New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies

Interesting theory but it in no way puts an end to anything. To be quite honest no scientist could ever put the conspiracy theory to rest. There are too many other non-scientific factors involved here.

reply to post by Andronian


Why dont we get this guy to talk to Dr. Judy Wood.

Now that would be a conversation I'd like to sit in on.

Read her book ladies and gentlemen, it's all there how it was done.

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by spw184

 

One scientist against thousands of Architects, Structural Engineers, Fire fighters, and Pilots for 9/11 truth and you want to put all your eggs in this guys basket?

Go right ahead...

Oh right so people should put "all your eggs" in the basket of a conspiracy theorist with no actual proof. I have seen many assumptions and backyard scientist, but none of them have had any credible evidence to the contrary of the official story, contrary yes but not credible.

So what makes something "credible" in your eyes? The fact that they have told us for 10 years there were no explosions or now they say this is the reason for the explosions we told you that didn't exist. Wouldn't you call that contrary?

reply to post by spw184


It's entirely possible that the molten aluminum mixing with water caused an explosion up there, but that doesn't really account for the rest of the building collapsing. It's an interesting theory regarding the collapse initiation though.

Then he doesn't really bring anything new to the table when it comes to the collapse of WTC7....DEBUNKED FOREVER

The manner in which they fell is really inconsequential in light of the numerous peripheral and non-peripheral events....Even without explosives and sabotage for my money, you hit a building with a plane chances are she'll fall.

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


That's not true, there have been other occasions where an airplane hit a skyscraper and it didn't collapse. I know, these planes were big and had more jet fuel, but still there's no guarantee that collapse would even be initiated by an airplane impacting it, and the chances that both buildings would crumble to the ground is unlikely. And you've probably heard it 20 times, but the Twin Towers were also designed to withstand the impact of a slightly smaller and less massive aircraft.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I stand corrected then, happy to be humble rather than argue.

P.S I thought you were dead? Or ARE you the real Immortal Technique?

And with this theory anyone that has aluminum cans becomes a terrorist.
Put flammable in cans ignite, when fire department comes to put out flames, boom.
I don't think DHS would allow us to stockpile aluminum for recycling, or is that the plan?

from the OPs link:

"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.

----------------------------

According to NIST the sprinkler systems were disabled. How then does Simensen explain the mechanism for the molten aluminum interacting with the water in these systems? And the key elements of the WTC core steel that were retained and demographically labeled failed to show evidence that the temperatures NIST predicted as necessary for failure had been present on 9/11. The core steel evidence would therefore similarly fail to corroborate this new theory.

Originally posted by spw184


Read, divulge. And stop the endless bickering. There is no use in pointing fingers and its now clear that the goverment did not do it. This article and experiment tackle almost all truthers theories and seeing that this guy is a trustworthy scientist.. Ima have to trust him more than some college kid in his moms basement. OS-er gain another point. Yay yay yay!

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

'Cause this guy says so. Right.

Debunked forever? Hardly. More like yet another theory to explain what may have happened that day.

Don't forget the winds at that altitude blowtorching thru the floors who's windows were all blown out . All that fuel and plastic office furniture combined with the in rushing air fed the flames like a blast furnace driving temperatures high enough to begin plasticizing the steel. The fires whipped by the wind rushing into the flames worked on those girders on the most involved floors for almost an hour. And over an hour in the other tower.

Google blast furnaces to see how, without the in rushing air, the melting point temperatures are harder to reach. By adding the air flow at altitude thru the narrow openings of the broken windows on the windward side of the buildings a blast furnace like scenario was produced.

Even after the burning of combustibles the heat of the bed of coals that was all contained within, continued to work on the wind outflow side of the buildings, exposing the support girders to constant heat on that side. Observe that the wind direction never changed that day. The plume of smoke can be seen to drift steadily in the same direction until collapse occurred.

The falling sparks that could be seen near the end show that the metal, having been weakened was beginning to fold at that point under the enormous weight of all the floors above. Creaking, grinding, groaning, until, right there, the collapse initiated.

Then gravity took over. The collapse itself was like putting steel girders, car sized blocks of cement, glass, and office furniture in a blender on high. All the way to the ground it ground everything else in there to dust. Once settled in the basement, the enormous heat trapped in there began to rebuild and was not fully extinguished for (how long?)

Ths is the point that steel actually melted into pools, just like metal in a crucible (the basement).
Any mixing of elements or alloying of residue occurred in the blender like maelstrom of the collapse itself and the resultant melting deep in the cocoon of the debris pile.

There were no thermite charges placed in the building beforehand. The two components of thermite, Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder were mixed in the collapse and also melted together in the basement "melt".

There were no explosive charges used except the planes themselves. If that wasn't explosive enough for you I won't convince you anyways.

In all the dissertations of 9/11 I have never heard the blast furnace like heat effects of winds at altitude racing thru the buildings used before and thought I would windily use it here for you to make up your own mind.

Sad part is they may of just taught terrorists how to make explosions.

www.pyrotek.info...

reply to post by intrptr


Since when do blast furnaces produce thick, black smoke?

Doesn't matter, the Truther movement isn't going to give up or let go, they've already bought the T-shirts, bumper- stickers, DVDs, and books. Their sold and bought for.

reply to post by Elbereth


I was not going to post, but lets chime in.
Dont you try explaining that a furnace is called furnace because its not an open fire, but maybe they wont get it, so prepare some diagrams.

As said in the last week-s, Im so glad to see the OSrs cower and make some threads a day trying to "debunk", for ever, and in CAPS. Really enjoying it.

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by intrptr

 

Since when do blast furnaces produce thick, black smoke?

Blast furnaces are not stoked with jet fuel, plastic office furniture and copy machines.
There is a big difference in the fuel used, not the temps. achieved.

Thermite has some of these ingredients

Molten aluminum can also explode as a result of violent reactions with certain metal oxides, such as iron, lead, copper and bismuth.

He got some of the aluminum theory right.

reply to post by intrptr


Jet fuel produces barely no smoke, but thats depending on the engines, modern ones produce less smoke. Office furniture, plastics, etc, produce black smoke because of the combustion, true, but because it is at a very low temperature. If you really believe that you can get furnace conditions in any kind of open fire you have more than 1 problem there.

reply to post by spw184


What if I never thought they did it, but I thought they knew beforehand. Why did we go after Bin Laden like he was involved if he wasn't? He was a cia asset. This only disproves the crazier theorists.. If it really even does that.

I still can't find any pictures of melting airplanes.
Could you please show me one?