| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: MSM finally recognises explosions |
 |
|
The theory is a bit lame though!!!! 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3827802/New-Twin-Tower-theor y-emerges.html
A NEW theory has emerged claiming to give the REAL reason the Twin Towers fell after the 9/11 attacks.
Just before the two World Trade Centre skyscrapers crashed to the ground on September 11, 2001, a series of huge blasts were heard in the buildings.
And a leading scientist says they could have been the sound of molten aircraft metal reacting with water from sprinkler systems in the towers.
The sudden collapse of the towers after they were hit by two passenger jets has previously been blamed on over-heated steel beams.
But Norwegian expert Dr Christian Simensen believes the violent chemical reaction between molten aluminium from the aircraft and water is what actually ripped out the buildings' internal structure.
_________________
Currently working on a new website |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ridiculous theory number 4 or 5 from the mainstream media... and the question is again - what about Building 7? !!! 
On a positive note ...perhaps people will come now across ae91truth... perhaps this is the start of "Them" to open up on 9/11. The collapses were so anomalous they can't forever claim it was fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just some of the flaws at a glance. How much Aluminium and fuel, most of the fuel burnt out seconds after impact. Wouldn’t it cool on its way down where there were no fires. Don’t sprinklers have sprinklers, that break under heat and relatively low pressure (it's how they work) and no high pressure can build up, like a fail-safe tear plate (weak point) on gas cylinders (and inert gas cylinders.) Has it ever happened before that sprinklers can blow up causing a building to collapse and collapse at free fall. Could this sprinkler idea be repeated in a genuine test.
http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/New-theory-explains -collapse-of-Twin-Towers/
| Quote: | According to a theory advanced by a SINTEF materials scientist, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminium from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.
Just before the two New York skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, leading many people to believe that overheated steel beams in the building were not the cause of the collapse.
The explosions fed the conspiracy theories that someone had placed explosives inside the towers.
At an international materials technology conference in San Diego, the audience heard senior scientist Christian Simensen of SINTEF Materials and Chemistry (picture) present an alternative theory based on the physics of materials of what happened in the towers when they were attacked by the aircraft. The SINTEF researcher believes that his theory is much more likely to reflect the actual situation than the official explanation of the collapse.
In the wake of the conference Simensen had an article published in the journal "Aluminium International Today", describing his theory.
Explosive meeting of molten aluminium and water
Simensen believes that it is overwhelmingly likely that the two aircraft were trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers. This leads him to believe that it was the aircraft hulls rather than the buildings themselves that absorbed most of the heat from the burning aircraft fuel.
The SINTEF scientist believes that the heat melted the aluminium of the aircraft hulls, and the core of his theory is that molten aluminium then found its way downwards within the buildings through staircases and gaps in the floor – and that the flowing aluminium underwent a chemical reaction with water from the sprinklers in the floors below.
“Both scientific experiments and 250 reported disasters suffered by the aluminium industry have shown that the combination of molten aluminium and water releases enormous explosions,” says Simensen.
Just before the two skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, Photo: Jim Collins / AP / SCANPIX
“Explosions demolished the towers”
Simensen continues: “I regard it as extremely likely that it was these explosions that made the skyscrapers collapse by tearing out part of the internal structure, and that this caused the uppermost floors of the buildings to fall and crush the lower parts. In other words, I believe that these were the explosions that were heard by people in the vicinity and that have since given life to the conspiracy theories that explosives had been placed in the skyscrapers.”
Practical use
“Could your theory be used to protect human life and material values if other skyscrapers are ever hit by large aircraft?”
“Yes, as a matter of fact it could. One lesson is that we could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors under the point of impact. Another possibility would be to fire in a rocket carrying a fire-retardant that would overlie the aircraft body and prevent the metal alloy from becoming overheated.”
Day of unreality
It was in the morning New York time on September 11, 2001, when two Boeing 767 passenger planes flew into the World Trade Center’s “Twin Towers” in Manhattan in New York. One hour later, WTC2 collapsed, followed after half an hour by WTC1.
Neighbouring buildings were bombarded by flying debris when the towers collapsed. The 47-storey skyscraper called 7 World Trade Center also caught fire and collapsed several hours later at 17.20.
