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 Explains Collapse of World Trade Center's Twin Towers

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I have searched for this and apologies if it's been done so Mods please delete if necessary.

9/11 was one of the reasons I became a member of this site. To me there certainly has been reason for questioning and I might add that reasoning still continues and should.

This article linked however, in my opinion, draws us closer to some sort of conclusion.

The Article

When considered as a liquid, the molten aluminium along with other substances to me explains the majority of the phenomenon observed that day. To me I think it's now a reasonable conclusion that there was no pre-planning for the physical destruction of the towers or indeed 7. It has taken 10 years for science to explain things and that is disappointing, however I think it's time to put this element of the conspiracy to bed.

Cheers
edit on 22-9-2011 by myselfaswell because: typo




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


Really? You believe this? I don't.

More "pancake theory."



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


Honestly, it wouldn't have taken science that long to figure that scenario out, so no, I do not think this is anywhere near the truth.

We knew the properties of basic metals when the attack happened, the commission report (not backing it, in any way) would have easily figured that one out, if it were viable.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
They said Termite was found at the location....being a 16 year old, i assumed "OHHH Termite! some lab bought chemical" but it turns out its just aluminum and rust....not hard to come by in a big building like that.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Considering the depth of the science, yes I do believe this to be the explanation.

"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. Alcoa Aluminium carried out an experiment under controlled conditions, in which 20 kilos of aluminium smelt were allowed to react with 20 kilos of water, to which some rust was added. The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter." from the article linked.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by myselfaswell
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Considering the depth of the science, yes I do believe this to be the explanation.

"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. Alcoa Aluminium carried out an experiment under controlled conditions, in which 20 kilos of aluminium smelt were allowed to react with 20 kilos of water, to which some rust was added. The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter." from the article linked.

Cheers


Wow. That's crazy, yet totally awesome as long as no one died.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
My goodness, enough with 9/11 already. You had to 10 years to find the truth and you never will. Neither side will ever agree with one another. So, it's like a beating dead horse dry.

Yuh, nothing else interesting on ATS, so we have too drudge up the past over and over and over again.

You will never learn the truth and you will never find the truth. So, stop looking and let the dead rest.
edit on 22-9-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


How do random explosions cause the exact same outcome in two buildings, and what about WTC 7?

This is as bad as the 'natural thermite' from aircraft aluminium, and rust from the steel, OSers were peddling once upon a time.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


What brought down building Seven then?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBruddah
 


Thats explained in my thread New theory on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse: study , located here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBruddah
 


I'm trying to find the link, I'll bet back later when I find it.

Personally, this I don't think this is the end of the issue because what needs to be discovered and prosecuted is why it was allowed to happen.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


Apologies for the thread duplication. I did a search, zip. That whole search function is really starting to p!ss me off.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by myselfaswell
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Considering the depth of the science, yes I do believe this to be the explanation.

"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. Alcoa Aluminium carried out an experiment under controlled conditions, in which 20 kilos of aluminium smelt were allowed to react with 20 kilos of water, to which some rust was added. The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter." from the article linked.

Cheers


Yes, I read that, and I don't doubt that this is true. BUT... I don't see where it would explain sudden collapse as near freefall, the drippy metal that was filmed on one of the Towers that looked exactly like a thermite reaction, the explosions in the basements BEFORE the planes hit... The multitudes of firemen who saw and heard sequential explosions, squibs, and more.

Sure it sounds all fine and proper, but considering that They've tried a ton of explanations, none of which explain everything We saw (which, BTW, explosives do), We might want to raise a brow at this "explanation" at the ten year mark.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
After reading the theory on your post it said the building burnt to the ground? A steel building doesnt burn to the ground and it certainly wouldnt fall into its own footprint like that. Why did the trade centers collapse into a footprint when they had holes in the side of the building? They should have fell at an angle considering the structural weakness after the planes impact.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
My goodness, enough with 9/11 already. You had to 10 years to find the truth and you never will. Neither side will ever agree with one another. So, it's like a beating dead horse dry.

Yuh, nothing else interesting on ATS, so we have too drudge up the past over and over and over again.

You will never learn the truth and you will never find the truth. So, stop looking and let the dead rest.


Maybe You belong on a different site...? I mean if You feel so compelled to add this, which adds nothing, why be here?

