nanothermite based charges. Yet they sounded like explosives, and that's what most of the witnesses said.

It's funny how many of you agree that concrete pulverized, stuff flew 200meters, hundreds of steel beams were cut in pieces, but you say it happened without sound. How is that possible?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

it did have the characteristics of use of explosives

Which characteristics, exactly?

The sounds were different, because they were from nanothermite based charges.

What do they sound like (other than fantasy)?

you say it happened without sound.

Where did you get that crazy idea? How many independent recordings of the sounds of the collapses do you suppose exist?

 

[dafydd]

The sounds were different, because they were from nanothermite based charges.

When were these charges placed? Who rigged the building? How was it done without anybody noticing? How much of the stuff was needed? Truthers never address these questions.

 

[Jbui]

I took Physics too! Small world. I got a Bachelors in Physics and a bachelors in Astrophysics. Switched to Mech E. for my MS.

Funny thing with eexplosions, as described by eyewitnesses. Heck of a lot of them aren't from explosives. Watch a real CD with a full sountrack. Those explosives have a characteristic sound.

Say, how much explosives would you need to throw that material that far? Oops, there's that pesky math again.

By the way, I don't have to demonstrate anything. you're the one trying to convince the world that something no one saw, no one admits to, and no one found real evidence of actually happened.

How much explosives? Why is this question posed all the time? How much explosives was it needed in Oklahoma, WTC '93, any of worlds demolitions? Doesn't make any difference. You are trying to prove it happened with, gravity. Please give some theory how that happened. Ping Pong? Puff? Spring? Remeber to explain both the shredding into tiny pieces and the 200m flight.

 

[dafydd]

. Please give some theory how that happened. Ping Pong? Puff? Spring? Remeber to explain both the shredding into tiny pieces and the 200m flight.

Already been done. Do your own research.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

hundreds of steel beams were cut in pieces

I wonder what exactly you think you mean by 'cut'. Was there any evidence that a single steel beam was cut by explosives? Or by 'nanothermite'?

 

[thedopefishlives]

How much explosives? Why is this question posed all the time? How much explosives was it needed in Oklahoma, WTC '93, any of worlds demolitions? Doesn't make any difference. You are trying to prove it happened with, gravity. Please give some theory how that happened. Ping Pong? Puff? Spring? Remeber to explain both the shredding into tiny pieces and the 200m flight.

We are not trying to "prove it happened with gravity", because even in a real controlled demolition, gravity does all the work anyway. YOU are trying to prove a mechanism other than gravity. So please, enlighten us, how did they blow up the building without gravity performing any of the work?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You are trying to prove it happened with, gravity.

I hope you're not forgetting that verinage happens with gravity, or that conventional explosive demolition happens with gravity too. The explosives or hydraulics only initiate the collapse by weakening one floor's support until it yields to gravity. Gravity does the hard work.

But you knew that, right? So what exactly was your point?

 

[LSSBB]

How much explosives? Why is this question posed all the time? How much explosives was it needed in Oklahoma, WTC '93, any of worlds demolitions? Doesn't make any difference. You are trying to prove it happened with, gravity. Please give some theory how that happened. Ping Pong? Puff? Spring? Remeber to explain both the shredding into tiny pieces and the 200m flight.

Of course it's important how much explosives, because that tells how much should have been found of the mechanism. They found the remains of McVeigh's truck, didn't they?

Just that you are trying to imply it couldn't have involved gravity shows that you still have a bit of the learning curve left. Controlled Demolition explosives still rely on gravity to do the job.

As far as shredding, you haven't explained yet how explosives not strapped to the body can shred bodies at a distance. I certainly don't need to explain how bodies interacting with a collapsing skyscraper can get shredded.

And for the distance, well besides airplanes and escaping air, there were also outer building columns and exterior panels getting knocked sideways by a falling top block of floors.

Prove your own case first. I'm just accepting what has already been proven, after I analyzed it. You have yet to present anything to discredit the case already made.