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.”
Christian J. Simensen believes that the planes must have been lying in a sort of basin of material debris in the burning towers. Photo: Thomas Hinton / Zuma Press / SCANPIX
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 660 oC. 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 750 oC, 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 1500 ˚C."
“Aluminium-water explosions are like dynamite explosions. They were probably powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building", says Simensen. Photo: Amy Sancetta / AP / SCANPIX
"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."
“Many people in New York reported that they had heard explosions just before the buildings collapsed. Film taken of the buildings also showed explosions in the floor below the impacts. 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.”
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 1000 oC, 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.”
The way ahead
“Would it be possible to perform scientific experiments that can support your theory?”
“It would certainly be possible to look specifically for solidified droplets of aluminium and aluminium oxide in the walls of the neighbouring buildings. Experiments could also be carried out to find out whether fuel tanks are cut cleanly when they plough through a network of steel beams at a speed of 800 kilometres an hour. We could also test on model scale whether an object that ploughs through a room at extremely high speed becomes covered in debris from collapsed walls, ceilings and floors.”
By Svein Tønseth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 bit like the sea swallowing up the global warming in my opinion
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Disco_Destroyer wrote: | | bit like the sea swallowing up the global warming in my opinion |
Ye it don’t follow thermo dynamics. I don’t know how people can tell 1-2 degrees average over all. When the weather and seasons temp varies so much, even on a daily bases they change much more that that. And the months over the last 12 months here, one of the coldest Decembers on record, warmest April since records began, coolest August since I don’t know when. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This story is good news as you say-- acknowledging explosions. Maybe we are going to get some deliberately spoon fed explanations to these explosions.. Of course explosives wont be touched on.
we will get some lame explanation of how hani Hanjour managed to manouvre the big plane into the pentagon---- he tied the joystick to the chair at precisely the correct angle to cause the plane to curve and descend as it did.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: |
we will get some lame explanation of how hani Hanjour managed to manouvre the big plane into the pentagon---- he tied the joystick to the chair at precisely the correct angle to cause the plane to curve and descend as it did. |
BBC's QI destroyed the myth of 9/11cessna-trained hijackers taking over the controls - while also apparently acknowledging it... how bizarre is that. Ah-ha I found a quote!!!
| Quote: | | If you were on an aeroplane in which both the pilot and the co-pilot had fallen ill, it would be incredibly difficult for anyone else to land the plane down safely. Luckily, an incident such as this has never occurred in commercial airline travel history. Simulations have been carried out in the USA with people with civil private pilot licences. In these cases one person could not move the seat that moved them towards the control, another turned the radio off, and another turned off the autopilot and crashed the plane immediately. One of the first problems is getting into the cockpit, which is much more secure these days following 9/11. The pilot and co-pilot may be too ill to let you in. If the plane was on autopilot you could continue to fly level, but once you began to land people would talk you through the procedure, but there are so many variables that it is really difficult. There is however an auto-land system. The chances of an intelligent person landing the aircraft in such a situation are 1 in 10 if it is in autopilot, and 1 in 100 if it is not in autopilot. |
http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/9/2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mushroom
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting. The idea of explosions has been creeping in for a while. David Cameron slipped it into a speech to troops. Clip here:www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWWHtC1CIi0
and I think there have been other instances.
fish5133:
| Quote: | | Of course explosives wont be touched on. |
Exactly. Nor will the cause of the hot cloud of finely pulverized concrete be scientifically investigated (yet  ); or the need for precisely timed and set, sequential, continuous explosions; or the composition of the iron rich microspheres; the bone fragments on the Deutsche Bank roof...
The way this explosions idea has been slipped in shows that the perps realise just how obviously ludicrous the official story is - yet they're wary of editing it too quickly, lest Joe Public's suspicions be aroused too much.
9/11 Truth booklets, free to download:www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ac1039fd00817eecd2db6fb9a8902bda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakeymedia
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 Nov 2008
Posts: 222
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: Babylon grasps for straws |
|
|
Stay the course and hold the line people - they're getting desperate, mega-desperate.
