Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Government Twists Science of 9/11
09-27-2011, 03:42 PM,
#1
Government Twists Science of 9/11
Just As With Iraq, the Gulf Oil Spill and Fukushima – to Promote Its Policy Objectives

September 26, 2011

by Washingtons Blog

Governments Sometimes Twists Science to Promote Policy Objectives

Anyone who paid any attention to the claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Gulf oil spill or the Fukushima nuclear accident knows that the government often twists science to promote certain policy objectives, such as drumming up support for the invasion of Iraq or becoming a booster for nuclear power and big oil (and thus downplaying the damage from nuclear accidents and oil spills).

President’s National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis notes that the scientific method is to follow the facts where they lead, to adopt the theory which has the most proof, and to discard theories which are contradicted by the facts.

Margulis says that – in the case of 9/11 – the government has adopted theories which are backed by very little evidence, and refused to look at the most likely theory – the one backed by overwhelming evidence.

New Theory on Towers’ Collapse

Live Science reported last week:

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.

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.”

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.
Not the First Novel Theory

As I noted in 2008, this is not the first novel theory about the collapse:

First it was the “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion”.

Now, Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, says the Twin Towers collapsed due to “unusual magnetic forces“.

Specifically, as described by the BBC, Mr. Dudarev argues that:

“The peak in this pliability is at 911.5C, but begins at much lower temperatures, at around 500C (932F) - a temperature often reached during building fires.

The steel backbone of the Twin Towers was probably exposed to temperatures close to this, when insulating panels – meant to protect the buildings’ structural frame – were dislodged by the impacts of the hijacked planes.

The roaring fire mid-way up the building heated the steel struts, and once temperatures rose above 500C the structure became elastic, and collapsed under the force of the floors above.”

Is he right?

Well, as noted in Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

And Underwriters Laboratories tested the steel components at the Twin Towers and found they could withstand fires for hours without failure:

“NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140).

Other fire tests have also failed to cause failures, collapses or “unusual magnetic forces” at high temperatures.

[And no previous office fires - even ones which burned much hotter and much longer - caused the collapse of a modern steel-framed building]

The 2005 Madrid skyscraper fire “reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighter” (see pictures here), and lasted some 20 hours. Indeed, the fires in the Twin Towers were much cooler than many office fires, as indicated by the color of the flames and the black smoke pouring out of the windows.

As Steve Watson notes:

We have previously pointed to the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors for hours and remained standing. Seemingly the steel beams in these buildings were not subjected to the same “unusual magnetic forces”.

Furthermore, a far more extensive fire occurred in WTC 1 itself, prior to enhanced fireproofing of the building, on February 13, 1975. The fire burned at much higher temperatures for three hours and spread over six floors, including 65% of the 11th floor and the building core, yet it caused no significant damage to the steel structure and no trusses had to be replaced. There were no “unusual magnetic forces” present on that day.

***

Furthermore, referring to the collapses, the original NIST report concluded that ‘the existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role’”.

Any “thermal expansion” at the World Trade Center was not a new phenomenon, but something that building designers and fire safety engineers have taken into account for decades if not hundreds of years.

Likewise, any “magnetic forces” at the WTC should have been less severe than those present in fire safety tests and actual office building fires, which have never before led to complete collapses. Indeed, despite the apparently advanced science which Mr. Dudarev hints at, he actually admits this is nothing new:

“He said blacksmiths had exploited this property for hundreds of years”.22*

Is the New Theory Right?

So the previous “novel” theories didn’t pan out. But what about Simensen’s new theory?

Initially, Simensen admits that the new theory doesn’t explain the destruction of World Trade Center building 7, which wasn’t hit by an airplane and which suffered only minor fires before mysteriously falling on 9/11.

And the above-quoted Live Science article notes:

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.

***

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.

***

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.

Moreover, while Simensen talks about explosions at or below the level of the planes, there is credible eyewitness testimony of explosives well above the floor hit by the planes:

* The Chief of NY Fire Department (Citywide Tour Commander) said “there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse” (page 4)

* A police officer stated “you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street.” (page 5, which is page 2 of a hand-written memorandum)(

* The Chief of the NY Fire Department (Citywide Tour Commander) said “there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse” (page 4)

* A paramedic captain stated “somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building”

Simensen’s theory can’t explain these explosions.

(In addition, several eyewitnesses report hearing explosions at the base of the building before the planes hit. See this and this. See hundreds of additional eyewitness statements of explosions well away from the area of the planes’ impact here and here).

