Reverence for 9/11

just to remind everyone to pray for those afflicted by 9/11

God may we never forget

It's a television anniversary. Ten years of propaganda, cover-ups, and disgusting lies. With millions, crippled, murdered, raped, kidnapped, and tortured by this country and others since that event, you'd have to live on Mars not to "remember" it, almost daily since it happened. The "remembrance anniversary" is the most insulting mockery of the human mind that I know of.

trysts keep it reverent please

What does one respect about that day, exactly? That Americans perpetrated it? What days are we supposed to "remember" all the people in Afghanistan being murdered? When I was working last night, I saw over and over again, the fake "mourning of remembrance" on the idiot box. With lie after lie, zombie after zombie "remembering" as if on command. The horror for those people who suffered through that attack has been duplicated by this country every day for a decade to millions in the M.E.

how bout mourne the loss of the people in the world an how thier familys

So, trysts, Americans perpetrated it, despite the fact that all of the 19 terrorists were from the Middle East (predominantly from Saudi Arabia, if I recall)? Come back down to planet Earth some time (if your alien abductors will permit you).

 perfect just hope he hasnt been ... well ... you know....

Actually, trysts is unambiguously female

Those poor janitors, you know they didn't want to be at work that day.

Trysts is just a knee-jerk Anti-American. Never misses a chance to defame our military or slam the country. She should try that in some other country. 

Three buildings in New York blew up. They didn't come down by fires, they came down through explosives. There was a hole in Pennsylvania, that an entire plane (allegedly) completely disintegrated into? The Pentagon had a hijacked plane being tracked, yet not only did one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world not intercept the "plane", but it crashed into the only part of the building which was being renovated, by making some arial feat which couldn't be duplicated in a bzillion years?

I don't believe in fairy tales, I leave that to the christians and jingoists, Elroch.

The sound of the buildings collapsing is well-described as a "roar", caused by a succession of floors failing as the floors above fell on them. Missing is a much louder, very sharp bang. This would definitely be  there if an explosion had caused the fall. By contrast with the collapse itself, explosives go off very quickly, and if an explosion caused the collapse it would be necessary to generate a lot of energy in the microseconds that an explosion takes. Hence a very sharp loud sound. You can't hide such a thing.

Here is another building collapse without explosives. Rather similar in nature and sound, because it lacks the explosions at the start.

Compare that with a building demolition using explosives. Can you tell the difference in the sound?

[Links may be UK-specific, perhaps they can be edited. Or do similar searches to the ones I did]

The same is true of the sounds which can be heard before the collapses, which are not sharp but extended over a period of seconds with similar amplitude. This indicates to me some sort of partial collapse within a building before the structure was sufficiently compromised for the building to fall. The sounds are entirely different to explosives going off.

I don't know what kind of explosives were used, but I do know what a tall building looks like when engulfed in flames. Those buildings were not engulfed in flames. The smoke was black, therefore oxygen-starved. They were going to go out. But then, the buildings exploded, dropping so fast that there were no signs of floors falling on themselves. Rather, the floors, as well as the massive metal rods in the center of the building disintegrated into white powder. That was not caused by fire. The Windsor Tower is a good example of what happens when one of these skyscrapers catch fire. It was engulfed in flames for 24 hours, entirely gutted, and only partially collapsed.

By definition, an explosion is very short in duration. A large amount of energy would have to be generated in this short time if it was going to bring the building down. Hence there would have to be a very intense loud noise (a tiny fraction of a second).

My understanding is that the temperatures in the WTC fires were plenty high enough to soften the steel (once the heat had conducted through the concrete) but nowhere near enough to melt the steel, hence mangled steel very visible in the wreckage.

As for the floors dropping so fast that there were no signs of floors falling on themselves, I am sure a simple analysis of video will show that the fall is consistent with being caused entirely by gravity (once one floor has failed). Bear in mind that a skyscraper is designed to be strong enough to support its own weight under normal circumstances, plus an appropriate safety factor. The stress due to the 5 (or more) floors above falling on a floor would have been massively outside of the tolerance, hence would cause instant failure (over-compression of supporting columns crumbling them immediately, adding more kinetic energy as more floors fall). Hence there is not much to discuss after the first failure.

The point about the Windsor tower is very interesting and relevant. I see two important differences. The first is that the Windsor tower appears to have been more solidly built. It was much smaller, reducing the constraints on the mass of the upper floors. The building was described as "very solid" and the central reinforcing column was reported to have survived the fire. The second difference is that it did not have a huge amount of aviation fuel initially added to the fire. Imagine the effect of adding tens of tonnes of kerosene to a building fire.

Not all fires producing black smoke are "going out" (eg pretty much any petrochemical fire). Fires with a plentiful supply of hydrocarbons produce a lot of soot unless they have a surplus of oxygen. The fires in the WTC appear to have been limited by oxygen supply (air passing into the building and through the building) and hence would produce lots of soot.

While my background understanding is not bad, I am no expert on structural engineering or fire engineering (though many of my past colleagues are), so I would point to enlightening expert opinion such as this, which gives a lot of details of the precise construction and how it failed. (I wrote the above before I read this and, while it supports some of the key points, it is much more informative and reliable).

"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."
--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

Think about it. Do you really reckon there were explosives being set off during the collapse? Why? Once a single floor had collapsed nothing was going to stop the fall through the other floors. The flash low in the building is interesting, but obviously had nothing to do with the cause of the collapse high up. The sound the (heroic) firemen describe is clearly the failure of the floors one by one as the building collapsed. Each floor failing creates a peak in the sound, separated by the time the building took to fall a floor (pretty short by the end, as it may have reached over 50m/s in speed).

The audio analysis in a video I posted earlier (from a conspiracy theorist's webpage) shows that the sounds recorded don't have the sharp initial peak characteristic of an explosion. They are consistent with being the sound of the stages of collapse, which are more extended in time.

We don't know what type of explosives were used, and I have no idea what the sounds of the WTC collapsing is supposed to sound like, so I don't have any relevant information to deny the visual experience of watching those three buildings being brought down by explosions.

An explosion, by definition, involves a very rapid chemical reaction (milliseconds or less). The structural engineers agree without the slightest question that no explosives would have been necessary in lower floors. Once a single floor collapsed nothing was going to stop total collapse (unlike some smaller buildings of different construction). Hence what matters is what caused the collapse.

The last link I posted really is very informative on the construction and how it failed. A quote makes it clear why it is unnecessary to find alternative reasons for the collapse:

"A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems. "

The WTC was designed to withstand such an impact, with the fuel load as well.

"The structural engineers agree without the slightest question that no explosives would have been necessary in lower floors."

This statement is just wrong. There are many engineers that dispute the "pancake theory".