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.

 

Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Here is an interesting new theory about what caused the twin towers to collapse. The scientist who has proposed the idea says large amounts of melted aluminium from the aircraft hulls came into contact with pools of water from the sprinkler system creating explosions which weakened the structures and ultimately resulted in the buildings collapsing.

A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference."If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water," Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway, said in a statement released Wednesday.
Personally I am still undecided on the events of 9/11, so please don't shoot the messenger. You can read the full story here:www.physorg.com...




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
So..... aluminum + water = explosions? How far will 9/11 twist the laws of physics?
Aluminum + water + 400 degree fires on a few floors = pulverized concrete and steel.... alrighty then.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


interesting theory.

several sites state that molten aluminum and water mixed together give one hell of an explosion.

plausible, would also account for the explosions being reported and heard.

but that still leave Shanksville, Pentagon and WTC 7 unexplained, imho that is..




edit on 21-9-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust. "The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.

Did you bother to read the link? The science behind the theory is pretty solid. This youtube clip shows just how explosive aluminium can be. Forward it to 3 min mark


edit on 21-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust. "The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.

Did you bother to read the link? The science behind the theory is pretty solid. This youtube clip shows just how explosive aluminium can be. Forward it to 3 min mark


edit on 21-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)


Alcoa is a local company here and certainly not to be trusted. They have an international reputation for putting peoples lives at risk and screwing the environment

www.theaustralian.com.au...

Alcoa are in the same league as every other multinational mining company--screw everyone and make a billion



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Well it does make sense.

However, the truthers are going to have a feeding frenzy over this theory.

1) They did not think of it
2) They did not think of it or somehow work it into one their "realistic" plots
3) This will challenge their whole belief system from the ground up
4) They will not believe this to be true and "debunk" this theory with robust "agent" and "shill" remarks
5) They will use bedroom science to prove this wrong which will more than likely include a Youtube Vid

Good luck my friend, I would take this theory over the plot by the Elites. I would even take the theory about 8 rabbits who brought the WTC down because their carrots have been tampered with by Monsanto.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
i know a way to collapse a tower which is much more plausible then water, plant explosives and detonate, then tell people they collapsed from the impact of a plane. Water should have put the fires out that were caused by collision atleast, is their any proof they were even working on 9/11?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Ya I aint buying this theory either..

The people in that post had a container of aluminum, How would a container of aluminum go in the towers.. Plus the stuff coming out of the towers don't resemble aluminum when it is melted it looks like steel melted, How would I know this.. We i grew up in a steel mill area most of my younger life and remember seeing all kinda things steel does looking down at the mills.

I live near where Alcoa and Us steel was born.. so I have seen alot of what steel can do and is like melted, hot red, and made into beams..



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
On the surface it seems plausible.

But then why wasn't there a massive explosion at the Pentagon? I mean BIGGER than the couple of booms heard on the news reports? They had sprinklers, and a "jet", and it went into the building supposedly. And arguably a more confined area of impact damage, near ground floor level, which should have concentrated any molten aluminum even further than at the WTC.

Although, if memory serves, wasn't there an issue with sprinklers not working at the Pentagon? That might explain it. No water, no explosion. But I'll bet there was water. Lots of it.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 
The conditions inside the pentagon were a lot different I would think. The inside of the trade centre would have been a complete inferno with incredible heat, because it was enclosed. The firemen also had instant access to the pentagon and began dousing/cooling the fires immediately. Whereas the twin towers were inaccessible and the fires raged unchecked.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I don't think this theory is a keeper.

Aluminium + Water may explode, but it's hard to believe that it would take out the entire building progressively from top to bottom like that. I would expect one big boom, not a step by step floors 110 --> 1 collapse @ freefall.

I mean, when I think about it, even if the plane was packed with high explosives, I still don't see how it could take out the entire building. The Damage would be localized to where the explosive materials are, and a lot (but not all) of the undirected explosive force would follow the path of least resistance (i.e. out through the glass windows or up/down the elevator shaft). The remaining force would NOT be evenly spread throughout the rest of the building, it would still be localized - causing the most damage around the area where the explosive materials are.

