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

[Animal]

How much explosives? Why is this question posed all the time?

Maybe because it is a critical factor in troofers trying to prove their claim.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How much explosives? Why is this question posed all the time? How much explosives was it needed in Oklahoma,

The explosion in Oklahoma only took out a key support in the building; gravity did the rest. It was sheer luck (and a design flaw) that so much damage was done.

WTC '93,

The terrorists hoped that the explosion in '93 would topple one of the towers into the other one. Only problem was: A) not nearly enough explosives, and B) collapsing buildings usually don't topple.

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.

I seriously doubt you would pay any attention to such an explanation.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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?

Tall skyscrapers like the twin towers have to be able to sway in the wind. That means the metal components need to be elastic. Not brittle, or they'd break. Not malleable, or they'd deform. They need to be able to spring back into place as the building sways.

When such a building collapses, you have hundreds of these elastic components being bent, storing a huge amount of potential energy in the process. When the connections fail, that energy is suddenly released and the beams are flung away in the opposite direction of the bend. There were probably just as many flung inward as outward, we just didn't see those.

Sometimes they weren't flung away. Sometimes the connections held just a little bit longer, and they were bent past the elastic phase and into the plastic phase. The potential energy then went into bending or breaking them instead of hurling them.

That's how it's possible. Now I expect you to deliberately ignore my explanation.

 

[beachnut]

...
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?

E=mgh was released due to impacts and fires. Your 10 in physics fails to translate into comprehension.

You don't do reality. You have some undefined CD BS nonsense. You have silent explosives, zero blast effects explosives; a fantasy.

No Booms from explosives.


Solve for E=mgh. Can you do physics like you say you can? No.

 

[Justin39640]

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?

Steel beams weren't cut, they broke at their connections. Big difference. Got any pics of "cut" beams?

 

[beachnut]

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

You believe in crazy claims. A problem with reality?

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

Did you get this information from the evil guys who did 911? You give a free pass to 19 murderers, and blame people who you can't name given 11 years.

RDX? There was no nano-thermite on 911, no damage to any steel.

A gravity collapse looks like CD, so 911 looks like a traditional CD because gravity is the main energy used to destroy building in CD. But you failed to think about that, and you can't debunk that. 11 years of failure.

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.

No, there were zero characteristics of explosives on 911. There were zero sounds of explosives and no evidence thermite was used.
Nope, the people who heard explosions knew it was from other things; like bodies hitting the ground. But you don't do research you cherry pick quotes, and lie about 911.

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

People hitting things, after leaving the towers. Your explosives, the sounds, people. You failed because you don't do reality, you don't do research, you fail to do physics.

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?

Most the dust was insulation and wallboard. The sounds heard on 911 were the collapse of the WTC, not explosives. Now you are making up nonsense of no sounds; it was no sounds of explosives; try to get the truth, not making up nonsense.

Have you got the E=mgh yet for each tower? Can you do physics? How much energy is required to crush a body? Got that answer yet? How can you claim anything without math and physics? You never have numbers? Why?

 

[dafydd]

Have you got the E=mgh yet for each tower? Can you do physics? How much energy is required to crush a body? Got that answer yet? How can you claim anything without math and physics? You never have numbers? Why?

He has given us one number, 10.

 

[Jbui]

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'?

Let's just say the steel frame which was in one piece was 10 seconds later in 10000 pieces. The same frame which was supposed to sway, keep it's form, but never be severed in pieces by natural forces. Yet it was severed in 10000 pieces, silently and by gravity alone.

 

[Jbui]

Steel beams weren't cut, they broke at their connections. Big difference. Got any pics of "cut" beams?

The connections are the strongest part of the structure.

I've got pics of steel molten to swiss cheese. Connections were most probably molten/cut with thermite charges.

 

[dafydd]

Let's just say the steel frame which was in one piece was 10 seconds later in 10000 pieces. The same frame which was supposed to sway, keep it's form, but never be severed in pieces by natural forces. Yet it was severed in 10000 pieces, silently and by gravity alone.

Nano thermite was placed in 10000 places with nobody noticing?

 

[dafydd]

The connections are the strongest part of the structure.

I've got pics of steel molten to swiss cheese. Connections were most probably molten/cut with thermite charges.

Look up the definition of the word ''molten''. The word you were groping for is ''melted''. And you say that you have studied physics?

 

[Jbui]

Tall skyscrapers like the twin towers have to be able to sway in the wind. That means the metal components need to be elastic. Not brittle, or they'd break. Not malleable, or they'd deform. They need to be able to spring back into place as the building sways.

