• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Distribution of body parts[W:374]

Thoreau72

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,644
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY

If this link works, let's discuss it. What are the implications of bodies and body parts being spread so wide, across streets and alleys? How can the "natural collapse" claimed by NIST and the official story be true?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Proof by YooToob.:lamo
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY

If this link works, let's discuss it. What are the implications of bodies and body parts being spread so wide, across streets and alleys? How can the "natural collapse" claimed by NIST and the official story be true?
Click to expand...


It's mind boggling. 300 whole bodies. And think of the hospital's preparing for mass casualties...not receiving one.

I'm not a CT lady, but still it is interesting.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY

If this link works, let's discuss it. What are the implications of bodies and body parts being spread so wide, across streets and alleys? How can the "natural collapse" claimed by NIST and the official story be true?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to count bits of jam here and there as a body.

When a building collapses at 30mph there are whole mangled boddies. When the impact is at 300mph there is nothing more than spray.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

- Did anyone notice that in the beginning the bodies shown in the rubble was not of the WTC. (.19 seconds in).
Is the vid comparing what happens to human bodies in a few story building vs. a high rise like the WTC?


- Again, the WTC is compared to smaller buildings when looking at the damage to bodies. With the tonnage involved in the collapse, the author does nothing to show that it must might be impossible to recover all the bodies or parts). Is it not possible some parts where consumed in the fire.

(Here is one for T72. You claim molten metal existed for months. If parts were near or in the pool of molten metal, would the body parts be cremated and pretty much destroy the dna of that part?). There is no mention of this in the vid.).

The questions in the vid are typical of a CT vid. False or misleading statement , then a question. It is clear the author does not understand collapse physics in dealing with the WTC
One only has to look at the collapse vid to be able to understand how body parts could be found away from the collapse site. .

It is also typical that the vid does not contain who made the vid. Do they have something to hide?:mrgreen:
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Tim the plumber said:
It is difficult to count bits of jam here and there as a body.

When a building collapses at 30mph there are whole mangled boddies. When the impact is at 300mph there is nothing more than spray.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your point. What impact are you describing? If the impact of the airplanes is your point, the video deals with that. The bodies and parts of firemen were in a different class than non-firemen, assuming the workers in the tower. Both classes, firemen and not, were widely spread in the same manner. The firemen were no present when the airplanes impacted the tower, yet their parts were spread wide.

That means that the force which blew them up came after the aircraft impact.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

mike2810 said:
- Did anyone notice that in the beginning the bodies shown in the rubble was not of the WTC. (.19 seconds in).
Is the vid comparing what happens to human bodies in a few story building vs. a high rise like the WTC?


- Again, the WTC is compared to smaller buildings when looking at the damage to bodies. With the tonnage involved in the collapse, the author does nothing to show that it must might be impossible to recover all the bodies or parts). Is it not possible some parts where consumed in the fire.

(Here is one for T72. You claim molten metal existed for months. If parts were near or in the pool of molten metal, would the body parts be cremated and pretty much destroy the dna of that part?). There is no mention of this in the vid.).

The questions in the vid are typical of a CT vid. False or misleading statement , then a question. It is clear the author does not understand collapse physics in dealing with the WTC
One only has to look at the collapse vid to be able to understand how body parts could be found away from the collapse site. .

It is also typical that the vid does not contain who made the vid. Do they have something to hide?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Not near as much as you seem to have to hide.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY

If this link works, let's discuss it. What are the implications of bodies and body parts being spread so wide, across streets and alleys? How can the "natural collapse" claimed by NIST and the official story be true?
Click to expand...
There are two parts to this.

What caused the bodies to become "parts" instead of whole and what moved these "parts" beyond the building footprint? If you can't imagine steel columns, elevator motors, concrete, HVAC ducting, pipes, computers, printers, cubicle walls, toilets, sinks, etc. all falling at the same time and acting as a grinder versus flesh and bone, I don't know what else to tell you. You don't think that the perimeter walls peeling outward created any type of air movement that would have pulled things with them as they fell?

One other question.

Do you believe that thermite was used or conventional explosives?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

gamolon said:
There are two parts to this.

