A new theory has emerged claiming to give the real reason the Twin Towers collapsed.

Note: This is a new theory being floated around in the media to attempt to explain the sound of explosions and molten metal at ground zero. I do not support this theory


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.


Dr Simensen, from the SINTEF institute based in Trondheim, Norway, said: "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."

Almost 3,000 people died after al-Qaeda terrorists flew two fuel-laden planes into the World Trade Centre in Manhattan.

The impacts triggered massive explosions and fires, but the subsequent collapse of each tower came as a shock to those watching the disaster unfold.

Blasts heard just before the buildings fell have led to conspiracy theories that explosives were set off inside the towers.

But Dr Simensen believes after crashing into the skyscrapers the two jets would have been trapped within an insulating layer of debris.

As a result, the aircraft hulls rather than the buildings absorbed most of the heat from the burning aviation fuel.

It is then claimed molten aluminium from the jets, flowing down through staircases and gaps in the floors, reacted with water from emergency sprinklers on the lower levels.

Dr Simensen, who presented his theory at an international materials conference in San Diego, California, said: "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."

Also Covered:



...that airplane aluminum, after it was initially shredded precisely like shot from 15 blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun, ripping off every stitch of insulation even on the backside of the columns, reformed itself into larger pieces as it heated up in that fateful hour. Suddenly the sprinkler system sprang to life, with its soothing water focused directly on that molten aluminum which had ample time to coalesce into series of pools at critical columns, creating a cacophony of explosions that previously went undetected by NIST.
Coincidently one intrepid aluminum pool managed to escape that cooling water, and poured outside about 7 minutes before the south towers final destruction, combining with wood paneling and desks, causing it's molten flow to look exactly like molten iron. Incredibly the pulsating jets of water, synchronistically timed as it exploded those aluminum pools, blew out the floors thrusting massive perimeter panels hundreds of feet, while turning acres of concrete into powder. Yet small gobs of aluminum doggedly clung to key points on the spire of core columns which stood tall long after the main floors fell, finally exploding from the humidity, dropping those very last remnants of a once proud icon, straight down.
Alas dear reader heed my warning, and be ever vigilant when flying a jet plane with hot engines through a rainstorm, or this same tragic fate could happen to you.


Lamest one yet!... (edit: the article, not Jon's reply)

But anyways, NIST said there weren't any explosions, so how could that be?...

In any case, good advise Jon. Yet another reason to avoid planes!!!

Great writeup Cole.

The debunkers can submit this for their peer-reviewed paper.


1) NIST should have been aware of this info re: aluminum/water; did it rule it out? NIST provided no explanation for the alleged 'global collapse' sequence, it just asserted it happened following 'initiation'.
2) Simensen, a materials scientist, is rejecting NIST's theory about the cause of collapse.

"In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust. "The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said. By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations." http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html

3) It seems extremely unlikely, as Jon Cole suggested (I'm assuming the comment was sarcastic ; ) that the aluminum in a plane being shredded and exploded to bits (most probably weighing fractions of an ounce, though some might weigh pounds), while it's simultaneously turning the inside of an office building into chaos, could be combined into the controlled conditions that facilitated the kind of explosion Simensen references. Probably sprinklers were going off, water pipes had burst, and some aluminum may have melted, but the fires weren't that hot or that extensive. Even considering that some of the aluminum cladding from the WTC walls was probably carried into the building doesn't seem it would make a difference. Perhaps there were some aluminum/water reactions, but it seems even less likely that this could have led to the massive explosive forces witnessed consistently blowing apart both WTC towers all the way to the ground.

Some kind of controlled demolition is still the only reasonable explanation, but it's interesting that certain people are rejecting the NIST report, even as they grasp for explanations other than CD.

Simensen has published a number of articles:

This is the article referenced in the Physorg/Vancouver Sun posts (they're duplicates):
"Why the World Trade Center collapsed" by Christian Simensen in Aluminium international today: the journal of aluminium production and processing, ISSN 1475-455X, Vol. 23, Nº. 3, 2011 , pages 45-48

I can't find a place to download this yet, perhaps cuz it's new; if anyone does, please post a link.