In addition, scientists say that the lower section of the Twin Towers was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, that the upper section of the North Tower did not, in fact, crush the lower portion, and that the crushing theory is even more improbable with the South Tower.

And peer-reviewed scientific papers claim that extremely high-tech, military-grade explosive materials known as nano-thermate were found in the rubble and dust from the World Trade Center. See this and this. If true, Simensen’s proposed aluminum-water reaction cannot account for the existence of such materials.

Michael Rivero argues:

“The reaction [Simensen] is talking about is one in which hot aluminum will ‘steal’ oxygen from water, leaving hydrogen gas. There are two problems with this theory, of course.

The first is the hydrogen gas is very light and floats upward even faster than helium. The ruins of the World Trade Towers were ‘porous’ and as the smoke trails prove, there was a strong wind from the side. This means that hydrogen could not collect together anywhere in any amounts enough to cause an explosion, certainly not down in the basements, where some explosions were reported.

Second, even under the most ideal of circumstances of perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, impossible in the natural atmosphere and under those conditions, hydrogen may burn fast but does not detonate. Recall the destruction of the Hindenburg. Huge fire, no ‘bang.’

So this latest official ‘explanation’ is a desperate attempt to reconcile eyewitness reports and video recordings of explosions (like the one that initiates the collapse of building 7) with the rapidly collapsing official story.

***

Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?”

And officials admit that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very hot, and yet dozens of firemen, structural engineers and emergency responders say that they saw molten steel in the rubble of the World Trade Center for months after 9/11, even though it was sprayed with enormous quantities of water. Steel melts at a much higher temperature than aluminum, and the government admits that the fires were not hot enough to have melted the steel (and a professor emeritus of physics has shown that the collapse of the buildings could not have melted the steel).

So how does a government spokesman explain the molten steel? He denies its existence:




This shows once again that the government and its defenders are twisting the science around 9/11 to meet policy – rather than scientific – objectives.

The introduction of novel theory after novel theory to explain what many top structural engineers, mechanical engineers, architects and physicists say can only be a controlled demolition shows the desperation of the government to explain away the most probable hypothesis.

And see this.

Note: This essay is not necessarily arguing that controlled demolition brought down 3 buildings on 9/11. It is, however, arguing that – just as with Iraq, the Gulf oil spill, and Fukushima, wild-eyed scientific theories are being promoted which have no basis in fact, and the most likely hypotheses are not being examined by the government.

{Check out the article on Washington's Blog , it is full of links and documentation}
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
09-30-2011, 04:08 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-30-2011, 04:13 PM by Loke.)
#2
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
Perhaps this (imo half-arsed) explanation are sufficient for ppl already having made up their mind believing in controlled demolition of Tower 1 and 2 - but won't budge ppl who've made up their mind; that NIST are far more believable than some nutty conspiracy theorists... I personally hoped for a more logic refute, but guess I'll have to wait for http://www.ae911truth.org/ to officially comment on this.

Micheal Rivero; "Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?"

Simensen: "the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980"

Michael Rivero: "hydrogen may burn fast but does not detonate. Recall the destruction of the Hindenburg. Huge fire, no ‘bang.’"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_What_temperature_and_concentration_does_hydrogen_explode
"When mixed with oxygen across a wide range of proportions, hydrogen explodes upon ignition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety
"Hydrogen collects under roofs and overhangs, where it forms an explosion hazard"

Thomas Eagar "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,”"

"Most of the time"? And, who said the water was "sprayed" onto the molten aluminium? Simensen said: "There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water."

Michael Rivero: "“The reaction [Simensen] is talking about is one in which hot aluminum will ‘steal’ oxygen from water, leaving hydrogen gas. There are two problems with this theory, of course."

Not really a "problematic theory", unless all the reports (and videos!) of water/molten aluminium explosions (in open air) are faked, right?





Guess that Michael Rivero and Thomas Eagar (this time) are unscientific and arrogantly talking out of their a.... - and imo doesn't do credit, but harm to our quest for truth?!?

As I said here:
Quote:Of cause this doesn't explain the 100's of other unanswered questions that surrounds the "official story", but nevertheless...

Believe you me; this will surely set many doubters mind, and make them totally believe the official story, and empower new waves of ridiculing conspiracy theorists.

I'm still a MIHOP, but certainly would like to educate myself on this new story - however far fetched as it may be - and be more than ready to argue 9/11 with the many who'd take this new information and bash my tinfoil-hat beyond recognition.

