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: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

New theory on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse: study Read more: www.calgaryherald.com...




www.calgaryherald.com

PARIS — A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminum from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001, a materials expert told a technology conference Wednesday.
(visit the link for the full news article)
www.tgdaily.com... sciences-features/58596-twin-towers-brought-down-by-molten-aluminum-says-scientist
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.physorg.com...

edit on 22/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: LINKS




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
"If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminum ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water," explained Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway.

"From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminum industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."

Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, these blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building,

This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.

"The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building," he said.

The aluminum -water scenario would account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.


www.calgaryherald.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminum , 20 kilos of molten aluminum 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 in diameter," Simensen said.

By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminum into each of the towers, according to his calculations.

This is petty interesting stuff if only 20 kg of molten aluminum does that imagine what 30tn would do

edit on 22/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
"A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminum"................
Just take a second and think about how much sense that makes when you read it.

Oh, so that explains the explosions.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
It is interesting. I think I'll wait and see how much it is agreed with or refuted by other experts and look at the findings before deciding for myself. Though I don't doubt truthers will try to confuse it all.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminum , 20 kilos of molten aluminum 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 in diameter," Simensen said.



LMAO... controlled experiment that destroyed the lab? not too controlled really!

I'm not normally someone who calls disinfo agent on things cos i think that is too much in the lines of tinfoil hat brigade... however, I do beleive there is a cover up with the twin towers and i think this is... nonsense.

30 tonnes of aluminium was it? running down into the water... not falling, so a steady stream that would imply, not a catastrophic falling of 30 tonnes at one time into the water that may or may not have collected... there are far far too many variables in this 'science' for this to be considered a valid theory. thanks for sharing though as every piece of info that comes on about 9/11 adds fuel to the fire. This will never be proven one way or the other. Our grandchildren will STILL discuss the events of that day and who was to blame. Me... I blame iran and think we should go to war with them... then when that is done... it will be syria's fault



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001


Which explosions?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Was there not a thread about the same nonsense yesterday?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by lammypie999
 


Yeah had the same thought about the use of the word controlled lol,

But i guess this could explain the multiple explosions heard if it was liquefied and making contact with water that had pooled form the sprinkler system floor by floor?



Uploader Comments (JimLanphear) I have seen this reaction in person. Video doesn't do it justice. dmobbs01 3 months ago 4 @dmobbs01 -- You're right, it really doesn't. JimLanphear 1 week ago



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
As an aircraft fire fighter for 22 years now I can safely say that I must be one lucky guy. Several times during the last 22 years I have put water onto molten aluminium (actually Alclad) and not once has it gone bang.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
What a weak argument to try and explain an event that clearlly has many scientists going huh?!?!


water and aluminum reaction huh ? thats cute really ...


even though majoirty of the jet fuel needed to melt all that aluminmum was already burned off in the intial blast .



Do you see how even the MSM after 10 years are still trying to find a reasonable explaination of what happened?


This further shows me how flawed the official story was , and how many questions are still left unanswered...


im going for A&E for 9/11 on this play . while the rest of these clowns try and peaice together a cute fairy tale for the masses to chew on as an explaination for....

why the apple we see is just an orange . according to msm



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


Thats Aluminum Alkyl. Not molten Aluminium. Different substances. Aluminum Alkyl is (I think) a liquid.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminum , 20 kilos of molten aluminum 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 in diameter," Simensen said.

Total BS. So you gonna tell me the lab and the guy who did the experiment never calculated the energy that reaction would produce? Impossible. Even in high school we did do calculations before doing experiments to see what would be the energy release.

Either it's total bunk or Alcoa Aluminum employ some real stupid people.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Wow, that seems pretty interesting. Good find

I would like to see if anything further becomes of this in the future



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Absolutely there was a thread on this yesterday....

We are talking approximately 1 litre of water per 2.2 lbs of Aluminum....but molten aluminum...
And a considerable amount of water per pound of Aluminum to boot...

Knowing that the Jet Fuel A /Kerosene was incinerated upon impact, in the huge fireball...or at least the majority of it, one would require a tremendous amount of concentrated heat energy to melt aluminum and to maintain the molten state.

Simply looking at race car accidents and subsequent fuel fires, when they burn to the ground, they do not turn into a puddle of molten aluminum. The wheels and engine block, cast from Aluminum, though burnt, remain intact.

This would be valid case for the Laws of Thermodynamics.....simply the sheer amount of molten aluminum and the necessary energy to melt it AND to maintain a molten state once exposed to ambient air...it doesn't add up.

