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
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Yet another weak explanation for an obviously impossible event...that happend twice in 1 day!





posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
So they admit there were explosions?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery


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



First:::::::::::::: I am not trolling your thread to argue a point.

Second::::::::: I was an Aricraft Fire Fighter in the USAF and also in the private sector.

I dont think this theory holds water (pun) past a closed environment. Lets look at this with our logical minds. The amount of aluminum displaced by Burning Jet Fuel is relatively small . Simply stated the aluminum would vaporize during the burn.

I have no doubt that 20kg of aluminum in a molten smelt pot dunked into a barrel of water would cause an explosion...NO DOUBT AT ALL ........

More I offer that this theory is a DIS-INFO theory to hush Truthers as they close in on the TRUTH

Added content: No two Fire situations are alike...yes Fire is Fire but it reacts differently at different environments. Both the towers Fell Identically and #7 though not in this thread fell for no logical reason at all...too much environment and elevation of heat to make that one fall as cause by the twin Towers

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

edit on 22-9-2011 by mikeybiznaz because: added content and spelling



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mikeybiznaz
 



I dont think this theory holds water (pun) past a closed environment. Lets look at this with our logical minds. The amount of aluminum displaced by Burning Jet Fuel is relatively small . Simply stated the aluminum would vaporize during the burn.


This really depends upon what you are looking at on the aircraft. There are many different aluminum alloys used in aircraft construction.

Further - I grew up in the aluminum industry. There is a reason you don't see many wet-hearth furnaces these days - they are dangerous. Condensate on aluminum will react violently and cause popping/splashing when the bars are introduced to the furnace. A plant in Texas was leveled when a worker left a can of soda or coffee cup on some barstock that was then introduced to the furnace (somehow, the liquid was submerged into the molten metal).

Instead, dry-hearths are used, where the metal is exposed to heat and allowed to run, via ramp, into the furnace. This allows any moisture to evaporate and almost removes the risk of explosion.


I have no doubt that 20kg of aluminum in a molten smelt pot dunked into a barrel of water would cause an explosion...NO DOUBT AT ALL ........


There is a lot of aluminum on an airliner, and a lot of heat in that building. There was also a lot of water from the fire suppression systems.


More I offer that this theory is a DIS-INFO theory to hush Truthers as they close in on the TRUTH


.... Right. You all have been "closing in on the truth" since 9/12/2001 with holographic airplanes, missiles, and the GDI Ion Cannon (I # you, not - that theory is floating around here, somewhere).


Added content: No two Fire situations are alike...yes Fire is Fire but it reacts differently at different environments. Both the towers Fell Identically and #7 though not in this thread fell for no logical reason at all...too much environment and elevation of heat to make that one fall as cause by the twin Towers


A huge percentage of the tower's support came from the external mesh structure. This structure was fairly unique to the WTC construction. The mesh construction pretty much guarantees that any collapse of the tower will result in it falling "into its own footprint." Particularly in a "pancaking" scenario where the collapse is triggered in the upper sections of the tower.

Admittedly, the design of the towers was not really undertaken with the objective of creating a "in-footprint collapse" - but it turns out that the way the towers are built makes it nearly impossible to have anything other than a 'controlled' collapse.

My main grievance with the "truth" crowd is the simple illogical leap of faith. "I don't see how this could have happened randomly, therefor it must have been controlled." ... Somehow forgetting to address the glaringly obvious issue of: "how does one go about setting up a controlled demolition of a building, covertly, while it is in use? Or... failing that, how does one set up a controlled demolition of such a building inside of an hour while the damned thing is on fire?"

Given one seemingly implausible scenario, an even more implausible scenario is favored for reasons I don't completely understand. I suppose it's the drama - the anticipation of a "plot twist."



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


put an aluminum can into your fire pit. Not on the ground but in the fire. It really doesnt melt...I made my point and you offer nothing but argument in response............Nexxxxxxxxt


Better Yet call up J. Grier at Miami Dade Univ.Fire Science and ask him what would happen to an Aircraft under WTC crash environment
edit on 22-9-2011 by mikeybiznaz because: (no reason given)

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


Hey People I am not here to argue. I am a professional in my field. I have nothing to prove
edit on 22-9-2011 by mikeybiznaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I can't help but ask a few questions.
1) How hot does a fire need to be and for how long to establish a "flow of molten aluminum"?