Washington's Blog didn't educate me (as in telling me something I didn't already know), and I'd still really like to have some factual arguments against the explosive aluminium theory...
Reply
09-30-2011, 05:17 PM,
#3
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
well one could be about how this water survived an inferno.

lets just say that a ton of molten aluminium was on a floor in one of the towers. In order for it to get there it would have to leak through something, a damaged part of the building. in order for water (and a shit load all at once) to make it to this aluminium it would have to go DOWN through a burning building unaffected by said burning building and land on this molten aluminium. The fact that the area is at a tempreture to melt aluminum presents the issue of water making it that far.

If the plane split a water main or tanks means that it would of already happened an hour before. That water would be looking to work its way down the building. It would also not have 20 odd explosions traveling down below the hole in order.

Aluminium explosion isnt an issue in the sense its possible in lab conditions but 911 wasnt nearly the right place for such a thing to occur.

One word answer to this. evaporation.
Reply
09-30-2011, 07:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-30-2011, 07:52 PM by Loke.)
#4
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
@rsol:

Ok - let's speculate (and assume a lot):

Quote:well one could be about how this water survived an inferno. lets just say that a ton of molten aluminium was on a floor in one of the towers. In order for it to get there it would have to leak through something, a damaged part of the building. in order for water (and a shit load all at once) to make it to this aluminium it would have to go DOWN through a burning building unaffected by said burning building and land on this molten aluminium. The fact that the area is at a tempreture to melt aluminum presents the issue of water making it that far.

Well, the water could easily have been (accumulated) on floors below the inferno - and the molten aluminium could just as easily had made its way to the water, than vice versa. It could even have broken through air-vents and such. And, we are also not talking about a ton, but 30 tons of aluminium/magnesium alloy per airplane/building.

Simensen said: "This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases and gaps in the floor, causing a chemical reaction with water from sprinklers on the levels below." And he said: "Aluminium alloy, which in jet hulls also contains magnesium, melts at 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit). If heated to 750 C (1382 F), the alloy "becomes as liquid as water,""

Molten aluminium liquid as water could flow as water. And the aluminium alloy could have landed on pools of water, especially if the sprinklers have had been on for a while (>30-40 minutes). Huge pockets of water could have accumulated on the floor, and the floors below.

Hell, for all we know perhaps the water could also have been running all the way down elevator-shafts - for a long time - before the molten aluminium followed, and also have created explosions at ground and basement level.

Quote:If the plane split a water main or tanks means that it would of already happened an hour before. That water would be looking to work its way down the building. It would also not have 20 odd explosions traveling down below the hole in order.

Why not? Beside the possibility of pools of accumulated sprinkler-water (or water-pools made by other broken plumbings on same level or above), there could indeed be water-tanks in the buildings (whether those were connected or not to the sprinkler-system), and I wouldn't know on which floors they would be in such case, but were there tanks, on any floor, then they could have bursted at any given time (by heat and/or mechanical stress) and releasing a sudden wave of water... In any case, everywhere the water would hit pools of molten aluminium - or the molten aluminium would hit pools of water - there would be explosive reactions. Many pools = many reactions/explosions in the order of the places and floors where the liquids met.

Quote:Aluminium explosion isnt an issue in the sense its possible in lab conditions but 911 wasnt nearly the right place for such a thing to occur.

You certainly haven't really read (at least understood) what I wrote, and I wonder if you even did look at the video I've posted? There's absolutely no need whatsoever for lab conditions for water/molten aluminium to explode - just as the video (and many more) accurately show; it does react, and explode - violently - even in crude experiments with relatively small amounts of water/aluminium and even when performed in an open-air environment!

Quote:One word answer to this. evaporation.

Sorry to say, that I think the only thing that just have evaporated, is your layman and faulty logic.
Reply
10-01-2011, 12:20 AM,
#5
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
Loke said
Quote:Simensen: "the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250
accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980"

Where and when, links? Did the explosions demolish any buildings?

Loke said
Quote:Not really a "problematic theory", unless all the reports (and
videos!) of water/molten aluminium explosions (in open air) are faked,
right?

There were no reports of "water/aluminum explosions" on Sept 11, 2001 as far as I know! The short video of an explosion that you posted was woefully lacking in details, hard to draw any relevant facts from it.





