Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2014, 07:51:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies  (Read 3160 times)
Eric15210
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1207


poor people are crazy I'm eccentric


View Profile
« on: September 22, 2011, 08:15:20 PM »

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. [Did Nostradamus Really Predict the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks?]

Chain of events

When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).

"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.

Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.

This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."

The third tower

A third building, World Trade Center 7, fell eight hours after the others. Scientists explained that this happened because of fires that ignited in the building upon the collapse of WTC 1, but some conspiracy theorists take it as further proof that the impacts of the hijacked airplanes weren't what brought any of the buildings down.

Simensen says his theory does not challenge the accepted scientific explanation of the collapse of WTC7.

"The official governmental report said the collapse [of World Trade Center 1 and 2] was due to overheating steel bars in the buildings and did not mention anything about explosions. Their theory can be used to explain why WTC7 collapsed. This collapse took place after eight hours of fire and was much slower than the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2," Simensen wrote. [10 Ways 9/11 Impacted Science]

Fiery reaction

Simensen's new collapse model has not gained immediate acceptance by proponents of earlier models.

"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. Any firefighter trying to extinguish a fire without having the water or the electricity shut off will tell you that there will be periodic explosions from inside the building. I don't need to invoke some water/molten aluminum theory to explain this."

Eagar also objects to the notion that the aluminum, if it did melt, would definitely have reacted with the water it encountered. Most of the time when water is sprayed on molten aluminum, "there is no explosion because the water turns to steam and excludes the oxygen, preventing the growth of the combustion," he said.

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.

But not everyone in the industry agrees with the simpler, official explanation. Roughly 1,600 architects and structural engineers across the country, who have banded together in a group called "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," say it does not fully account for the buildings' collapses. With so many people looking for answers, Simensen's alternative theory is likely to receive further attention and study.


http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html?cache=clear

Report to moderator   Logged

RIP Bob Probert
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 79909


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2011, 08:23:57 PM »

well if some guy in norway says it, we should listen to him.

when tens of thousands of american PHDs say it.... well, that's just nonsense.
Report to moderator   Logged

Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17667


"Big" Roger F. Neegars


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 05:48:37 AM »

Soooooo now it's excepted that there were explosions?

I thought that was just dumb CT talk?

Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20045


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2011, 06:01:02 PM »

PIP I am sure you get the distinction between the CT talk about explosions and this particular explanation.
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17667


"Big" Roger F. Neegars


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2011, 06:28:33 PM »

PIP I am sure you get the distinction between the CT talk about explosions and this particular explanation.

I don't?

Either it's accepted that there were explosions, or it's not.  This guy is trying to debunk explosions that apparently didn't even happen? Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20045


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2011, 06:37:21 PM »

I don't?

Either it's accepted that there were explosions, or it's not.  This guy is trying to debunk explosions that apparently didn't even happen? Huh

How many types of explosions are there?  Haw many different ways is the word explosion used?

When CT'er say they were explosions on he WTC they were saying there were explosions because people went in before 9/11 and planted them.  That's why that theory is dimissed as aNutty CT because the plaisible evidence of that happening is virtually non existent save for rhetorical argument and weak
conjecture.

This report provided an explanation for the squibs and the sound of explosions heard as a result of the crash.

Do you see the distinction now?
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17667


"Big" Roger F. Neegars


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2011, 06:55:33 PM »

Do you see the distinction now?

No, I honestly don't.  The word "explosion" doesn't appear anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report. 



Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20045


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2011, 06:59:29 PM »

No, I honestly don't.  The word "explosion" doesn't appear anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report.  


What does that have to with anything?

CTers are saying there was explosions caused by Previosly planted bombs.  This guy is saying here was explosions cause by molten aluminum from the planes that contributed to the collapse.  

Why is this so hard?
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17667


"Big" Roger F. Neegars


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2011, 07:02:07 PM »

What does that have to with anything?

CTers are saying there was explosions caused by Previosly planted bombs.  This guy is saying here was explosions cause by molten aluminum from the planes that contributed to the collapse.  

Why is this so hard?

The explosions themselves are just part of a conspiracy theory.  There's no explaining something that didn't happen.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20045


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2011, 07:17:37 PM »

The explosions themselves are just part of a conspiracy theory.  There's no explaining something that didn't happen.

So?  What does that have to do with understanding the distinction between this guys theory and the CT CTers assert?
Soooooo now it's excepted that there were explosions?
I thought that was just dumb CT talk?