For once, it's nice to see a wacky theory

coming from the other side, instead of coming from the 9/11 Truth side (like video fakery, holographic planes, beams from space, etc.)!

In one respect I think this is a huge step forward

MSM recognition of explosions!!!!!!! That is important

Simultaneous Focus Of Major Energy Needed To Destroy WTC

Many of the reported WTC explosions occurred below the fire zones and even within the WTC sub-levels. And most of the aircraft aluminum apparently settled inside of the north or south exterior face impact zones of WTC 2 and WTC 1 respectively. There is no visible evidence of any massive explosions pre-collapse in these areas.

The WTC vertical support core columns were massively strong.

Breif fires can't seem to explain their fire zone failures and the relatively slow release of potential energy contained with the mass of 20-30 burning floors of each WTC tower, can't seem to explain the total destruction of 80-90 floors of redundant structure below the fire zones.

At least some in the media now seem almost desparate to find alternatives to the major evidence of "inside job" WTC demolitions.

New Twist, Old Theory

So another "reason" that precipitates the pile-driver theory. Weak.

At least t the reported explosions are beginning to be acknowledged in the mainstream....


regular sequence?

And this meeting of molten aluminium with water was able to occur on every third or fourth floor apparently, judging by the way the puffs ejected. Very clever stuff!

I have done experiments with molten aluminum

as many of you may recall. These were reported in lectures AND in my first paper on 9/11 studies, now in Griffin and Scott's book and available also in J911Studies.

I would need to see this technical report before I would give this any credence:

"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."

I need to see the actual report first, as I am quite skeptical that they would perform this in a lab that might be destroyed (and was destroyed, it is claimed), and skeptical of the size of the crater also.

I have personally, with Wes Lifferth and students, poured molten aluminum onto WET wallboard material sitting on rusty steel, and there was NO violent reaction whatsoever. Thus, my experiments of several years ago tend to contradict the latest (wild) claims.

Best regards,

Steven Jones

What happens when..... ?

What happens when molten aluminum meets with water? Let's find out, this is what science is all about. No rust was added to my knowledge here, maybe that is the explosive catalyst?

Google, yahoo, and lycos searches find no results regarding this experiment regarding alcoa, but I sent a message via their contact, general information to see if there is any confirmation. I will post any response here.

Of course, the author of this paper doesn't take into account WTC7, I wonder if he even knows about it?

peace everyone.


Question for Professor Jones [public ATM experiment]

This is a bit off-topic, but have you considered doing a public ignition of WTC thermitic chip material in a calorimeter?

The experiment could be video-taped by media outlets (even if small--though larger if possible), and could be attended by as many scientists as you could bring in. The chips might not provide much direct visual excitement--if they can even be seen-- but the scientists' reaction to the calorimeter reading could prove valuable.

Thanks for your work, sacrifices, and excellent experiments.

Tour of an aluminum plant

Around 2007 or early 2008, I had the opportunity to tour an aluminum plant. This small plant would take certain grades of aluminum scrap and remelt the aluminum for certain industrial applications (extrusion billet). http://www.hydro.com/en/About-Hydro/Hydro-worldwide/USA/Commerce/

The plant had a policy that no soda cans nor cigarette lighters could come onto the property, because of potential problems caused by contamination in the remelt.
It was quite a sight to see a large pond of molten aluminum.

Prior to the walking tour, I asked if they ever had problems with thermitic reactions from contaminants such as rusty iron. The administrator's eyes brightened up, pleasantly surprised by the question. She stated that yes, there have been instances where this occurred. She explained that it would cause all kinds of problems with the melt, such as spattering violent reactions, temperature change of the melt, etc.

I think that a lot of questions regarding the nature of molten aluminum could be answered by people in the industry.