There was a specific amount of heat generated by the fuel burning and by the office contents burning in the floors that had fires. The NYFD got to the 78th floor before reporting any fires and Chief Palmer said that there were two isolated pockets of fire requiring two hose teams to put out.
The fuel burnt within the first few minutes and the office contents had longer lasting fires so they were not converting all of their combustible matter into heat and new compounds quickly. This means less heat for heating steel and aluminum. The buildings didn't collapse immediately so the inference that there would not have been enough heat to melt that aluminum after the fire had been consuming its limited fuel supply for an hour or more is feasible.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
10-01-2011, 02:29 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-01-2011, 02:59 AM by Loke.)
#6
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
Quote:Where and when, links? Did the explosions demolish any buildings?

Why don't you ask Simensen those question, icosaface? I think the Norwegian aluminium expert/scientist wouldn't quote those figures, or bring up this new theory, if the figures weren't factual or the theory so easily dismissed. And, maybe - just maybe - the 250 incidents since 1980 didn't involve 2x30 tons of aluminium/magnesium alloy? The sheer amount (and surface) involved, and the magnesium content (making the material more combustible?), could have made a significant difference?

Quote:There was a specific amount of heat generated by the fuel burning and by the office contents burning in the floors that had fires.

So you know what specific amount of heat that was generated everywhere in those buildings? - A "anyone's-guess"-like question that still is heavily debated among experts/scientists. As unprotected steel melts at 2777 F, and aluminium at less than half that temperature, this "cutting the temperature in half" for dramatic and explosive result to occur does imo pose a more credible explanation? - Perhaps also to why and how (fast) the steel eventually could have heated to their weakening-point (<500 F).

Quote:The NYPD got to the 78th floor before reporting any fires and Chief Palmer said that there were two isolated pockets of fire requiring two hose teams to put out.

This happened in the first minutes after the plane hit, and not the 30-40+ minutes after, when the aluminium-alloy would have melted into liquid form. NYPD was climbing the staircases, which are like an isolated concrete-tube in itself, and they didn't (couldn't) have been checking every floor (thoroughly) as they went upward (they went for the impact-zone, to time-consuming, and most doors were locked according to survivors). Simensen also said, that the melting process could/would have happened inside debris falling onto the hulls, making it difficult to visually localize. I also doubt, that anyone was near the actual impact-zone, where the hulls could be be "simmering" under debris.

And yes, all the firemen with water-hoses, who were in the building later on, and at the time of explosions/implosion, could also have contributed to the water-source that rsol didn't know where possible could come from.

Quote:The fuel burnt within the first few minutes and the office contents had longer lasting fires so they were not converting all of their combustible matter into heat and new compounds quickly. This means less heat for heating steel and aluminum.

Most of the fuel did probably burn outside the buildings and in free air - and/or within the first minutes, even seconds - but can you really dismiss the possibility, that the center of the inferno - the very aluminium containing that fuel (the hulls) - wasn't exposed to fire for a much longer period? Set aside, that the sheer energy release upon the impacts of the planes alone would have generated tremendous amount of heat (in the hulls) themselves?

Quote:The buildings didn't collapse immediately so the inference that there would not have been enough heat to melt that aluminum after the fire had been consuming its limited fuel supply for an hour or more is feasible.

I would say it the other way around: if the buildings had collapsed immediately, then there would have been no room for long-lasting fires to melt aluminium and cause aluminium/water explosions (bringing on the collapse). Maybe the aluminium-alloy was significantly "pre-heated" by the impact alone, and didn't take the 30-40+ minutes to reach melting temperature?!?

The video you posted are ridiculous due to the aluminium was contained in a foundry, and the water/aluminium (surface)ratio alone! However, the experimenters did in fact very much expect an explosion to happen, and said so!

And you convenient ignored the many videos on YouTube to the contrary!

Are you really disputing the scientific fact, that explosions can happen, and have happened, with the sudden mixture of molten aluminium and water? Or, are you just trolling?

Remember; I'm no scientist nor am I expert in these matters. I'm just speculating as a layman (just as rsol were), and consistently requesting plausible arguments for dismissing this new theory - of which I yet haven't received any.
Reply
10-01-2011, 05:42 AM,
#7
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
Don't tell me to investigate what some body somewhere said. You brought the theory up so you do the leg work and then get back to us with some facts and links.

After that read the official reports because you sound like you only just heard about 911. There was a lot of work that had to be done to get the concrete to pulverize and the steel to fly apart and there was not enough energy to do all the things that were seen to be done.

You don't know that there were any fireman spraying water, Chief Palmer radioed out asking for two hose teams only minutes before the tower imploded.

The NYFD did not get there in the first few minutes after the plane hit.