His theory of explosions are not related to "dumb CT talk".   He acknowledges there were explosions and provides an explanantion.  The CTer explanation is considered nutty.  2 different things.



Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17667


"Big" Roger F. Neegars


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2011, 05:47:33 AM »

So?  What does that have to do with understanding the distinction between this guys theory and the CT CTers assert?

His theory of explosions are not related to "dumb CT talk".   He acknowledges there were explosions and provides an explanantion.  The CTer explanation is considered nutty.  2 different things.

His opinion is just fine, as long as you accept the fact that he's just another conspiracy theorist. 
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20045


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2011, 06:00:08 AM »

His opinion is just fine, as long as you accept the fact that he's just another conspiracy theorist. 

How is he just another CTer?

The 911 commission report didn't cover every single detail of 911. Maybe some of the drafts included issues that didn't make the final copy.  I donno.  Maybe they didn't think those explosions were relevant as they were a probable occurrence considering a jet plane full of fuel had just crashed into the upper floors.

So to say he is a CTer simply because he attempted to explain an issue not on the official report is bogus. 

So I apologize because your original point seems empty when you said:
Quote from: P.I.P
link=topic=396212.msg5599587#msg5599587 date=1316782117
Soooooo now it's excepted that there were explosions?

I thought that was just dumb CT talk?




Saying there were explosions is not dumb CT talk.  Saying there were bombs planted in the building Prior to 911 is proven or supported by some survivor's of hearing explosions is considered dumb.

This guy gave a reasonable explanation based on evidence and science NOT conjecture or rhetoric.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24783



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2011, 07:18:27 AM »

well if some guy in norway says it, we should listen to him.

when tens of thousands of american PHDs say it.... well, that's just nonsense.
well if a small % of phd's in america says it, we should listen to them

when the vast majority of phd's here and abroad say it...well, thats just nonsense

fucking moron!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2011, 06:10:51 PM »

when the vast majority of phd's here and abroad say it...

Interesting.  Do you have a link?
Report to moderator   Logged

tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24783



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2011, 02:12:06 PM »

Interesting.  Do you have a link?
start with NIST and go from there...Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2011, 02:34:44 PM »

start with NIST and go from there...Roll Eyes

You said: "...the vast majority of phd's here and abroad say (that the WTC failings were consistent with being hit by airplanes)"

Meaning that all or nearly all PhDs worldwide were surveyed about the failings of these buildings and the "vast majority" of them agreed that it was caused by airplanes.

Maybe such a survey took place.  I don't know.  That's why I asked for a link.
Report to moderator   Logged

tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24783



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2011, 02:44:36 PM »

You said: "...the vast majority of phd's here and abroad say (that the WTC failings were consistent with being hit by airplanes)"

Meaning that all or nearly all PhDs worldwide were surveyed about the failings of these buildings and the "vast majority" of them agreed that it was caused by airplanes.

Maybe such a survey took place.  I don't know.  That's why I asked for a link.
it was hyperbole, it is clear that the majority of ppl understand that it wasnt explosives etc...

the post I was commenting on said 10's of thousands of US phd's say something else...

why did you not jump on that comment as well?

let me guess youre one of the morons who buys into the hologram scenario?

maybe you can take OZ up on his challenge and be the one that puts it all together? Roll Eyes Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2011, 04:13:15 PM »

it was hyperbole, it is clear that the majority of ppl understand that it wasnt explosives etc...

Is it clear?  Contrary evidence aside, and beyond the fact that most people are unqualified to make a meaningful decision about the subject, many people would tell you it goes against all of their instincts.

Whether it's "clear" or not probably depends upon where you stand.

the post I was commenting on said 10's of thousands of US phd's say something else...

why did you not jump on that comment as well?

If there are approximately 1800 contributing members of the AE group, meaning professionals who are willing to take on the possible stigma of having their names attached to such a controversial group, despite the potentially damaging financial consequences that could be linked with that attachment, and you logically assume that there are several like-minded people for each one of those members, the figure sounds conservative at best.

let me guess youre one of the morons who buys into the hologram scenario?

I don't know what that is.

maybe you can take OZ up on his challenge and be the one that puts it all together? Roll Eyes Wink

I've commented on it.  It could get interesting, but it would take more people than this particular board has. 

As I say, overly fragmented boards are annoying as hell.  This fantasy quest for "order" just buries good topics.
Report to moderator   Logged

tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24783



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2011, 04:20:19 PM »

Is it clear?  Contrary evidence aside, and beyond the fact that most people are unqualified to make a meaningful decision about the subject, many people would tell you it goes against all of their instincts.