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

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

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

I am not trying to "poo-poo" anyones alternative explaination, I just thought I would ask these fairly obvious question.

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?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mikeybiznaz
 



put an aluminum can into your fire pit. Not on the ground but in the fire. It really doesnt melt


A fire pit and a burning building are two different things. There are extreme thermal updrafts involved that will pull air (readily available due to broken windows) through - which can increase the temperatures inside of a fire radically, depending upon the conditions.

Take your average bed of charcoal. There is a reason why there are not many gas/charcoal hybrid grills. Gas grills control temperature by controlling the amount of fuel. Charcoal grills control temperature by regulating the airflow. A charcoal grill will easily get hot enough to melt aluminum if you provide it with enough air flow. Non-briquette wood charcoal is used by blacksmiths in lieu of black coal quite frequently. Depending upon the work to be done, you will need about three times as much (by volume) to accomplish the same job - but many blade smiths prefer to work with wood coals.

In a building like the WTC - you have a suspended, large fire that creates massive amounts of heat that serves as a sort of bellows. It will get hot enough to make aluminum run like mercury.


I made my point and you offer nothing but argument in response............Nexxxxxxxxt


Perhaps it would be wise to heed an engineer's words a little more, before shooting your mouth off.


Better Yet call up J. Grier at Miami Dade Univ.Fire Science and ask him what would happen to an Aircraft under WTC crash environment


... Should this person be noteworthy? Does he/she/it have a title, of some sort that should predicate some kind of merit to their opinion?

The world is full of more PhDs shocked by the results of experiments and real-world events than those able to claim everything went according to their predictions.
edit on 22-9-2011 by Aim64C because: Edited to further respond to an edit by the quoted



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Hey Hot Shot Engineer or youngster in school trolling Aluminum melts at 1200 deg F open air burn of Jet Fuel is 599 deg F MOVE ON
edit on 22-9-2011 by mikeybiznaz because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mikeybiznaz
 



Hey Hot Shot Engineer or youngster in school trolling Aluminum melts at 1200 deg F open air burn of Jet Fuel is 599 deg F MOVE ON


www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu...


In the combustion chamber, fuel is mixed with air to produce the bang, which is responsible for the expansion that forces the air into the turbine. Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius. The temperature at which metals in this part of the engine start to melt is 1300 degrees Celsius, so advanced cooling techniques must be used.


Hot air rises
draws oxygen into fire
make fire hotter
make air hotter - rise faster - draws even more oxygen - make fire even hotter - make air even hotter . . .

Dost thou comprehend?

We wouldn't use titanium in jet exhaust shielding if the much cheaper aluminum variety would suffice.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by mikeybiznaz
 



Hey Hot Shot Engineer or youngster in school trolling Aluminum melts at 1200 deg F open air burn of Jet Fuel is 599 deg F MOVE ON


www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu...


In the combustion chamber, fuel is mixed with air to produce the bang, which is responsible for the expansion that forces the air into the turbine. Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius. The temperature at which metals in this part of the engine start to melt is 1300 degrees Celsius, so advanced cooling techniques must be used.


Hot air rises
draws oxygen into fire
make fire hotter
make air hotter - rise faster - draws even more oxygen - make fire even hotter - make air even hotter . . .

Dost thou comprehend?

We wouldn't use titanium in jet exhaust shielding if the much cheaper aluminum variety would suffice.


if only you actually knew what you are talking about......if only you had a fire science degree



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mikeybiznaz
 



if only you actually knew what you are talking about......if only you had a fire science degree


A degree is an accomplishment. It is not the source of one's intelligence (or lack thereof).

Perhaps you should learn a little about fire before talking so much about it: www.doctorfire.com...


The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.


www.hsu-hh.de...


In all of the devices a fuel/Oxygen or fuel/air mixture is burnt in a combustion chamber under elevated pressures. Propane, Ethylene, Hydrogen, Propylene, Acetylene or Kerosene are some of the fuel choices, see Table 1 [5]. The maximum flame temperature in the combustion chamber is a function of the fuel/Oxygen ratio, the pressure in the combustion chamber, the size of the combustion chamber and the intensity of the cooling of the combustion chamber.