Interesting hypothesis but also entertaining.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there is no explanation as to how a "top-down" explosion could cause a building to fall into it's own footprint. A "floor" would never fail across the whole horizontal plane evenly. The top of the building should have fallen towards the weakest point (plane impact point) like a tree falls in the forest. Everything fails at it's weakest point first, and cascades from there. I haven't seen an valid explanation for why NEITHER tower toppled.

Until I do, I guess I'm a truther.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

30 tonnes of aluminium



The official report on the causes of the collapse of the three buildings was drawn up by a commission appointed by the federal government and has since been supported by other publications.

The report came to the conclusion that the collapse was caused by heating and failure of structural steel beams in the centre of the buildings. "I believe that it is overwhelmingly probable that the theories regarding the cause of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 are wrong,
but that the report very likely came to the correct conclusion as regards WTC7," says Simensen.

"Why should we believe your alternative theory rather than the official explanation?"



"To put it as succinctly as possible: because the federal government commission did not take sufficiently into account the fact that the aircraft brought 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the two towers."

The collision


"What sort of evidence do you have for the theory that you are putting forward?"



"I base my theory on comparisons I have made with parallel observable phenomena in the world of physics. Let us start with what I think must have happened when the planes struck the two towers.
They came in at high speed and at a low angle.
The only similar phenomenon that we have any knowledge of is meteors that hit the Earth.
What we know is that these drag material with them on their way through the soil layer.
The whole surface, including all its pores, is covered by the material that they carry along.
The innermost layer melts and turns into a glass coating on the surface of the meteor."

"I believe that similarly, the aircraft must have been covered by fragments of internal walls, ceilings and floors that collapsed around them and that the planes carried along with them as they penetrated the buildings.
Much of this material was plaster, a material with extremely poor heat conduction capacity.
All this debris probably formed a shield that kept the heat close to the aircraft and protected the rest of the building."

The fire


"So you believe that it was the aircraft themselves that became superheated, rather than the buildings?



"Yes I do. The disintegrated aircraft probably came to a stop near the centre of the buildings.
The materials along the track of the collision must also have burned.
But the really hot zone was where the aircraft came to a stop.

I believe that some of the aircraft's fuel tanks must have suffered major damage, but that most of them would have been cut in two when they met the steel beams in the buildings, and that the development of the fire was therefore fairly constant."

"I believe that the planes must have been lying in a sort of basin of material debris, with the floor of the basin two or three storeys below the one that they ploughed into.
The entire internal basin must have been heated by the burning fuel. Outside of the basin, the temperature would have been much lower."

"The aluminium alloy of the aircraft hulls, which also contains magnesium, melts at a temperature of 660o C. Experience gained from the aluminium industry suggests that it may have taken between half and three-quarters of an hour to reach such a temperature.

If molten aluminium is heated further to a temperature of 750o C, it becomes just as liquid as water.

I presume that this is what happened within the Twin Towers, and that the molten aluminium then began to run down into the floors below."

The explosions


"What happened then?"



"All the floors in the Twin Towers were equipped with sprinkler systems. All the water above the hot aircraft bodies must have turned to steam.
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.

From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."

"The aluminium would immediately react with the water, with the result of a local rise on temperature of several hundred degrees, in addition to the explosions that were due to the fact that these reactions release hydrogen.

Such reactions are particularly powerful when rust or other catalysts are present, which can raise the temperature to more than 1500o C."

"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. [ex/]
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.physorg.com...
edit on 22/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: LINKS



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CuriousEnigma
 



The collapse



"How could explosions in the centre of a building cause a whole tower to collapse?"



"Aluminium-water explosions are like dynamite explosions.

They were probably powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building.
The top section would than fall down on top of the sections that remained below, and the sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building."

The neighbouring building


"What happened in the case of the neighbouring WTC7 building?"



"WTC1 and WTC2 took huge amounts of aviation fuel, fragments of steel and, if my theory is correct, large quantities of molten aluminium when they collapsed.

When these materials and everything else fell some three or four hundred metres to the ground, they were squeezed between the upper and lower sections of the towers.

This led to the neighbouring buildings being bombarded by hot particles, fuel and probably also aluminium droplets.

Both large and small clumps of particles have since been found embedded in the walls of these buildings."

"WTC7 may have taken more of these impacts than the other buildings. At any rate, the building caught fire, which got out of control. In this case, the structural steel may have reached a temperature of more than 1000o C, over seven hours, and the 13th floor collapsed in the course of a minute.

In this case I do agree with the findings of the federal commission. Overheating of steel beams was probably the cause of the collapse."


www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 22/9/11 by Freedom_is_Slavery because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


At least it's new. Preposterous, reaching and incredibly weak, but new. They know that the existing story isn't holding up to well under light, so now we get this latest crock. There are cracks developing in their story, and so the best they can come up with is this? Looks good for the 'truthers'!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by yeebsy
 


oops my bad.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join