Quote:9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha." "Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."
Battalion Seven Chief:

"Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion
Seven to Ladder 15. "Fifteen."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."
Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."

9:57 a.m.

"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."
Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."
Battalion Seven Operations Tower One:

"Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."
Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."
Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."

9:58 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

(END OF TAPE)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

Steel doesn't weaken at 500 degrees F.

One of the problems with the official reports is that they had to have the firproofing off of the steel in order to have a feeble minded chance of heating the steel to any significant degree. NIST finally had to use a shotgun physical model to blast the fireproofing off of the steel because they couldn't get it off any other feasible way. So the plane had to break up into shotgun sized pellets and fly all over the building knocking fireproofing off the steel. So if that took place then there wasn't any pile of heated aluminum to melt for your water/hydrogen explosion theory. Steel conducts heat very well so the heat was radiated up and down the building, you take heat away from a fire and it starts to have trouble burning. We know this happened because of the dark color of the smoke which indicates an inefficient burn taking place.

Don't tell me what videos I ignored, post the links for them if you think they are relevant.

Are you really disputing the fact that NIST said there were no explosions? How do you explain the explosions that were reported in building 7? No plane hit building 7.

Being a layman is no excuse and certainly doesn't qualify you to know whether what someone tells you, be they scientists or seventh day adventists, is plausible or not. Being a layman doesn't mean that you aren't capeable of discerning and understanding what happened on 911 either.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
10-01-2011, 08:45 AM,
#8
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
@icosaface

Quote:Don't tell me to investigate what some body somewhere said

I didn't tell you to do anything, but find answers to your own questions at the source.

So don't tell me to investigate what some body somewhere said - right back at you, mate.

Quote:You brought the theory up

That's the issue you like to ignore, huh: this isn't my theory, but a somewhat far fetched new theory brought to the scene by a scientist (aluminium expert) namely Christian Simensen. But as you - and anyone else it seems - have a good deal of difficulty dismissing the theory, then it is much better to assassinate the messenger, or in my case; the guy who asks his community on (factual) comments.

Quote:so you do the leg work and then get back to us with some facts and links.

I should in fact have known better, than to bring facts and links, and ask you all for comments!

Quote:After that read the official reports because you sound like you only just heard about 911.

And you base this nonsensical borderline idiotic uttering on what I've said?

Quote:There was a lot of work that had to be done to get the concrete to pulverize and the steel to fly apart and there was not enough energy to do all the things that were seen to be done.

Quote:One of the problems with the official reports is that they had to have the firproofing off of the steel in order to have a feeble minded chance of heating the steel to any significant degree. NIST finally had to use a shotgun physical model to blast the fireproofing off of the steel because they couldn't get it off any other feasible way. So the plane had to break up into shotgun sized pellets and fly all over the building knocking fireproofing off the steel. So if that took place then there wasn't any pile of heated aluminum to melt for your water/hydrogen explosion theory. Steel conducts heat very well so the heat was radiated up and down the building, you take heat away from a fire and it starts to have trouble burning. We know this happened because of the dark color of the smoke which indicates an inefficient burn taking place.

I haven't said, that this exploding aluminium theory explained everything! - Quite on the contrary I've stated that it did not explain the 100s of other questions - several times!

Quote:The NYFD did not get there in the first few minutes after the plane hit.

Was it the NYFD or the NYPD - make up your mind. I replied to the NYPD statement you gave.

Quote:Steel doesn't weaken at 500 degrees F

Yes, it certainly does!

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm
"Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
[Image: temperature-strength-metals.png]

Quote:Don't tell me what videos I ignored, post the links for them if you think they are relevant.

Sure, I will point out your ignorance and utter any of my POVs - whenever I see it fit!

And, I did post a video to the contrary of yours, and YouTube suggests several relevant videos to the contrary when viewing your sorry excuse for an example.

Quote:Are you really disputing the fact that NIST said there were no explosions? How do you explain the explosions that were reported in building 7? No plane hit building 7.

Are you not only ignoring what I've said, but now also making things up? I've never said I believed the official story and certainly not NIST, but others are believing them - and many more will now, I think. NIST is lying through their teeth imo (ie. "no explosions" and "no molten metal" on 9/11).

Building 7 is a total different issue! No one, Simensen included, have offered this new theory as explanation to the collapse of that particular building. - The very "smoking gun" to most truthers, scientists and laymen.

Quote:Being a layman is no excuse and certainly doesn't qualify you to know whether what someone tells you, be they scientists or seventh day adventists, is plausible or not. Being a layman doesn't mean that you aren't capeable of discerning and understanding what happened on 911 either.

