New theory on Twin Towers' collapse
Is the first MSM recognition of explosions since the initial reports on 9/11 itself?
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/new-theory-on-twin-towers-collapse
Explosions triggered by molten aircraft metal reacting with water from sprinkler systems may have felled the Twin Towers after the 9/11 attacks, according to a new theory.
Just before the two World Trade Centre skyscrapers in New York collapsed on September 11 2001, powerful blasts were heard within the buildings and a leading materials scientist says they could be the key to the dramatic conclusion of the terrorist attacks.
Over-heated steel beams have been blamed for the towers suddenly crashing to the ground after they were hit by two passenger jets.
But Norwegian expert Dr Christian Simensen believes the powerful explosions were caused by a chemical reaction between molten aluminium from the aircraft and water ripped out the buildings' internal structure.
Thoughts?
- scubadiver's blog
- Login to post comments
Blame it on a little fish
"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," Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway, said in a statement released Wednesday.
Simensen's theory in all its glory
Q and A with Simensen
http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/New-theory-explains-collapse-of-Twin-Towers/
Explosions? What Explosions?
“Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation." (Comment: But what about the very instant BEFORE they began their downward movement? -J.Cole)
Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Sprinklers? What sprinklers?:
“As maintenance and electrical workers talked to each other on their dedicated radio channel, one man trapped in a stairwell on the 103rd floor of the north tower called repeatedly for help.
"Open the stairway door," he called. The radio picked up his labored breathing, and he reported smoke rising. "People stuck in the stairway, open up the goddamn doors." Later he burst out, "Where's the f------ sprinkler system?"
Source: USA Today “Just-released transcripts give voice to the horror” 8-28-2003
interesting
It's interesting that the MSM is picking this up while being utterly silent on the powerful nano-thermite evidence. What's the agenda?
It's possible it could expose more people to questioning. I don't want to think about the downsides.
Such garbage
Here's one that came into my email via google alerts:
New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies
LiveScience.com
Many 9/11 conspiracy theories revolve around explosions that were seen and heard in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Despite scientific investigations that have explained the processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some conspiracy theorists suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" — that explosives had been implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what really brought them down.
Now a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific explanation for the mystery booms, and says his model of the Twin Towers collapse leaves no room for conspiracies. "My model explains all the observed features on 11th September: the explosions, molten metal coming out of the window, the time passing between the crash and the collapse, the fact that the explosions took place in a floor below the place it was burning, and the rapid collapse," Christen Simensen of SINTEF, a research organization in Norway, told Life's Little Mysteries.
As detailed in the new issue of Aluminum International Today, Simensen argues that molten aluminum from the airplane bodies chemically reacted with water in the buildings' sprinkler systems, setting off the explosions that felled the Twin Towers.
"a materials scientist has
"a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific explanation."….
I see your one scientist and raise you 1540+ Architects & Engineers.
Let em squabble...
"Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the best," said Thomas Eagar, a materials scientist at MIT who has also studied the fall of the towers. "I do not see any merit to this new, more-complex explanation.”
“Along similar lines, Zdenek Bazant, a professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern University who was first to model how fires could have caused steel columns in the towers to buckle (leading to the buildings' collapses), thinks that the official explanation suffices. "I've explained it in six papers in leading journals," Bazant said. In his opinion, all factors related to the collapse have been accounted for.”
And finally, those pesky experiments have a tendency to ruin some of the most beautiful theories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJzDYsQfck
Let them fight it out in free, fair and open fora
On the plus side:
- This Norwegian materials scientist sees the need to address the explosions - rather than just ignore them.
- His dripping aluminum theory is charming and provides meat for other materials scientists to get their teeth into.
What is interesting:
- The Daily Mail gives ample space to this Norwegian to espouse his theory. Being a member of the free, fair and impartial media, it behoves the Daily Mail to demonstrate its impartiality by giving space to Chandler, Cole, Harrit, Szamboti, Ryan and others to put forward their findings.
- If the Daily Mail does not do this - it demonstrates an appalling one-sided approach to the issue which gives a lie to the much-lauded 'free' British press - always ready to cover BOTH sides of the story in the interests of truth and democracy - or so it tells us.
- I have written to the Daily Mail telling them this - and suggest others do too.
A simple response
Re the new theory of aluminium/water explosions:
1. WTC 7. Simensen provides no explanation for the collapse of building 7 which had only minor fires and no airplane to provide fuel and aluminium.
2. WTC 1. Simensen assumes the presence of an upper block acting as a pile driver, just as the official report implies through its support of the Bazant paper. There was no upper block. The videos show explosions in the upper block and it collapsed before anything happened to the tower below the impact region. How could aluminium have migrated up above the impact region to cause its collapse?
Already Simensen's theory is dead. Point 2 also kills Bazant's theory, upon which the NIST report relied, as they did not do their own study of the mechanism of collapse. They stopped their investigation when the building was "poised for collapse".
3. The videos show that the explosions happened in layers, every third or fourth floor. Simensen's theory would produce events at random positions, not regular separations.
4. The videos show that the roof of WTC 1 came down at uniform acceleration. This requires a carefully timed descending sequence of explosions. Again this does not correspond with a random source of explosives.
5. Simensen provides no explanation for the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 a few minutes before collapse. This was iron, not aluminium.
6. Aluminium/water explosions cannot account for the finding of iron-rich microspheres in the dust. These are characteristic of the thermite reaction.
7. Simensen provides no explanation for the finding of nanothermite particles in the dust. There is no ordinary explanation for the presence of this material. It is explainable in the context of a controlled demolition in which the sharp crack of high explosive was to be avoided.
8. Aluminium/water explosion cannot account for the long duration of very high temperatures recorded by observers and USGS using sensers in aircraft.