And giving up seems a poor choice. Just let those criminals walk away scot free and drop the subject. Cool.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
this doesn't work, as the towers still violate newton's third law. the article assumes the same mode of collapse that NIST does, they're just saying the synchronous explosions on every floor that people heard was caused by a very lucky and timely combination of water and molten aluminum.



this caused the uppermost floors of the buildings to fall and crush the lower parts.


sounds like an attempt to placate the truth. first it was "there were no explosions" now it's "ok, there were explosions, but they definitely weren't bombs"
edit on 22-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
For 10 years they told us that there where no explosions and that those squibs were just pressure shooting out as it collapsed. Now they are saying that there was explosions and everyone is suppose to believe this? Use your head people. They are slowly retelling the original story to cover whatever mistakes that were made that day.

Example: Shanksfield, Penn. flight 93 is said to have been heading to the White House. I believe it was actually heading to WTC 7. It didn't make it's mark so they went ahead as planned and brought it down later that day. A ?terrorist? is said to have disclosed the target as being the White House. Since when would you trust this kind of source?
Use your head. The word "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" is used to label anyone who asks questions. There is nothing wrong with asking questions! Never let anyone make you feel like a fool for asking anything.
There are only two kinds of people. Leaders and followers. Which are you? I, myself, follow no man.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


The nay-Sayers are gonna come out of the wood works now lol! The linked article brings up a very interesting theory which in my opinion is absolutely possible. We may have known the elements involved, as another poster stated, however me not being an expert in physics or chemistry, to me this seems plausible. I do remember in chemistry certain elements mixing together could cause a nice explosion. The article gives an example of a controlled experiment of water, aluminum and rust and the damage it created. It threw in that people reported hearing explosions, something the OS denies even with hundreds of accounts of it being heard as well as the footage from news organizations. Could it be just another white wash? Sure, but I for one am interested in taking a look at other accounts on what some scientists or resident experts may believe. If controlled experiments are done that using proper physics can show that that is what happened, then I will believe it. Some people have been so invested in the theory that 9/11 was an inside job that they refuse to see a plausible explanation. I think most intelligent people doubt the official story considering so many things weren't taken into account, testimonies not being allowed, but for all we know that has to do with the intelligence side of the house. Whether our government had foreknowledge of what was going to happen, is a different piece to the same story. What took down the towers? In my opinion, this is a really good explanation of what might have happened. It could be that our government did know what was going to happen, or had an idea, but had NO idea that the towers would collapse given that they were built to withstand a larger aircraft hitting it. If the article is to be believed, with the roof of building 7 being so far below the towers and where they were hit, it is plausible to have some runoff onto it, and causing a similar reaction. With the damage done to building 7, it may have been cheaper to "pull it" and rebuild than to put out the fires and repair the damage. I am taking all the denials into account, maybe afterwards the guy that said "pull it" found out insurance wouldn't cover the building if it was demolished on purpose before an inspector could come in, so he changed the story. Then it would be defrauding the insurance agency and inadvertently fueled more conspiracy theories about what really happened. Greed and trying to maximize financial recovery in a major disaster to me does not necessarily make for a conspiracy. Just greed. Greed is a motivating factor in a conspiracy, but if it is one guy trying to protect his financial interests from a major disaster, that is not a conspiracy.
With all that being said, the conspiracy of covering things up like mistakes or purposely letting something happen like the hijackers get the planes in the first place, and the planes hitting the towers does need to be investigated more, and put an end to the gag orders so people can properly testify. But as far as the actual towers falling because of the planes hitting it seemed to be explained very well. This is one piece of the puzzle whose pieces seem to fit. Now if only we can get the rest of the story to find out which parts are conspiracy theory and which are conspiracy fact.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stinger94
 





I am taking all the denials into account, maybe afterwards the guy that said "pull it" found out insurance wouldn't cover the building if it was demolished on purpose before an inspector could come in, so he changed the story. Then it would be defrauding the insurance agency and inadvertently fueled more conspiracy theories about what really happened.


Do you know that it takes more than a few hours to set up a demolition? More like weeks. So how could they have done this so fast unless it was planned and set up for demolition at an earlier time? I believe it was.


edit on 22-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: to further expand on what I meant.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinger94
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


The nay-Sayers are gonna come out of the wood works now lol!


Well, when it has the same problems explaining what We saw as many of Their other attempts to explain it with no CD... Of course We will nay-say - or rather, just say nay.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join