I beg the differ - beside the point that you really just contradicted yourself there.

For someone who doesn't want to get told yourself, you surely are telling others what to do a lot!

<sigh>
Reply
10-01-2011, 11:24 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-01-2011, 11:39 AM by rsol.)
#9
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
once again i say where does this water below arrive from? the inferno above. thats my issue... evaporation.

Quote:"Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."
judging from the data on the sheet below that comment it loses about 10% not retains.
Reply
10-01-2011, 02:34 PM,
#10
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
I corrected my NYPD statement to NYFD, the NYPD did not get to the 78th floor after the plane hit as far as I know, if you have any evidence to say that they did then please share it with us.

Loke said
Quote:So you know what specific amount of heat that was generated everywhere in those buildings? - A "anyone's-guess"-like question that still is heavily debated among experts/scientists. As unprotected steel melts at 2777 F, and aluminium at less than half that temperature, this "cutting the temperature in half" for dramatic and explosive result to occur does imo pose a more credible explanation? - Perhaps also to why and how (fast) the steel eventually could have heated to their weakening-point (<500 F).

You probably meant Celsius (C.) not Fahrenheit (F).


To quote David Griffin
Quote:As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence. For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300˚F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15]

The 30 second video you posted puports to show an explosion caused by water and molten aluminum mixing and the theory is that this type of explosion could cause a 110 story steel frame building to fall to pieces but no evidence of any experiment or real time event where this took place is offered. The theory appears to be a way of distracting attention away from the official studies done by FEMA, NIST and the 911 Commission.

Everyone is a layman until they become a journeyman.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
10-01-2011, 03:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-01-2011, 04:31 PM by Loke.)
#11
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
@rsol: Christian Simensen and I both gave possibilities for water-sources - read again.

@rsol and icosaface: As the chart shows; structural steel starts to weaken at <500 F (<230 C), and it have lost 90% of its strength at <1400 F (<760 C).

@icosaface: Tempted to say "with friends like you, who needs enemies?!". Just mock me with your infantile "I know-it-all, but you're a n00b", and this for another mans theory, that I've continuously said that I find far fetched.

And do keep on being intolerant and arrogantly ignoring your own obvious errs, my writings, and most important: my worries; that this theory can and will hurt the truth, that we all would like to see surface - rather sooner than later!

Here's just one example of the "official believers" using Simensen to mock us all: http://techie-buzz.com/science/wtc-tower-collapse-theory.html
Quote:New Theory Explains The WTC Twin Tower Collapse, Blows A Hole Into The Conspiracy Theories by Debjyoti Bardhan | Wednesday, 21st Sep 2011

Conspiracy theorists can eat their hats.

A materials expert from Norway, investigating the collapse of the WTC twin towers, has come up with a new theory explaining why they collapsed in the spectacular fashion seen on 11th September (9/11), 2001. Christian Simensen, a material scientist in SINTEF, the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia, has claimed that it all has to do with alumina coming in contact with sprinkling water.

Our Tribute to 9/11: http://techie-buzz.com/tech-news/wtc-event-911-timeline-tribute.html

[Image: wtc_mysterious_explosion.jpg]

A photo clearly showing an explosion below the area where the plane hit. This has led conspiracy theorists to conclude that the entire building was booby-trapped.

Simensen pointed out that molten aluminium running down to meet some hundred liters of water would create an explosion strong enough to disintegrate the tube-in-tube structure of the towers. These could easily punch away at solid steel columns. He quoted several instances of known explosions, which resulted when hot aluminium came in contact with mildly warm water, to support his theory. He says:

From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort can lead to violent explosions.

The Powerful Alumina and Water Bomb
There was no dearth of molten aluminum, as the planes could supply as much as 30 tons of the substance at a temperature close to 15000F for an optimal oxygen-jet fuel mixture. Aluminium even at half that temperature would have done the trick.

This aluminum-water explosion scenario would explain the explosions seen in the building just before they collapsed. The explosions, unexplained till date, have provoked many conspiracy theories, which have constantly claimed that 9/11 was an internal job and that the towers were booby-trapped. This might shut them up, or maybe not.

How Powerful? Very Powerful!
Just to give you an idea of the intensity of the explosion, let me quote a controlled experiment. It was conducted by Alcoa Aluminum. They mixed 20 kilos of molten aluminium with 20 liters of water and used a small quantity of rust as catalyst. Simensen reports the catastrophic observations: "The resulting explosion blew away the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 meters in diameter".

