It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New theory on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse: study

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


Sorry, Thermite is Aluminium powder and iron oxide.

Fe2O3 + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 2Fe

But the remainder of your comments are valid.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


That's why I say the discovery ot Thermite in the debris isn't suprising. You had the Aluminum from the aircraft, and the Iron Oxide (rust) from the tower's structure. Add in a fire and you would expect to find traces of Thermite.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


Sorry my recipe came from that Cookbook, you know, the one Anarchists like to use, that we dont like to mention on ATS



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


You've bitten deep!



1) How hot does a fire need to be and for how long to establish a "flow of molten aluminum"?


Extemely hot, far hotter than jet fuel or office fires.



2) At what temperature does water simply evaporate when it is sprayer on molten aluminum?


Depends on how much water and how much molten aluminium is involved.
Even so, would any resulting explosion(s) have the power to hurl huge steel beams hundreds of feet upwards and outwards from the towers, equally and consistently from all four sides of the towers and down their entire height?



3) How far does molten aluminum flow after the fires start to die down?


Not very far.



4) How do you introduce rust into a random flow of molten aluminum while water is still present?


With difficulty.
The ingredients would have to be mixed in the correct proportions too.

Congratulations! That's a well delivered "poo poo".



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


OH !

I forgot the other question I had.

How far down both towers did the "flow of molten aluminum" go?

It would take a lot of aluminum to flow that far.

Didn't it seem the towers "blew out" all the way down, or was that my imagination?

I have also wondered:

If the material in the buildings turned to dust as they fell? Which is what appears to have happened.

How much mass was left to crush the lowest floors of the building?

edit on 21-9-2011 by hdutton because: after thought



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Here is a calculation of the mass and the resulting forces created.....


calculation here



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Howakan
 


Thanks Howakan for the link but I didn't need it.
I did the calculation in my head....

....Common sense.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Thanks and good point, but I covered that observation in...

"hurl huge steel beams hundreds of feet upwards and outwards from the towers, equally and consistently from all four sides of the towers and down their entire height? "

The theory is ridiculous and not worthy of continued discussion.

Unless, of course, someone knows better.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Howakan
 


Thank you for the info on the link.

The numbers and calculations hold IF the falling section of the buildings maintain the same mass through out the calculations.

However if the mass is reduced due to the dissipation of material into the dust cloud the top section of the buildings would be slowed and not reach the ground for another 2.6 and 3.1 seconds respectfully. This may not seen as like much, as I may not be assigning enough mass loss to the cloud, but it still blows the OS apart.

This also increases the timing between the reported siesmic events before the collapse began.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha20mega
 


Okay, let me get this straight. Did they just spend 10 years telling us there were no explosions (minus the plane crashes themselves) and those puffs of dust coming from the buildings weren't explosions and they were just from the floors collapsing and that anyone that believes there were explosions is a crazy conspiracy theorist?

And THEN 10 years later turn around and tell us that the aluminum caused the "VIOLENT EXPLOSIONS!" lol. Wait, what violent explosions????? They just spent 10 years trying to convince us there were no explosions????

Still doesn't explain 7.
edit on 21-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 

True!
They can't have it both ways can they?

...and...

True!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join