New theory on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse: study

New theory on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse: study

Read more: www.vancouversun.com...

I think we can dispose of this theory very quickly, it sounds too ridiculous for words.

Anyone like to comment?

reply to post by Alpha20mega


Wow, nice to see you can cast aside a theory without any explanation other than "too ridiculous for words"!

Not that I necessarily support the theory, but why, exactly, is it ridiculous?

I think the most compelling argument against it would be that both buildings went down in very similar fashion, and I'm not sure this theory can account for that.

reply to post by Alpha20mega


TG Daily is also running with this story.....

"Twin Towers brought down by molten aluminum, says scientist"
www.tgdaily.com...

"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."

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," says Simensen.

"Given that the amount of aluminium involved was large in comparison with the quantity of water, and since rust was probably also present, I believe that it is highly likely that the building collapsed as a result of a series of extremely energy-rich aluminium-water explosions."

Interestingly, ALCOA when performing their 'test' added rust to the mixture... and most of us may have already been acquainted with the fact that Iron Oxide (rust) plus Aluminum = Thermite.

It may be just another media ploy to get readership....but sometimes I have to wonder about these 'news' for profit types.....

It does carry the taint of plausibility.

The one problem with this new theory is it claims that sprinklers provided the water source, but Ive always heard there were no sprinklers in the towers.....just fireproof insulation and fire walls. So where did these sprinklers come from all of a sudden?

Hmmm...explosions ?

reply to post by Alpha20mega


I'll bite.

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.

Words fail me.

I have a theory, Zeus got mad at us for not praying to him anymore so he helped the terrorists by throwing invisible bolts of lightning at the towers, thus causing them to fall.

reply to post by Maxmars
Ah, so the invisible plane must have hit WTC7, then, with its invisible aluminum?

Any accounting for how the aluminum mysteriously distributed itself through the building (nevermind, I guess it must have followed the jet fuel down the elvator shafts and gotten off at every floor) or swiss-cheesed the steel throughout?

I suppose some more research on this option is called for, and it's definitely better than most of the other junk they've tossed out, when they even bothered...but plausible? I have to stretch to call it that when everything's taken into account.

reply to post by Alpha20mega

I think we can dispose of this theory very quickly, it sounds too ridiculous for words.

Look! They came out with a theory even more ridiculous than the "pancake theory" and already there are OSers on this thread who want to consider it. I wasn't what you called an attentive student in high school, but it seems as though some people retained literally nothing from their high school physics class.

If there was anything to this someone would have proposed it ten years ago. This is just more campaigning slight of hand, but I guess some people are just suckers for magic shows. Personally I outgrew this affinity by about the age of eight.

Let's see, enough aluminum in two planes to magically transform 400,000 tons of steel during an open air fireball fueled by hi test kerosene. Oh yeah, I can see it is possible. BTW I have some swampland for sale with a really pretty view. Anyone interested?

can we just build another set of twin towers and run another set of planes into them to finally do a real test? I'm tired of these home experiments. Let's just do the real thing.

reply to post by Absco
heh.

You have no idea how many times I've though the same thing. "Where can we find a willing multi-billionaire conspiracy theorist to set this straight once and for all..."

reply to post by Praetorius

Ah, so the invisible plane must have hit WTC7, then, with its invisible aluminum?

Ah, yes. I never thought about an invisible plane. That must have been it! Well, mystery settled. Good job man. Does this make Bush a good guy now? Just wondering.

BTW the above is sarcasm of course.

Thanks guys.

That was quick.

I suspect we can ditch this one already!

I thought Thermite was made of Aluminum Oxide and Iron oxide, not just plain aluminum, plus I thought explosive nano-thermite was discovered in the dust of ground zero, not your regular backyard job. Nano particles can only be manufactured en masse by advanced refinement techniques employing nano-screens that filter out all but near mollecular sized particles of Al Oxide, Sulphur, Fe Oxide, and a few others. Besides, other aluminum aircraft have struck sprinklered buildings and no thermite reaction was observed.

reply to post by gravitational


I see the point you are trying to get across. But it does not hold water

Here is why.

The video shows a small aluminum rod submerged in a bucket of water. In order to get the effects shown in the video, you would need the beams in the Twin Towers to be completely submerged in water. I wasn't in the buildings when it happened, but common sense dictates that the amount of water those sprinklers were spraying was not enough to cause the same results in your quoted video. If there was enough water to do this, we would have seen water gushing out the side of the building onto the streets of Manhattan.

Nice try though

Sorry if my post wasn't scientific enough, I am more of a math guy

reply to post by Praetorius


give me 10 more years to reach the financial ladder. I'll do the 20 year anniversary of 9/11 and we'll do the real test experiment. Just to be safe, we should build 4 towers, one set normal, and then the other with explosives. Just so we can do a comparison again.

reply to post by Alpha20mega

I suspect we can ditch this one already!

Don't be so quick... If the OSers get together you could still end up with an awesome amount of S+F out of it. Not that I think that was your purpose at all. Just sayin' I have seen thinner threads run all day before.

Anyway, take the stars if they come, you can't turn them down and they are nice to have.

I wouldn't be too quick to discount this theory. Under certain conditions Aluminum is flammable and might have provided the extra heat needed to weaken the Steel in the damaged areas of the towers. One of the first things you learn about dealing with a metal fire is that you don't use water to extingush it because it can cause an explosion.

A hot metal / water explosion happens because the oxygen and hydrogen in the water are separated. If there is an ignition source the hydrogen will explode.

If the metal was hot enough, and there was an open flame near that bucket in the video, there could have been an explosion.

There were no explosions just prior to the collapses, so I don't think this is a good theory.