Simensen presented his findings at an international materials meet in San Diego, California and will publish the results in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.

Yet another conspiracy theory bites the dust!

The internet are booming with articles like that, here's just a few more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040657/Explosions-caused-jet-fuel-water-sprinklers-brought-Twin-Towers-9-11-scientists-say.html
http://www.cubasi.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=492:new-theory-on-world-trade-center-collapse-blames-explosive-chemical-reaction
http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/09/29/new-911-theory-dispells-conspiracies/ (Here Simensen allegedly also suggests the NIST theory could explain why building 7 collapsed so much later)
Quote:The theory can also explain why Building 7 fell later in the afternoon on September 11, Simensen says.

“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,” the SINTEF scientist wrote.

Remember that I (or we) don't need to be convinced of the official foul-play in the 9/11 events - but other people might! As said: I'd love to have solid arguments against this theory, but none have been provided - yet!

If you still can't see this, then I'll rest my case here, but in somewhat disbelief (of the self righteous and pitiful sheer arrogance on this board) - not wondering anymore why so many wont take us conspiracy-theorists seriously.
Reply
10-01-2011, 04:31 PM,
#12
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
Loke said:
Quote:@rsol and icosaface: As the chart shows; structural steel starts to weaken at <500 F (<230 C), and it have lost 90% of its strength at <1400 F (<760 C).

If you look at the chart you will see that when structural steel is heated it becomes stronger than its cold strength until it reaches about 500 degrees F then it starts to lose strength and at about 800 degrees F it reaches its cold strength 100% value again and when this temperature increases it starts to lose strength..

[Image: temperature-strength-metals.png]

Loke said:
Quote:@icosaface: Tempted to say "with friends like you, who needs enemies?!". Just mock me with your infantile "I know-it-all, but you're a n00b", and this for another mans theory, that I've continuously said that I find far fetched.

You said you were a layman, I merely agreed with your self assessment. Layman are usually newbees when compared with journeymen, this doesn't mean that being new means is equivalent to being unintelligent.

You say you find the theory far fetched but you offer no justification as to why you find it far fetched and you declare that the points rsol and myself have made are unscientific.






An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
10-01-2011, 06:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-01-2011, 07:03 PM by Loke.)
#13
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
icosaface Wrote:"..until it reaches about 500 degrees F then it starts to lose strength".

Whether steel has gained strength prior weakening or not; steel are definitely starting to weaken at <500 degrees Fahrenheit, as you've just now finally admitted!

icosaface Wrote:You said you were a layman, I merely agreed with your self assessment. Layman are usually newbees when compared with journeymen, this doesn't mean that being new means is equivalent to being unintelligent.

The term layman does not mean to be a "newbee" - even compared to the term "journeyman"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layman
Quote:A "layman" is a person who isn't an expert in a given field of knowledge. The term originally meant a member of the laity, i.e. a non-clergymen, but over the centuries shifted in definition.[1]

The concept of describing something in layman's terms has come into wide use in the English speaking world. To put something in layman's terms is to describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual (someone without professional training in the subject area) can understand, so that they may comprehend the issue to some degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman
Quote:A journeyman is someone who completed an apprenticeship and was fully educated in a trade or craft, but not yet a master. To become a master, a journeyman had to submit a master work piece to a guild for evaluation and be admitted to the guild as a master.

You are no scientist or "fully educated" on these topics, and by proclaiming or assessing yourself a "journeyman", then you've just proved my point beyond doubt; that you're being arrogant: Mr. "I know-it-all, but you're a n00b".

icosaface Wrote:You say you find the theory far fetched but you offer no justification as to why you find it far fetched and you declare that the points rsol and myself have made are unscientific.

First of all; then I do obviously not need to justify that the aluminium explosive theory seems far fetched to me, especially as this is a POV that you indeed hold yourself, and which you have argued for vigorously and numerous times.

And yes, most of your and rsols personal comments here aren't scientific durable - or even logical, and doesn't take more than a "layman" as myself to properly refute. Hence your arguments are of no use to me when trying to convince more or less firm believers of the official story, a deliberately fairy-tale like story which unfortunately now arguably have been significant strengthened by Simensens report/article.

Secondly; I somewhat did explain, why I do find the new theory far fetched (as an explanation on how molten aluminium brought down the buildings) when I said:

Loke Wrote:Of cause this doesn't explain the 100's of other unanswered questions that surrounds the "official story", but nevertheless...