What caused the bodies to become "parts" instead of whole and what moved these "parts" beyond the building footprint? If you can't imagine steel columns, elevator motors, concrete, HVAC ducting, pipes, computers, printers, cubicle walls, toilets, sinks, etc. all falling at the same time and acting as a grinder versus flesh and bone, I don't know what else to tell you. You don't think that the perimeter walls peeling outward created any type of air movement that would have pulled things with them as they fell?

One other question.

Do you believe that thermite was used or conventional explosives?
Click to expand...

I see no reason a number of different means could not have been used together. Nothing excludes the use of thermite products and nuclear devices.

As to the towers acting like a grinder, you're back to the same conundrum. How can gravity move those tiny little body parts out across the street? It cannot.

Further, with the collapse times being ALMOST FREE FALL RATES, there is no anvil for the hammer to strike, if you get my drift. If all the pieces are going down at ALMOST FREE FALL rates, there is no significant resistance to crush against.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
I see no reason a number of different means could not have been used together. Nothing excludes the use of thermite products and nuclear devices.
Click to expand...
Nothing, except reality. What would happen to a body in a nuclear explosion?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

zyzygy said:
Nothing, except reality. What would happen to a body in a nuclear explosion?
Click to expand...

That depends upon the type of nuclear explosion, but as was demonstrated at WTC that day, if the body is close enough to the device, the body is blown to smithereens.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
Nothing excludes the use of thermite products and nuclear devices.
Click to expand...
Thermite was not used because you have not one shred of evidence showing that burning thermite temperatures were ever attained. You also have no proof that molten steel of 2,500 degrees F. What we do have proof of is a eutectic reaction occurring at much lower temperatures. You have no proof of a nuclear device either.

Thoreau72 said:
As to the towers acting like a grinder, you're back to the same conundrum. How can gravity move those tiny little body parts out across the street? It cannot.
Click to expand...
Are you saying there were no lateral forces involved whatsoever? Are you saying that peeling perimeter columns produce no lateral air movement or suction behind them as they fell? You're kidding right?

Thoreau72 said:
Further, with the collapse times being ALMOST FREE FALL RATES, there is no anvil for the hammer to strike, if you get my drift. If all the pieces are going down at ALMOST FREE FALL rates, there is no significant resistance to crush against.
Click to expand...
So none of the debris or structural members ever collided with one another during descent to create a "grinder" effect eh? Everything magically stayed apart and never touched?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
That depends upon the type of nuclear explosion, but as was demonstrated at WTC that day, if the body is close enough to the device, the body is blown to smithereens.
Click to expand...

Nuclear explosions are in the millions of degrees. You must be trolling.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
That depends upon the type of nuclear explosion,
Click to expand...
It does huh?

You have evidence of the effects of different nuclear devices upon the human body that you are making this claim or are you just making this up?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
Not near as much as you seem to have to hide.
Click to expand...

Funny.

So did you notice the opening where the bodies are? Not even the WTC. Just a small multi story building. What caused its collapse? My guess an earthquake. Not quite the same of a buildings at the WTC on 9/11.

Thought you wanted to discuss, but all you did was respond to my last sarcastic remark.

So respond to my other comments. Or do you not have anything of value to add.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
if the body is close enough to the device, the body is blown to smithereens.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

You have proof of this? That the bodies that were "blown to smithereens" were near the supposed device? How did you determine this? Or is this just another assumption on your part?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
I'm not sure of your point. What impact are you describing? If the impact of the airplanes is your point, the video deals with that. The bodies and parts of firemen were in a different class than non-firemen, assuming the workers in the tower. Both classes, firemen and not, were widely spread in the same manner. The firemen were no present when the airplanes impacted the tower, yet their parts were spread wide.

That means that the force which blew them up came after the aircraft impact.
Click to expand...

The potential energy in that collapse rivaled that of tactical nuclear weapons. Spreading things about to some degree is not inexplicable.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
I see no reason a number of different means could not have been used together. Nothing excludes the use of thermite products and nuclear devices.

As to the towers acting like a grinder, you're back to the same conundrum. How can gravity move those tiny little body parts out across the street? It cannot.

Further, with the collapse times being ALMOST FREE FALL RATES, there is no anvil for the hammer to strike, if you get my drift. If all the pieces are going down at ALMOST FREE FALL rates, there is no significant resistance to crush against.
Click to expand...