You'll have to forgive the references to jet engines, zoomie. I'm a Navy aviation guy (also trained in aircraft firefighting - whoopie) and a lot of my experience is in aviation-related concerns. Further - jet engines represent some of the most comprehensive studies of continuous-flames and the importance of fuel/air mix/supply rates.

When it comes to the WTC scenario, it is easy to see that the supply rate of oxygen is elevated greatly above "open flame burning temperature" (whatever standards are used to derive that - the figure is useless in almost all applications). A candle has a flame that can exceed 1,300 degrees - Celsius, for example. The same goes for a kerosene lantern.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

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



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


LMAO! Where did all the molten aluminum in WTC7 come from? This is another distraction by the MSM to try and discredit the real truth from being disseminated by experts. It cracks me up how FOX news just reported this but gave no mention to the real "controlled demolition" hypothesis. We really don't need another unscientific BS thread like this. The NIST report is enough BS to last a lifetime. I support Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ontarff
 



LMAO! Where did all the molten aluminum in WTC7 come from?


The two multi-hundred-ton aircraft composed primarily of aluminum alloys, perhaps?


This is another distraction by the MSM to try and discredit the real truth from being disseminated by experts.


The thing is that people disagree. We can demonstrate, factually, that aluminum will melt and react violently with water (particularly when in the presence of iron-oxide, better known as rust) to cause an explosion. We can establish, factually, that all were present in the WTC - including aluminum in the molten state.

The disagreement among experts will come from the likelihood of such an event and its relevance in the grand scheme of things.

I, for one, find the "fire am hot, it are make steel soft" to be the most important consideration. I think it's rather unlikely that we would have seen reactions violent enough under such conditions to really play a major role. The media seems to be drumming up the 'theory' to be more than what it is.


It cracks me up how FOX news just reported this but gave no mention to the real "controlled demolition" hypothesis.


There's no need to. The ones who can't accept reality have already found refuge within various "truth" movements surrounding the WTC and Pentagon events.


We really don't need another unscientific BS thread like this.




You have no idea how accurately that describes how I feel about the "truther" crowd.


The NIST report is enough BS to last a lifetime. I support Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth.


Great. They can build/wire/site your house. I'll stick with people who understand basic concepts of structural engineering.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Aluminum from aircraft hulls??? What about building 7.??? I didn't read the article but i assume they just ignored 7 like all the govt shills do.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 



Aluminum from aircraft hulls??? What about building 7.??? I didn't read the article but i assume they just ignored 7 like all the govt shills do.


What about the two ginormous towers that fell right next to said WTC 7? It isn't even the topic of this thread - but the fact that two large buildings collapsed and damaged WTC 7 seems to be ignored by most wanna-bes in the "truther" movement.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I saw this theory on a tv show called "The Missing Evidence".It can be found on you tube for those who are interested.

That said,I don't buy it.What really did it for me was when the show contacted NIST they stated the plane disintegrated upon impact.If they are to be believed,then there was no molten aluminum.But in the report they contradict themselves when explaining the molten metal seen flowing from one of the towers.They explain it as molten aluminum from the fuselage.

They also contacted the port authority to see if they could examine the WTC scrap to test it for evidence of an aluminum-water explosion,and they were turned down.Why?After all these years,why can't it be tested?Wierd and fishy IMHO.

The link to the video:The Missing Evidence



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: yeebsy

Just curious but don't you guys use some sort of foam additive so things like that don't happen ?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Freedom_is_Slavery

Such nonsense, I have witnessed many superexpansion explosions caused by water ENCLOSED by molten aluminium. All it does is send molten aluminium flying through the air. It does not cut steel.

Also this has supposedly happened at the bottom of the buildings but they collapsed from the top down.


edit on 14-2-2015 by IPFreely101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Oooooops

Building seven.....lets stick with not making it worse...controlled demolition...nothing more...nothing less.....

First all that is required...is explain CD away...then investigate mechanism..

Thermite...nukes...bluebeams...aliens...makes never no mind....it was controlled demos on all counts....steel strutures do not symetrically colapse from fire...so therefore...the government lied to the people...and to those whom think otherwise are in denial.
edit on 062828p://f32Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join