It still seems to be that explosive materials were evenly distributed around the building, and the steal frame/cores would need to be cut too before the building would collapse like that.

I think the AE911 Truth theory is a hell of a lot more credible.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBiggerPicture
 
The towers collapsed because the structural integrity of the buildings on the floor where the aircrafts struck was weakened, causing the floors above to basically drop onto the floor below, which in turn collapesd onto the next floor and so on in a cascading effect. This new theory offers a very good explanation of the mechanism that allowed this to happen. You do not need explosives planted throughout the buildings to bring them down, chemistry, physics and the right conditions will do it for you.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


One word: Containment.

Even the most powerful of low explosives would do diddly squat to structural elements unless it were somehow contained.

This is why high explosives work, because they form a pressure wave without containment. This is why even shaped charges are made more effective by using shaped charges to focus the blast instead of dissipating the blast. This is why the initial thermite theory was rejected until Cole showed that an effective containment device could readily be constructed. This is why the glass in the YouTube video barely even quivered, let alone a steel been 50 time that thickness in a massive interconnected structure.



This theory makes Bazant's seem plausible.



(can anyone say damp squib?)
edit on 22-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: Prose



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 
The youtube vid I posted is just a visual companion to my post. It is in no way related to the research of the scientist who came up with the theory. If you have not read the link I gave in the op already, Take a look, it explains his therory and will explain why you are wrong.
www.physorg.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


OK, I see what you are saying. I'm not saying that the Aluminium + Water didn't react - I just can't see that as a catalyst to take out the rest of the building.

The structure of the building had been holding those floors up for 25+ years, the weight of the floors did not change significantly during the incident and the gravity would not have had enough "pull" to drive the floors through each other. Video evidence seems to show that the top floors are destroyed before they even hit the floors below.

Where did the energy come from to drive the top floors through the other 3/4's of the building? What was driving them down? And at such a speed?

If you haven't already, you should have a look a AE911 Blue Print for truth video and AE911 Experts speak out videos to see why people are doubting the official story. These are by far the most thorough and comprehensive video's I have seen from either side of the argument - without all the drama found in other documentaries on the topic.






edit on 22-9-2011 by TheBiggerPicture because: forgot a "not" in first sentance



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
if there was an "aluminum explosion" it would NOT have caused an implosion but an explosion! The blast would be radial or blowing out at the least reststant point. This would not cause an implosion. There are 53 columns on each side of the two buildings banded by reinforced concrete every so many feet. There is just no way this collapse could have happened as the offical story states.

The inital impact of the planes would have created damage to the building structure creating a weak point in the structural integrity. This would not cause the floors to pancake together and come straight down. This would have caused the top floors to fall to one side or the other.

in my opinion



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I have thought for years now that the Aluminati were behind the events at the world trade center. They can be traced back to other tragedies such as the aluminum oxide powder in explosion of the Hindenburg. This lastest news just further backs up my theory.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 



This would have caused the top floors to fall to one side or the other.
Like this you mean? The footage here clearly shows the top part of the tower leaning and collapsing into its most damaged area.www.youtube.com...


edit on 22-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by morebadassythanyou
I have thought for years now that the Aluminati were behind the events at the world trade center. They can be traced back to other tragedies such as the aluminum oxide powder in explosion of the Hindenburg. This lastest news just further backs up my theory.


I find your hypothesis very compelling, no rational person can dispute that the aluminati has their pudgy little figurative fingers stuck into all kinds of figurative pies. Do you think their attack on the WTC was the end goal or just a trial run for something bigger?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by morebadassythanyou
 




I have thought for years now that the Aluminati were behind the events at the world trade center. They can be traced back to other tragedies such as the aluminum oxide powder in explosion of the Hindenburg. This lastest news just further backs up my theory.


Interesting allugory, maybe we should ask Al Gore what he thinks about it.

That is also evidence for a conspiracy involved in the death of Zachary Taylor (the 12th U.S. president). The 13th president was Millard Fillmore, aluminium is the 13th element, Mil-la-rd Fillmore, Mil-(al)-rd Fillmore.

Need I say more?
edit on 22-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join