You are merely grasping straws here, and imo you're digging yourself deeper.

The biggest mystery here is: why I even bother keep up this "conversation".

Perhaps it is due to my aforementioned disbelief, fueled by your merits here!

I now see that my respect for you and your knowledge was utterly misplaced!
Reply
10-01-2011, 07:54 PM,
#14
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11


Structural steel becomes stronger when heated to 500 degrees F. Look at the chart you posted . It becomes, eyeballing the chart you posted, about 30% stronger than it is at normal temperatures. Around 800 degrees F. it has the same strength it had before it was heated. At temperatures above 800 degrees F it starts to become weaker than it would be at normal temperatures.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
10-02-2011, 08:39 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-02-2011, 10:14 PM by Loke.)
#15
RE: Government Twists Science of 9/11
Fact: Structural steel will strengthen until it reaches <500 degree Fahrenheit, and then it starts to weaken! (From approx. 500 degrees Fahrenheit steel doesn't gain nor retain it's strength, - ergo: it loses strength = weakens!)

And, this nitpicking isn't relevant, as steels pliability begins at 932 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature which building-fires often reaches. Simensens theory, however, depends on the two aluminium-alloy hulls being "blanketed in debris", and thus being heated to between 1,470 and 1,570 degrees Fahrenheit (hotter than the 1,220 degrees Fahrenheit needed for aluminium to melt). - And then, by the described exothermic reaction, the molten aluminium will be heated even further; - all the way to between 2,200 and 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit... Even at "only" <1470 degrees Fahrenheit, then the steel would have lost >90% of its strength, hence Christian Simensens widely accepted theory.

"scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures". Well, this isn't really possible to verify, is it? - As all the steel from the towers (read: evidence) was mysteriously rushed away in an unbelievable hurry, - to be recycled in China.

That I try hard to have an open mind, and put myself in my opponents shoes, and I sincerely do try to understand their theory in depth (as layman). It doesn't mean that I've been convinced, that I'm subscribing to or are supporting their theory. I do this to keep the upper hand, when discussing this with people who do believe my opponents theories, and imo needs facts to be convinced otherwise. It's easy for us to see, that Simensens theory doesn't explain a fraction of the questions we have to the official story, but I was calling for arguments to bury this particulate, new and apparently very popular theory - for reasons I've already stated.

You asked why I find Simensens theory far fetched. I think there's to many uncertain parameters involved with it, and his theory also depends on the fire-protection being removed, by the infamous "shotgun-effect" or something else. I also still recall seeing photos of columns having nice straight cuts all the way through, giving further credence to the demolition MIHOP-theory, supported be another Scandinavian scientist; professor Dr. Niels Harrit, and his findings of huge amounts of nano-thermite everywhere in the 9/11 dust.

I'm still in disbelief over this sort of ignorant feedback that I've received. And my misplaced now lost respect for you, saddens me. I'm also really sorry that you, and anyone else here, didn't have anything (relevant) to contribute.

Well, lesson learned! - I've now said all I want, and I'm really done wasting anymore time playing with you... - So "go fly a kite", will you Mr. self perceived Journeyman?! - Or just go and get "laid, man"... Wink
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Via Iran's PressTV: US soldier accused of trying to kill Obama, overthrow government h3rm35 0 517 09-26-2012, 01:31 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  9/11 Science and Conspiracy triplesix 5 1,193 09-11-2009, 11:20 PM
Last Post: triplesix
  Charlie Sheen claims US government was behind 9/11 TriWooOx 1 808 09-11-2009, 05:41 PM
Last Post: staceysugar
  In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government mexika 0 472 08-27-2009, 05:42 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Conspiracy fever: As rumours swell that the government staged 7/7, victims' relatives call for a proper inquiry TriWooOx 3 1,103 07-06-2009, 07:25 AM
Last Post: rsol
  Mexican Government a terrorist mexika 1 653 01-12-2009, 03:27 PM
Last Post: Guest
  Government Incompetence kevlar 0 434 01-10-2009, 10:36 PM
Last Post: kevlar
  Government used Pot /Marijuana as Bio-terror mexika 0 590 07-19-2008, 10:05 PM
Last Post: mexika
  Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough? MrBS 5 705 10-24-2007, 11:10 PM
Last Post: LeveL
  Former NIST Chief of the Fire Science Division Questions WTC Investigation pizzaman777 2 496 08-29-2007, 02:56 AM
Last Post: pizzaman777

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)