Whether it's "clear" or not probably depends upon where you stand.

If there are approximately 1800 contributing members of the AE group, meaning professionals who are willing to take on the possible stigma of having their names attached to such a controversial group, despite the potentially damaging financial consequences that could be linked with that attachment, and you logically assume that there are several like-minded people for each one of those members, the figure sounds conservative at best.

I don't know what that is.

I've commented on it.  It could get interesting, but it would take more people than this particular board has. 

As I say, overly fragmented boards are annoying as hell.  This fantasy quest for "order" just buries good topics.
blah blah blah ba fucking blah!!!

LOL so now 1800 is 10's of fuking thousands? nice idiocy there...

ask 240 to explain the hologram scenario to you it will add yet another ct feather to your tin foil hat Wink

all it takes is one person to come up with a coherent theory, one that isnt debunked in 10 secs with google...

maybe you could be the one
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24783



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2011, 04:27:41 PM »

Lets see nist employees about "2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. About 1,800 NIST associates (guest researchers and engineers from American companies and foreign nations) complement the staff. In addition, NIST partners with 1,400 manufacturing specialists and staff at nearly 350 affiliated centers around the country."

Seeing as they came out and disagreed with the mental retardation that is the explosives movement and assuming that there are of course like minded ppl out there then is certainly seems plausible...Wink

LOL
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2011, 08:00:42 PM »

blah blah blah ba fucking blah!!!

LOL so now 1800 is 10's of fuking thousands? nice idiocy there...

ask 240 to explain the hologram scenario to you it will add yet another ct feather to your tin foil hat Wink


What exactly have I said to make you this angry?
Report to moderator   Logged

MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2011, 08:06:10 PM »

My god you don't even have to argue about how the twin towers came down.  Just follow the fucking money trail and look what has happened since.  It was all planned and orchestrated on purpose.  By who?  Who the fuck cares.  There were definitely criminal elements inside the CIA, DoD etc. that were in on it.  We had the biggest increase in government bureaucracy this nation has ever seen......the creation of the DHS and TSA.  9/11 gave us the patriot act which allows us to go into any country we deem necessary and remove anyone we deem a "terrorist" with ties to Al-CIAda.  My god......who the fuck cares about what took the twin towers down.  It means nothing. 
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24783



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2011, 08:13:46 PM »

My god you don't even have to argue about how the twin towers came down.  Just follow the fucking money trail and look what has happened since.  It was all planned and orchestrated on purpose.  By who?  Who the fuck cares.  There were definitely criminal elements inside the CIA, DoD etc. that were in on it.  We had the biggest increase in government bureaucracy this nation has ever seen......the creation of the DHS and TSA.  9/11 gave us the patriot act which allows us to go into any country we deem necessary and remove anyone we deem a "terrorist" with ties to Al-CIAda.  My god......who the fuck cares about what took the twin towers down.  It means nothing. 
well that solves it I guess
Report to moderator   Logged
MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2011, 08:21:33 PM »

well that solves it I guess

No.......it's like the JFK assassination.  Who cares?  It was all bullshit.  The government lied.  JFK was not killed by a lone gunman period.  9/11 happened.  We will never prove one way or the other how it happened and by who.  But look at where it's taking our country, fighting useless wars all over the world going after "al qaeda" to avenge the deaths of 3000 Americans.  For fuck's sake for as religious as American idiots are they should believe in an eye for an eye right?  I'm sure we've avenged and killed plenty of terrorists and probably 2-3 times as many innocent men, women and kids as were lost on 9/11.  In other words how long is this fucking payback gonna last?  How much is it gonna cost....officially speaking i..e if you believe the government spewed garbage.  Enough is enough.  That's just it....9/11 was so much more than a lone act of 14 terrorists.  It has allowed us to go in and carve up the middle east and now Africa.  We build a multibillion dollar embassy in Iraq....the biggest most expensive ever.......yet we claim as a nation we are not occupiers.......LMAO!  Whatever...........
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2011, 08:24:15 PM »

Lets see nist employees about "2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. About 1,800 NIST associates (guest researchers and engineers from American companies and foreign nations) complement the staff. In addition, NIST partners with 1,400 manufacturing specialists and staff at nearly 350 affiliated centers around the country."

Seeing as they came out and disagreed with...the explosives movement and assuming that there are of course like minded ppl out there then is certainly seems plausible...Wink

LOL

Did NIST as a collective organization, a critical distinction to be made versus AE, do more than support the idea that it was possible for the buildings to fall without the need for explosives?  Think carefully here.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!