When such a building collapses, you have hundreds of these elastic components being bent, storing a huge amount of potential energy in the process. When the connections fail, that energy is suddenly released and the beams are flung away in the opposite direction of the bend. There were probably just as many flung inward as outward, we just didn't see those.

Sometimes they weren't flung away. Sometimes the connections held just a little bit longer, and they were bent past the elastic phase and into the plastic phase. The potential energy then went into bending or breaking them instead of hurling them.

That's how it's possible. Now I expect you to deliberately ignore my explanation.

If this spring/flung-theory was true, we would propably see this in some of the slow motion videos from the collapse, especially in the initiation, where there actually was bending of the exterior columns. Also for this theory to work, it would help if the steel beam was not attached from bottom and both sides.

But this whole topic is not about the steel beams, but the human bodies, which do not act like steel. You can not bend a person to make him fly 200m. Nor can you drop a ceiling on a person to turn him into tiny shreds. And you can not even imagine doing them both with a ceiling dropping onto someone.

Still you guys claim this happened.

Now I expect you to deliberately ignore my explanation.

 

[DGM]

Now I expect you to deliberately ignore my explanation.

What explanation? I haven't seen where you explained how it could happen.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Let's just say the steel frame which was in one piece was 10 seconds later in 10000 pieces. The same frame which was supposed to sway, keep it's form, but never be severed in pieces by natural forces. Yet it was severed in 10000 pieces, silently and by gravity alone.

Since your answer contains no reference to evidence of steel beams being cut by explosives or thermite, I hope it's reasonable to infer that you concede the point that there is none.

I wonder if you also concede the point that any building whose demolition is initiated by verinage or indeed by explosives was also designed to keep its form and never be broken up by natural forces but once its collapse is initiated, is destroyed by gravity alone. If you dispute that point, please let us know how you think such buildings are brought down and, more importantly, why you think they stayed up in the first place.

You also appear still to consider that the absence of explosive detonations = silence. Are you perhaps severely hearing impaired?

 

[MarkLindeman]

What explanation? I haven't seen where you explained how it could happen.

I should not ask, but is the poster alleging that nanothermite was used to shred...?

Gah.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can not bend a person to make him fly 200m. Nor can you drop a ceiling on a person to turn him into tiny shreds. And you can not even imagine doing them both with a ceiling dropping onto someone.

I think that depends on how many tons you imagine the ceiling to weigh.

I find your argument from incredulity unconvincing. Can you offer anything beyond telling me what I can't imagine?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I should not ask, but is the poster alleging that nanothermite was used to shred...?

Perhaps you should ask. Maybe we'll get an explanation of what he imagines nanothermite to be and how he imagines it was used.

 

[Jbui]

Since your answer contains no reference to evidence of steel beams being cut by explosives or thermite, I hope it's reasonable to infer that you concede the point that there is none.

I wonder if you also concede the point that any building whose demolition is initiated by verinage or indeed by explosives was also designed to keep its form and never be broken up by natural forces but once its collapse is initiated, is destroyed by gravity alone. If you dispute that point, please let us know how you think such buildings are brought down and, more importantly, why you think they stayed up in the first place.

You also appear still to consider that the absence of explosive detonations = silence. Are you perhaps severely hearing impaired?

Evidence for explosives is the molten metal, iron microspheres, sounds people described as explosions etc, but we are not going back to those.

In traditional demolitions and verinages, buildings are pre-weakened. and after that they are given a good push, maybe 1/3 of building, maybe few floors, maybe they are detonated all the way up to the top. And still some of them do not collapse all the way, like we see in demolitions gone wrong-videos.

I have heard term silent explosions here so many times, that I suggest you go look for the hearing impaired people elsewhere in this forum.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Evidence for explosives is the molten metal, iron microspheres, sounds people described as explosions etc, but we are not going back to those.

Is that because if we do go back we'll see this 'evidence' disappear like morning mist? (i.e. exactly which molten metal, sounds of falling bodies which people likened to explosions etc.)

In traditional demolitions and verinages, buildings are pre-weakened. and after that they are given a good push, maybe 1/3 of building, maybe few floors, maybe they are detonated all the way up to the top. And still some of them do not collapse all the way, like we see in demolitions gone wrong-videos.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. After which we return to the point that once collapse is initiated, gravity does the work. When the buildings are "given a good push" you will note that all of the downward push is provided by gravity.

I have heard term silent explosions here so many times, that I suggest you go look for the hearing impaired people elsewhere in this forum.

Perhaps then you can post a link to one of the recordings of the sounds of the demolition charges detonating.

 

[dafydd]

I have heard term silent explosions here so many times, that I suggest you go look for the hearing impaired people elsewhere in this forum.

Perhaps you should stick to thinking impaired twoofer sites.