Keep putting the info and the DVD's out there and we'll get the bast*rds yet! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A good article here:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-iraq-gulf-oil-spill-fukushi ma.html
| Quote: |
Why Do We Need a New Theory?
Simensen’s theory has received wide-spread media attention.
Most of the coverage focuses on the theory having the potential to explain the explosions and sudden collapse of the Twin Towers, and thus to debunk the conspiracy theories that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.
But this means that the official explanation for why the trade centers collapsed on 9/11 is inadequate … and doesn’t take into account the explosions or sudden collapse of the 3 buildings. In other words, the very fact that there is such a buzz about this theory shows that many don’t believe the “official” explanation really explains the collapse of the 3 buildings.
The New Theory Contradicts the “Official” Explanation
The “official” explanation assumes that the aluminum from the airplanes which crashed into the Twin Towers formed hundreds of thousands of shotgun-like blasts, pointed in all directions, to which sheared off all the fireproofing in a broad section on several floors.
That would have to happen quickly – before the metal was heated. Instead, Simensen’s theory hinges on the assumption that the aluminum from the planes cascaded down all at once – causing explosions when it hit water. |
As usual, multiple contortions with "coincidence" to explain the similar explosive events in both of the twin towers and ignoring - oh, yes... WTC7!!!! So officially, the Official Story is just a very vague theory and has as much support and credibility as arm rest made by Marcel Marceau.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marigold
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 239
Location: Aberdeen
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: MSM finally recognises explosions |
|
|
[quote="scubadiver"]The theory is a bit lame though!!!!
Yes and the very fact that the subtitle "Explosions" is even considered for print in a mainstream tabloid makes it suspicious.
And no, approx 80% of the towers were dustified and never hit the ground as rubble.
Gage/Jones et al dragging their feet for years and then when people get impatient for answers they give them a bite of the bait...then maybe in another ten years they might file a court case...in which case the NWO will be well on the way.
http://www.deps.org/index.html
_________________
"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marigold
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 239
Location: Aberdeen
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
STABS - Stupid TA Ba&$&0s. Weekend Warriors. They know nothing...unlike us ARABS - Arrogant Regular Army B$%^&*s.
_________________
"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: MSM finally recognises explosions |
|
|
| Marigold wrote: | | scubadiver wrote: | The theory is a bit lame though!!!!
|
Yes and the very fact that the subtitle "Explosions" is even considered for print in a mainstream tabloid makes it suspicious.
And no, approx 80% of the towers were dustified and never hit the ground as rubble.
|
I like the level of suscipion but there is no DEW that would explain the collapse of the twin towers or WTC7... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marigold
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 239
Location: Aberdeen
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: Re: MSM finally recognises explosions |
|
|
| Quote: |
I like the level of suscipion but there is no DEW that would explain the collapse of the twin towers or WTC7... |
Why because you don't like the idea that they very likely did bring down the towers?
Considering you are calling yourself "Scienceplease" you aren't interested in the science or the observations made through photographic evidence on 9/11.
Debunkers of DEW can't explain why truckloads of soil were brought into GZ and they can't explain why GZ was continually being hosed-down by water on the site as late as 2008. There can't of been molten metal because the hydraulic rams wouldn't be able to operate on the surface with that kind of heat and workman's boots would've melted.
The evidence (which many refuse to examine because they either don't like the idea-contrary to their claimed interest in the truth-or because the mainstream "9/11 Truth Movement" doesn't go along with it) is detailed in the scientific paper submitted with Qui Tam by Dr Wood, via Jerry Leaphart.
I give the link to the Professional Society for Directed Energy Weapons and it still doesn't enlighten folks.
I know that evidence for DEW bringing down the towers are not popular evidence, but since when has the truth ever been popular?
We can all point the finger at Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld at al, but this is not showing 9/11 was an inside job is it! Put options aren't proof, neither is building seven.
If WTC 7 was such proof of an inside job where's the court case to prove it? Yes, it does raise eyebrow's, but still where's the conviction in their argument. Gage is dragging his heels.
Remember, there is an energy cover-up going on you know.
Anyone who tries to debunk this post is definitely not interested in the truth. How ironic. 
_________________
"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