40% slower than freefall isn't almost freefall.

Drop a bundle of pencils. See if they stay together.

And, uh, there will be significant resistance to crush against. You know, when it all hits the ground?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

gamolon said:
Thermite was not used because you have not one shred of evidence showing that burning thermite temperatures were ever attained. You also have no proof that molten steel of 2,500 degrees F. What we do have proof of is a eutectic reaction occurring at much lower temperatures. You have no proof of a nuclear device either.


Are you saying there were no lateral forces involved whatsoever? Are you saying that peeling perimeter columns produce no lateral air movement or suction behind them as they fell? You're kidding right?


So none of the debris or structural members ever collided with one another during descent to create a "grinder" effect eh? Everything magically stayed apart and never touched?
Click to expand...

I'm saying YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is, you cannot claim a gravitational collapse when there is ample evidence (including the bodies) showing horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers.

Make your choice--it was either a natural collapse or it was not. I didn't write the NIST fantasy, and I don't understand why you choose to defend it.

Did you watch the video? Did you see the number of pieces they found that fit into test tubes?
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
I'm saying YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is, you cannot claim a gravitational collapse when there is ample evidence (including the bodies) showing horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers.

Make your choice--it was either a natural collapse or it was not. I didn't write the NIST fantasy, and I don't understand why you choose to defend it.

Did you watch the video? Did you see the number of pieces they found that fit into test tubes?
Click to expand...

Structural collapse is a matter of physics and I'm not sure exactly where you'd draw a distinction between "natural" and "not natural." What's a "natural" collapse? Erosion? Fire caused by a lightning strike causing a collapse?

Nuclear explosions would have created far more powerful, and more uniform, lateral vectors. Nukes don't say "hmm I'll eject these pieces but not these ones here." The entire building would have moved outwards, not pieces.

As I already pointed out, the total potential energy was in the realm of tactical nukes. Transient lateral force vectors of large magnitude are easily possible.

Get a bucket of rocks and dump them down an elevator shaft. I bet several of them hit the sides of the shaft hard.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

No bodies makes sense...
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
I'm saying YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is, you cannot claim a gravitational collapse when there is ample evidence (including the bodies) showing horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers.
Click to expand...
Where is this "ample evidence" showing horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers? Do you have calculations for these numbers to show us and support what you claim or are you using the final resting place of bodies/and body parts to determine this? How can you determine horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers based solely on an object's final resting place? Example. If a found a 16lb bowling ball 400 feet from the base of the twin towers, how do I determine what the force was in order to get that bowling ball to that distance if I didn't know the starting height? What if I rolled the bowling ball from the top of the twin towers as opposed to shooting it from some type of device from the 10th floor? Are you suggesting that the horizontal forces would be the same for each scenario?

So where's the link or source for your "horitzotnal vectors with huge energy numbers" claim?
 
Last edited:
Re: Distribution of body parts

gamolon said:
Where is this "ample evidence" showing horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers? Do you have calculations for these numbers to show us and support what you claim or are you using the final resting place of bodies/and body parts to determine this? How can you determine horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers based solely on an object's final resting place? Example. If a found a 16lb bowling ball 400 feet from the base of the twin towers, how do I determine what the force was in order to get that bowling ball to that distance if I didn't know the starting height? What if I rolled the bowling ball from the top of the twin towers as opposed to shooting it from some type of device from the 10th floor? Are you suggesting that the forces being each scenario are the same?

So where's the link or source for you claim above?
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry to offend--I'm using common sense and facts. Yes, I'm using the final resting place of bodies and test tube sized body parts, along with massive structural pieces weighing in the hundreds of tonnes, to deduce that the claims made by NIST are invalid. Their claim that office fires and gravity brought the towers down are incorrect. The source of energy to break the building and the bodies was not gravity, it was something else, very much HIGH EXPLOSIVE.
 
Re: Distribution of body parts

Thoreau72 said:
don't understand why you choose to defend it.
Click to expand...
So show me your evidence of your previous claim of "horizontal vectors with huge energy numbers". What objects are you talking about and how were these numbers determined? That's the first starting point. If you can't provide those numbers to support your claim, then your claim has no validity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom