Norwegian scientist proposes new alternative theory

[Darkstar November]

This is all over the news now in europe. Materials expert Christian Simensen is proposing that explosions caused by molten aluminium mixing with water may have triggered the collapse of the towers.

"If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminum 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 presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminum International Today.

"The aluminum industry had reported more than 250 aluminum -water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminum , 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminum 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."

Quotes are from canada.com.

w w w .canada.com/news/theory+collapse+Twin+Towers+study/5436052/story.html

w w w.news.com.au/technology/were-twin-towers-felled-by-chemical-blasts/story-e6frfro0-1226143261174
w w w.calgaryherald.com/story_print.html?id=5436122&sponsor=curriebarracks
w w w.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/new-theory-world-trade-center-collapse-blames-explosive-chemical-reaction

[carlitos]

Note, truthy people reading this:

- Presented at a conference
- Published in a trade journal
- "all over the news"


I have no comment on the viability of the theory, just pointing out how it came to our attention.

[Travis]

But would the molten aluminum have contacted the water on the impact floors?

[ElMondoHummus]

From the PopSci link:

Simensen’s idea, presented at a materials technology conference in San Diego this week, is thus: after the planes impacted the WTC towers, tons of molten aluminum ran down into the floors below the impact sites, mingling with several hundred liters of water from the buildings’ fire sprinkler systems. This mix of aluminum and water is known to cause a chemical reaction that can not only boost temperatures but also put off combustible hydrogen in the process. Basically, it’s a recipe for a really hot explosion.

... But Simensen’s explanation is intriguing. It doesn’t dismiss the official report, but simply claims that it doesn’t tell the whole story. He says the aluminum industry has recorded more than 250 water-aluminum explosions since 1980, and that at one point aluminum maker Alcoa did an experiment involving just 44 pounds of molten aluminum and 20 liters of water (along with a small quantity of rust, which exacerbates the reaction). The resulting explosion destroyed the lab and left a 100-foot crater, he says.

That was under controlled conditions, but extrapolate that to the uncontrolled conditions inside the WTC towers just after the attacks. Jet fuselages contain roughly 33 tons aluminum alloy that melts at roughly 1,220 degrees, Simensen says, turning to a water-like liquid at nearly 1,400 degrees. When the aircraft hit, they exploded and were immediately trapped between floors where debris like plaster quickly melted around them, creating a kind of insulated oven that would push temperatures well north of aluminum’s melting point.


It's intriguing, to say the least. I think it might potentially be contradicted by the state of the steel in NCSTAR 1-3C, but it's interesting enough to not dismiss out of hand.

[ElMondoHummus]

And wow... the idiots are out in force at the PhyOrg link.

[brazenlilraisin]

Interesting idea, but I doubt it played any role in initiating either collapse. In fact, I think I can safely say thank FSM it didn't!

[sheeplesnshills]

This is all over the news now in europe. Materials expert Christian Simensen is proposing that explosions caused by molten aluminium mixing with water may have triggered the collapse of the towers.

"If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminum 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 presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminum International Today.

"The aluminum industry had reported more than 250 aluminum -water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminum , 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminum 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."

Quotes are from canada.com.

w w w .canada.com/news/theory+collapse+Twin+Towers+study/5436052/story.html

w w w.news.com.au/technology/were-twin-towers-felled-by-chemical-blasts/story-e6frfro0-1226143261174
w w w.calgaryherald.com/story_print.html?id=5436122&sponsor=curriebarracks
w w w.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/new-theory-world-trade-center-collapse-blames-explosive-chemical-reaction


I'm very dubious about this as there was no obvious explosion before the top parts of the buildings came down. If there had been there would be no need for all the silent thermite nonsense...........

[Jack by the hedge]

This is all over the news now in europe.

I started with the BBC and I can't find it.

[Sunstealer]

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos 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 in diameter," Mr Simensen said.So a controlled experiment destroyed the entire laboratory in which it was conducted? Why would any one conduct such an experiment within a lab? The dangers of water and liquid metals, at high temperatures, are well known.

Is there any report corroborating this? Surely such a failure would be examined by a national body on safety grounds.

Firing a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could also help prevent metal alloy from melting.:confused:

That last quoted makes me raise my eyebrows - on following the links briefly I see the following quote:

A paper which undercuts the conspiracy theories about the collapse of the World Trade Center was featured on TV.http://www.aluminiumtoday.com/news/view/world-trade-center-paper-on-tv/aluminium-news/

On the face of it (and that means a cursory glance) I am left scratching my noggin.

I'll try to read more to get the full picture.

From the above it appears that this report claims to counter conspiracy theory, however at first glance, I'm extremely sceptical of the claims.

It doesn't seem to add up. I'll spend a bit more time looking at the links later.

[ergo]

They know the current set of patchwork theories are neither compatible nor viable and that it's just a matter of time before the wider population catches on, so they needed something new, with molten aluminum, explosions, and catastrophic failure.

[16.5]

They know the current set of patchwork theories are neither compatible nor viable and that it's just a matter of time before the wider population catches on, so they needed something new, with molten aluminum, explosions, and catastrophic failure.

Who the **** is "they" ergo?

Note, the opening post does not support any idiotic theory the truthers have come up with.

Anyway, post "bedunker," chuckles, it makes you seem smart.

[Sabrina]

His theory is interesting... but it fails in one key area.

There were no loud enough explosions immediately prior to the start of the collapse to account for it. Plus, his theory says the molten aluminum "ran down through the towers", implying that the chemical reaction occurred many floors below the impact zones... so why did the collapses BEGIN at the impact zones?

[Dave Rogers]

This whole thing appears to be on a similar level to Genady Cherepanov's fracture wave theory; it's an attempt to derive a non-conspiratorial explanation of a phenomenon that never actually occurred in the WTC collapses, but which truthers have repeatedly claimed so often that it's started to factor into people's starting assumptions about the collapses. In Cherepanov's case it was collapse times consistent with the fall time from the roof level of an object in freefall, which truthers asserted for a long time but which we know to be wildly inaccurate. In this case it's the explosions immediately preceding the collapse, which truthers continue to claim to this day but which we know to be completely imaginary. It's bad enough that truthers pollute political and historical debate, but we're seeing their misrepresentations starting to pollute scientific enquiry as well here.

Dave

[waypastvne]

The author would be talking about a hydrogen explosion... right ?

There is no evidence for a hydrogen explosion prior to the collapse.

[leftysergeant]

At most, aluminum/water reaction would have added fuel to the fires in the piles.

That there were no explsoins of significant power on the impacted floors makes this an unlikely cause of collapse.

[Horatius]

At most, aluminum/water reaction would have added fuel to the fires in the piles.



That would be my reaction as well. There were no explosions, so that's right out, but based on this:


This mix of aluminum and water is known to cause a chemical reaction that can not only boost temperatures but also put off combustible hydrogen in the process.


The aluminum and water likely wouldn't have been in cohesive enough mass to form good conditions for an explosion, but a more distributed mix could very well have provided additional fuel to the fires, as well as adding heat from the chemical reaction in the first place.

[leftysergeant]

The aluminum and water likely wouldn't have been in cohesive enough mass to form good conditions for an explosion, but a more distributed mix could very well have provided additional fuel to the fires, as well as adding heat from the chemical reaction in the first place.

I'm thinking of super-heated steam over molten aluminum.

[Darkstar November]

I did a little digging and it seems that these things can really do some damage if the conditions are right. Information about this subjects seems to be quite easily available.

One article from "Aluminium Times", July/August 2009.
"Whenever two liquids, with widely different temperatures, come into contact, an explosion can result. This is purely a physical phenomenon, but with aluminium there is an additional concern because it is a very reactive element that has a strong chemical attraction for oxygen, as evidenced in its naturallyoccurring compounds. Just as a large an amount of energy is required in reduction cell electrolysis to break down the aluminium-oxygen bonds of its oxide form to produce metallic aluminium. This energy is released dramatically if the metal is able to recombine with the oxygen from either water or air. The energy released when 0.5 kg of aluminium fully reacts with oxygen, according to the reaction equation set out below, is equivalent to detonating 1.4 kg of trinitrotoluene (TNT)."

2Al+3H2O = Al2O3+H2 + Energy

The article also shows a picture of a chinese aluminum factory where this kind of explosion supposedly occurred killing instantly 9 and injuring 64 other workers.

But of course there seems to be no evidence for this kind of large scale event taking place on 9/11.

[R.Mackey]

Not new. Max Photon's rather comical theory had this as a centerpiece, about three years ago.

Obviously it didn't happen. Failure modes in the steel would have been unmistakably different. (/cue "all the st33l was sh!pp3d to CHINA!!11!!one!") :p

[Sam.I.Am]

Again, no sounds of an explosion (not even a hydrogen gas explosion). There would also have been entire floors worth of windows being blown out and that didn't happen either. It might have provided fuel for the fires as it burned off just as quickly as it was produced but there would be no easily identifiable evidence of that happening in the midst of a such large office fire like that which was seen on 9/11. All it would do, even if it were somehow proven to be true that hydrogen gas was produced in this manner, is that the truthers were wrong (yet again) about their claims of how office fires could not become hot enough to weaken the steel.

[bill smith]

It's good that this molten metal flowing down through the centre of the Towers is receiving so much attention. Just a few tweaks and we will be on the right track.

[Marokkaan]

They know the current set of patchwork theories are neither compatible nor viable and that it's just a matter of time before the wider population catches on, so they needed something new, with molten aluminum, explosions, and catastrophic failure.

Lol

At least he is smart enough to know its crazy to think that fire can let collapse a steelframe highscraper

There is one positive thing, he refutes the nist reports with his own theory.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7 :D

I hope he heard about wtc7 :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Lol

At least he is smart enough to know its crazy to think that fire can let collapse a steelframe highscraper

No, that is not what he says. He just proposes an additional effect.

There is one positive thing, he refutes the nist reports with his own theory.No, he just tries to supplement it.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7 :D

I hope he heard about wtc7 :rolleyes:What about WT7? Don't you think there was aluminium in WT7? Normal office interiour contains lots of aluminium.

However, I think the mentioned effect was at best marginal, since there does not seem to be any observations indicating it.

To say that it is all over the media in Europe is ... incorrect. I only heard of it here. Actually, apart from noting the anniversary, 911 does not have much attention in Europe. We have, you know, sort of moved on. ;)

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

It's good that this molten metal flowing down through the centre of the Towers is receiving so much attention. Just a few tweaks and we will be on the right track.

Ahh, yes ... now that you remind me:

You neglected to answer my question in that other thread:

You claim that hollow support beams were filled with thermite, and this melted the steel, which, constrained by the fireproofing paint, flowed to a secret reservoir in the basement, right?

So in which sequence were these beams melted?

1) Top-down? Then how did the steel flow through the lower, intact and thermite-filled parts?

2) Bottom up? Then what held the building up while the rest of the beam melted?

3) All at once, which basically encounters both of the problems above, plus would neccessarily cause some rather spectacular fireworks.

I await your answer.

Hans

[bill smith]

Ahh, yes ... now that you remind me:

You neglected to answer my question in that other thread:

You claim that hollow support beams were filled with thermite, and this melted the steel, which, constrained by the fireproofing paint, flowed to a secret reservoir in the basement, right?

So in which sequence were these beams melted?

1) Top-down? Then how did the steel flow through the lower, intact and thermite-filled parts?

2) Bottom up? Then what held the building up while the rest of the beam melted?

3) All at once, which basically encounters both of the problems above, plus would neccessarily cause some rather spectacular fireworks.

I await your answer.

Hans

My hypothesis says that only a certain number of core columns were completely melted away up to about the 88th floor. Well within the factor of safety built into the core structure as a whole. The factor of safety was at least three, meaning that one third or more of those columns could be removed and the building would still stand, supported by the majority of the core columns remaining. The sequence would have been bottom-up I guess.

[MRC_Hans]

My hypothesis says that only a certain number of core columns were completely melted away up to about the 88th floor. Well within the factor of safety built into the core structure as a whole. The factor of safety was at least three, meaning that one third or more of those columns could be removed and the building would still stand, supported by the majority of the core columns remaining. The sequence would have been bottom-up I guess.

OK. Then:

1) How long will it take to melt 88 floors worth of steel beam, in a sequential manner? We all know that thermite burns relatively slowly.

2) What would be the risk that the protective paint burned through at some point, giving the whole show away?

3) We all know that thermite produces profuse amounts of smoke. During the many minutes of melting 88 floors' length of numerous steel beams, where did the smoke from many tons of thermite go, without anybody noticing it?

4) Refresh my memory, please: What would be the purpose of this? Why would this be needed?

Hans

[Marokkaan]

No, that is not what he says. He just proposes an additional effect.


"The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects."

No, he just tries to supplement it.

"The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects."

What about WT7? Don't you think there was aluminium in WT7? Normal office interiour contains lots of aluminium.

However, I think the mentioned effect was at best marginal, since there does not seem to be any observations indicating it.

To say that it is all over the media in Europe is ... incorrect. I only heard of it here. Actually, apart from noting the anniversary, 911 does not have much attention in Europe. We have, you know, sort of moved on. ;)

Hans

Lol, your speculation is funny, but its only about twin towers, he does not talk about wtc 7. Next time read the article

[MRC_Hans]

"The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects."



"The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects."

That is the press-interpretation. He is really just suggesting an additional effect. Also that is not what the official report claims. Have you read it?

Lol, your speculation is funny, but its only about twin towers, he does not talk about wtc 7. Next time read the article

You mentioned WTC7. You implied that his thesis would fail here.

Hans

[Jack by the hedge]

I really want to know who conducted the alleged experiment with 20kg of molten aluminium, water and rust and turned a laboratory into a 30 meter crater. And when they're due for parole.

[Marokkaan]

That is the press-interpretation. He is really just suggesting an additional effect. Also that is not what the official report claims. Have you read it?



Lol then we can reject the article, show where he says its an additional effect.:D

You mentioned WTC7. You implied that his thesis would fail here.
Hans


Just show me how the #*(@( you can conclude that based on my sentences?

I just place my quote again.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7

I hope he heard about wtc7

But ok i will answer it.

"and melted aluminum from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin"

[little grey rabbit]

Lol

At least he is smart enough to know its crazy to think that fire can let collapse a steelframe highscraper

There is one positive thing, he refutes the nist reports with his own theory.


Yes, my reaction as well. Why a sudden need to create a spontaneous controlled demolition scenario?

And I would take claims that laboratories were reduced to a smoking crater with some scepticism.

[bill smith]

OK. Then:

1) How long will it take to melt 88 floors worth of steel beam, in a sequential manner? We all know that thermite burns relatively slowly.

2) What would be the risk that the protective paint burned through at some point, giving the whole show away?

3) We all know that thermite produces profuse amounts of smoke. During the many minutes of melting 88 floors' length of numerous steel beams, where did the smoke from many tons of thermite go, without anybody noticing it?

4) Refresh my memory, please: What would be the purpose of this? Why would this be needed?

Hans

I'll answer this one but then we better stop because it's not quite on topic.



We are talking about hi-tech NANOthermite- not the more than 100-year old simple thermite formulation that you would have people believe that we are talking about.

So if it was ignited at the bottom the reaction would run quickly up through the hollow columns to the 88th floor or so, completely liquifying the steel as it went This steel would fall at the speed of gravity down through the hole where the column underneath had been until an instant before. In this way a steady flow of liquid steel would flow down into the basement.

You mention this fireproofing 'paint'. I don't know what that is referring to. Perhaps ypu mean the thick layer of fireproofing material in which all the columns were jacketed. This material was described by Dr. Astenah-Asl as having turned 'glassy' when he observed it in the rubble. So it may have formed a kind of pipe that guided the liquid steel on it's journey downwards.

This fireproofing of course prevented the bright burning of the nanothermite from being seen from the ooutside just as it contained the smoke.

Why was this all needed ? Well if you are going to demolish a building it is much better to weaken it first, especially if you are going to try and pass off a story that a so-called 'top block' has crushed the whole structure down flat on the ground.

[newton3376]

That is the press-interpretation. He is really just suggesting an additional effect. Also that is not what the official report claims. Have you read it?

Marokkaan doesn't really "read" things...

He comments on technical aspects that he:

1. Does not have the education or experience to comment on.

2. Has not done even basic research on.

3. Does not understand at all.


That's pretty much Marokkaan in a nut shell.....of course you can sum up those 3 points with one word: "truther".

[Marokkaan]

Marokkaan doesn't really "read" things...

He comments on technical aspects that he:

1. Does not have the education or experience to comment on.

2. Has not done even basic research on.

3. Does not understand at all.


That's pretty much Marokkaan in a nut shell.....of course you can sum up those 3 points with one word: "truther".

Personal attack without starting a discussion, that means up to ignore list

[MRC_Hans]

I'll answer this one but then we better stop because it's not quite on topic.

OK, fair. And I don't think I need comment your reply. Thank you for answering.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Lol then we can reject the article, show where he says its an additional effect.:D




Just show me how the #*(@( you can conclude that based on my sentences?

I just place my quote again.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7

I hope he heard about wtc7

But ok i will answer it.

"and melted aluminum from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin"

I highlighted the relevant part of your post. Of course, English is not my first language, but saying "I'm curious how he will explain ..." implies to me that you think he can't. What else did you mean?

Yes, he does have a problem with his 'explosions' since none were observed, so the 'marginal contribution part' may be my interpretation.

My other point was that lack of aluminium needed not be an issue.

Hans

[Peephole]

Is he talking about explosions that weakened the towers, or an explosive event that initiated the collapse? The latter wouldn't really fit with the evidence from what I can tell.

But I guess at least a case can be made that explosions helped weaken the structure.

[MetalPig]

he does not talk about wtc 7.
Yes he does, here (http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/New-theory-explains-collapse-of-Twin-Towers/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter):
"WTC7 may have taken more of these impacts than the other buildings. At any rate, the building caught fire, which got out of control. In this case, the structural steel may have reached a temperature of more than 1000 oC, over seven hours, and the 13th floor collapsed in the course of a minute. In this case I do agree with the findings of the federal commission. Overheating of steel beams was probably the cause of the collapse.”

[twinstead]

Oh, crap Marokkaan. He doesn't agree with you about WTC7. I guess you can ignore him too.

[MetalPig]

Oh, crap Marokkaan. He doesn't agree with you about WTC7. I guess you can ignore him too.
Yep, back to the fire-resistant silent explosives :rolleyes:

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, crap Marokkaan. He doesn't agree with you about WTC7. I guess you can ignore him too.

No, it doesn't work like that, you should know by now. If he disagrees with the consensus about the twin towers, then he's fearlessly exposing the conspiracy, even if what he says has nothing to do with any possible conspiracy theory. If he agrees with the consensus about WTC7, then he's clearly a paid disinformation agent working for the conspirators. And if he does both, then he's obviously only on the payroll part time, and he's moonlighting as a fearless seeker after truth when he's off-duty as a disinformation agent. What could be simpler?

Dave

[MRC_Hans]

Is he talking about explosions that weakened the towers, or an explosive event that initiated the collapse? The latter wouldn't really fit with the evidence from what I can tell.

But I guess at least a case can be made that explosions helped weaken the structure.

Silent explosions? There were explosions heard between the plane impacts and the collapses, but not of a number or magnitude that would not be expected due to the fires, and certainly not anything near those of a demolition.

Hans

[Animal]

Is he talking about explosions that weakened the towers, or an explosive event that initiated the collapse? The latter wouldn't really fit with the evidence from what I can tell.

But I guess at least a case can be made that explosions helped weaken the structure.


except that there is no seismic evidence of such explosions. Any explosion large enough to weaken the building structure would have had significant energy transmitted to te foundations and would have been picked up on monitoring stations.

[Macgyver1968]

That bit about the Alcoa experiment really sets off my BS alarms. As SS pointed out..who the hell would conduct such an experiment indoors?...and how the hell does 20kg of aluminum create a 30m wide crater, when 20kg of high explosives wouldn't even do that? I did a little google-fu, and could not find any news stories on any such event.

I'm calling shenanigans.

[leftysergeant]

So if it was ignited at the bottom the reaction would run quickly up through the hollow columns to the 88th floor or so, completely liquifying the steel as it went This steel would fall at the speed of gravity down through the hole where the column underneath had been until an instant before. In this way a steady flow of liquid steel would flow down into the basement.

Of course, it is obvious to anyone with a room-temperature IQ that no such thing ever happened.

You mention this fireproofing 'paint'. I don't know what that is referring to. Perhaps ypu mean the thick layer of fireproofing material in which all the columns were jacketed. This material was described by Dr. Astenah-Asl as having turned 'glassy' when he observed it in the rubble. So it may have formed a kind of pipe that guided the liquid steel on it's journey downwards.

No. He found a film of it on top of un-melted steel, so, again,, you are pulling stuff out of the wrong end of your torso. And the paint was never intended to be fireproof. That's why they put cementic foam over it.

This fireproofing of course prevented the bright burning of the nanothermite from being seen from the ooutside just as it contained the smoke.

Not a chance.

Well if you are going to demolish a building it is much better to weaken it first, especially if you are going to try and pass off a story that a so-called 'top block' has crushed the whole structure down flat on the ground.

Actually, the columns were never "crushed." The floors collapsed and the core columns broke apart because they could not stand alone. The perimeter columns were just shoved aside by the fall debris.

[Sunstealer]

That bit about the Alcoa experiment really sets off my BS alarms. As SS pointed out..who the hell would conduct such an experiment indoors?...and how the hell does 20kg of aluminum create a 30m wide crater, when 20kg of high explosives wouldn't even do that? I did a little google-fu, and could not find any news stories on any such event.

I'm calling shenanigans.I can't find anything relating to the 30m crater either even though I've found several documents detailing experiments with liquid aluminium and water in the aluminium industry.

There is a question and answer session here, it's well worth a read to see what this man thinks happened. I think a lot of his reasoning is false. Judge for yourselves. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

[MRC_Hans]

I can't find anything relating to the 30m crater either even though I've found several documents detailing experiments with liquid aluminium and water in the aluminium industry.

There is a question and answer session here, it's well worth a read to see what this man thinks happened. I think a lot of his reasoning is false. Judge for yourselves. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

Mmmm, I'm afraid he's a nut.

The whole premise seems to be "huge explosions" before the collapse. There were no huge explosions. There were minor explosions and isolated windows being blown out, but not with a force that should affect the structure of the building.

His idea of the contained fuel is, well absurd. The temperature increase from the impact energy alone would vaporize the fuel, blow up any tanks that miraculously stayed intact, and the whole thing would ignite in an enormous fireball, which was exactly what we all observed.

His idea of the plane wreck staying more or less in one place and getting encrusted is absurd as well. No incident of the magnitude of 911 ever happened before, but we have plenty of experience with high speed aircraft impacts, including one with the Pentagon the very same day. No 'encrusting' is observed.

:nope:

Hans

[Marokkaan]

I highlighted the relevant part of your post. Of course, English is not my first language, but saying "I'm curious how he will explain ..." implies to me that you think he can't.What else did you mean?

Yes, he does have a problem with his 'explosions' since none were observed, so the 'marginal contribution part' may be my interpretation.

My other point was that lack of aluminium needed not be an issue.

Hans

No he cant explain it, he just accept the NIST report. Why the heck he can not accept the report about wtc 1 and wtc 2 and accept wtc 7.

I really think he did not investigate wtc 7 he only spend time at the twin towers.

You can also see he makes errors when he is talking about wtc 7 details.


So do you now understand after reading my quote from the article and the quote from metalpig from the article that the aluminum argument is not possible for wtc 7?





Yes he does, here (http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/New-theory-explains-collapse-of-Twin-Towers/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter):

Ah its in the other article.

Ah here is it clear he can not explain it. And sticks up to the version of NIST. he just speculates about it.

"WTC7 may have taken more of these impacts than the other buildings. At any rate, the building caught fire, which got out of control. In this case, the structural steel may have reached a temperature of more than 1000 oC, over seven hours, and the 13th floor collapsed in the course of a minute. In this case I do agree with the findings of the federal commission. Overheating of steel beams was probably the cause of the collapse.”

A lot of errors, he does not know about it. I see he did no investigation in this building.

[bill smith]

They know the current set of patchwork theories are neither compatible nor viable and that it's just a matter of time before the wider population catches on, so they needed something new, with molten aluminum, explosions, and catastrophic failure.

If this is taken seriously what impact do you think it will have on the NIST explanations ? Will they be able to import this convincingly into their current narrative ?

[twinstead]

A lot of errors, he does not know about it. I see he did no investigation in this building.

But there are plenty of people who have, and most of them disagree with you. Why do you only trust people who tell you what you want to hear? Why do you only think people whom you agree with are right about WTC7?

You are biased.

[bill smith]

But there are plenty of people who have, and most of them disagree with you. Why do you only trust people who tell you what you want to hear? Why do you only think people whom you agree with are right about WTC7?

You are biased.

So do you think the Norwegian is on the right track Twinstead ? Are you prepared to consider it ? The aluminium melting and exploding and all that ?

[twinstead]

So do you think the Norwegian is on the right track Twinstead ? Are you prepared to consider it ? The aluminium melting and exploding and all that ?


Doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm no expert. What do the experts have to say? I'd even be willing to listen to the ones I don't agree with. Quite the concept, huh?

[Macgyver1968]

I can't find anything relating to the 30m crater either even though I've found several documents detailing experiments with liquid aluminium and water in the aluminium industry.

There is a question and answer session here, it's well worth a read to see what this man thinks happened. I think a lot of his reasoning is false. Judge for yourselves. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

In my searching..I did find this:

Casthouse explosions are occurring at a significant rate. There
were at least 18 deaths reported last year, all which are attributed
to molten aluminum trapping water. Any time you mix two
liquids with vastly differing temperatures an explosion can occur.
Mixing liquid aluminum (1300F-700C) and water (50F-10C)
results in a steam explosion. This explosion is rated as Force 1
through Force 3. A Force 1 causes metal, less then 10 pounds
(4.5Kg), to be thrown a short distance, usually up to 15 feet with
little if any property damage. A Force 2 is a violent steam
explosion. The metal is thrown 15 to 50 feet (6.4m-12.8m) and
involves a considerable amount of metal. Fatalities and serious
injury can result from this type of explosion. A Force 3 explosion
is a catastrophic event. Metal is thrown more then 50 feet and
extensive property damage and injury can result. There will be a
white powder present indicating the reaction of aluminum with
oxygen. In this reaction every pound of aluminum equals 3
pounds of TNT.

I've still yet to find anything about a destroyed lab or a 100 foot wide crater.

[Sunstealer]

Does anyone know if the sprinkler systems were actually functioning?

[sheeplesnshills]

No he cant explain it, he just accept the NIST report. Why the heck he can not accept the report about wtc 1 and wtc 2 and accept wtc 7.

I really think he did not investigate wtc 7 he only spend time at the twin towers.

You can also see he makes errors when he is talking about wtc 7 details.


So do you now understand after reading my quote from the article and the quote from metalpig from the article that the aluminum argument is not possible for wtc 7?







Ah its in the other article.

Ah here is it clear he can not explain it. And sticks up to the version of NIST. he just speculates about it.

"WTC7 may have taken more of these impacts than the other buildings. At any rate, the building caught fire, which got out of control. In this case, the structural steel may have reached a temperature of more than 1000 oC, over seven hours, and the 13th floor collapsed in the course of a minute. In this case I do agree with the findings of the federal commission. Overheating of steel beams was probably the cause of the collapse.”

A lot of errors, he does not know about it. I see he did no investigation in this building.

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/Irony-796569.jpg

[sheeplesnshills]

Does anyone know if the sprinkler systems were actually functioning?

They were operating in some of the floor below the impact area as this is reported by some of those that escaped. The stairwells too had water running down them but that is likely to have come from severed water main risers in the impact zone.

[Architect]

I started with the BBC and I can't find it.

It was on page 5 of this morning's Herald, the biggest selling broadsheet in Scotland.

[Architect]

Note, truthy people reading this:

- Presented at a conference
- Published in a trade journal
- "all over the news"


I have no comment on the viability of the theory, just pointing out how it came to our attention.

I thought exactly the same.

The Edinburgh paper got a bit of coverage in the broadsheets too, as well as the trade press.

But Truthers do seem to ignore this kind of inconvenient thing.

[sheeplesnshills]

If this is taken seriously what impact do you think it will have on the NIST explanations ? Will they be able to import this convincingly into their current narrative ?

The operative word is hi-lited. It won't be as there were no major explosions other than the impacts. The guy is likely delusional, just not paranoid like the twoofers.

[twinstead]

You mean something actually has to be taken seriously to have an impact?

I'm shocked!

[catsmate1]

I really want to know who conducted the alleged experiment with 20kg of molten aluminium, water and rust and turned a laboratory into a 30 meter crater. And when they're due for parole.
Send it to Mythbusters.:D

[catsmate1]

I started with the BBC and I can't find it.
It's not exactly "all over the news", it's on a number of websites (mostly pop-tech)1 rehashed from the physorg article via AFP. The paper appears to have been presented on 15SEP2011, so it's been a week.

I find it unlikely as a even partial explanation for the collapses, not least because of the utter lack of the evidence that would be left by large explosions, from any source.



1 And the Daily Mail......

[Marokkaan]

Lol?

2qJzDYsQfck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJzDYsQfck

[TsuDhoNimh]

That bit about the Alcoa experiment really sets off my BS alarms. As SS pointed out..who the hell would conduct such an experiment indoors?...and how the hell does 20kg of aluminum create a 30m wide crater, when 20kg of high explosives wouldn't even do that? I did a little google-fu, and could not find any news stories on any such event.

I'm calling shenanigans.

http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/newsandeventspdfs/Aluminium_Times_-_2009-08_-_Safety_Coatings_%28A4%29.pdf

ALCOA did run experiments in the 1950s - George Long was the primary investigator at the New Kensington PA site.

Aluminum Times refers to testing done with the "standard testing": 23kg of molten aluminum dropped into a steel pan with a water mix in it. They say nothing about 30-foot craters or destroying the lab - any test that is a standard test usually doesn't damage the lab or personnel.

The energy released when 0.5 kg of aluminium fully reacts with oxygen, according to the reaction equation set out below, is equivalent to detonating 1.4 kg of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
2Al+3H2O = Al2O3+H2 + Energy

[sheeplesnshills]

Lol?

2qJzDYsQfck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJzDYsQfck


Now that looked like a really dumb thing to do, but turned out pretty harmless..........

[TsuDhoNimh]

And this:
http://shanghaiscrap.com/2007/08/shandong-to-dead-workers-dont-blame-us/

Explosion in a smelter ... Hot metal plus water is really dangerous.

[TsuDhoNimh]

Lol?

2qJzDYsQfck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJzDYsQfck

They are immersing the entire crucible, not pouring the molten aluminum into the water. it makes a huge difference.

[Oz1976]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9ZeXWavYQ&feature=related

Water sprayed from a firehose onto Aluminum Alkyl

[Marokkaan]

They are immersing the entire crucible, not pouring the molten aluminum into the water. it makes a huge difference.

If i did the same with boiling oil. what will happen ?

[yodaluver28]

The only recent Alcoa plant explosion I could find was a minor one in Evansville Indiana on April 21, 2010:


http://tristatehomepage.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=150715

Reported by: Craig McDanell

What was originally reported as an overnight explosion at Alcoa turned out to be relatively minor.

A spokesman for the company says excess moisture accumulated in a casting pot and when the hot aluminum was added, it caused an eruption.

One worker received minor burns to his hand, but was able to return to his job and finish his shift.

(http://tristatehomepage.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=150715)

[phunk]

If i did the same with boiling oil. what will happen ?

Try it and leave instructions for your next of kin to let us know the results.

[Norseman]

Not new. Max Photon's rather comical theory had this as a centerpiece, about three years ago.

Obviously it didn't happen. Failure modes in the steel would have been unmistakably different. (/cue "all the st33l was sh!pp3d to CHINA!!11!!one!") :p

This is not new on a serious level either. Dr Frank Greening wrote a paper that was last updated back in 2006. In the paper Dr Greening describes basically the same scenario as Christian Simensen. It is posted in the old part www.911myths.com on this page (http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html).
Direct link to the paper:
Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf)

But, as already pointed out throughout this thread, there are no observables supporting this scenario as a failure mode.

[Norseman]

I can't find anything relating to the 30m crater either even though I've found several documents detailing experiments with liquid aluminium and water in the aluminium industry.

There is a question and answer session here, it's well worth a read to see what this man thinks happened. I think a lot of his reasoning is false. Judge for yourselves. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

I found a Google preview of the proceedings from the TMS 2011 140th Annual Meeting and Exhibition where Christian Simensen presented his paper: A Model for the Collapse of the World Trade Center (http://books.google.com/books?id=2WKwuVASXjEC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Christian+Simensen+why+the+world+trade+center+c ollapsed&source=bl&ots=Mxb5_u4fET&sig=OniUlW7FaGwadWJNl57wJAMHKqw&hl=en&ei=rYB7Tt_hC8zNsgbpsJ3nAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Christian%20Simensen%20why%20the%20world%20trade %20center%20collapsed&f=false)

It is on page 155 - 162. The preview does not show page 159 and 160.

There are several issues with both his understanding of the events that day and the NIST report. Among other he takes the witness accounts about explosions at face value as pointed out several times in this thread. Thereby ending up attempting to explain something that did not happen. He mistakingly claims that the aircrafts were loaded with petrol. And does not understand that the jet fuel was aerosolized on impact and burned up within a few minutes. It looks as though he does not understand that the towers were a "tube in tube" design, look at the figures on page 157. His description of the WTC 7 collapse mechanism is partially wrong.

It is bit embarrassing actually, he should have spent far more time studying
all the videos showing the aircraft impacts and the collapses. And of course a far more careful reading of the NIST reports on WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

[Norseman]

Norwegian Broadcasting Cooporation asked NIST for an interview, to give their reaction in connection with a popular science program that covered the theory Christian Simensen presented. But NIST declined since their opinion was that the theory would not change their conclusion.

Source:http://www.nrk.no/vitenskap-og-teknologi/1.7793083
(Written in new Norwegian of all things, an official dialect of Norwegian)

[RCory]

Ah here is it clear he can not explain it. And sticks up to the version of NIST. he just speculates about it.

A lot of errors, he does not know about it. I see he did no investigation in this building.

I agree with you. Speculation, errors, and no investigation are not a good way to convince people of your theory.

[Pardalis]

His theory is interesting... but it fails in one key area.

There were no loud enough explosions immediately prior to the start of the collapse to account for it. Plus, his theory says the molten aluminum "ran down through the towers", implying that the chemical reaction occurred many floors below the impact zones... so why did the collapses BEGIN at the impact zones?

Exactly, no one heard that alleged explosion and this new theory doesn't explain the inward bowing of the external columns which is not just a theory, it's a fact.

[ergo]

Exactly, no one heard that alleged explosion

Except for the people who reported hearing one. But they must be mistaken, right? It was probably a water cooler.

[Edx]

Except for the people who reported hearing one. But they must be mistaken, right? It was probably a water cooler.

For the nth time...


Explosions are expected in fires
Reports of explosions are expected in fires
There is a big difference between typical explosions you will find in fires and detonations from explosives
Explosives causes blast injuries
In the many videos of the collapses we do not hear any detonations whatsoever, especially not ones capable of causing the kind of of effects truthers claim were occurring like ejecting heavy steel hundreds of feet etc. Such claims only make the idea that there were explosives even more absurd, since that would require even louder/stronger explosives no demolition anywhere would use.

[ergo]

For the nth time...

[LIST]
Explosions are expected in fires
Reports of explosions are expected in fires


Love those portable goalposts. First, "There were no explosions!" Then, when it's pointed out (for the nth time) there were: "They were not the explosions you think they were!"

Bedunkers think that firefighters wouldn't know the difference.


Explosives causes blast injuries

video re: concussive injuries WTC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1)

[ergo]

And then, after admitting there were explosions, EdX tries to go back to his original tack of "There were no explosions!" :D

In the many videos of the collapses we do not hear any detonations whatsoever, especially not ones capable of causing the kind of of effects truthers claim were occurring like ejecting heavy steel hundreds of feet etc.

[Edx]

Love those portable goalposts. First, "There were no explosions!" Then, when it's pointed out (for the nth time) there were: "They were not the explosions you think they were!"

Its not moving, you just ignored 90% of my points. Why did you do that?

Explosions are common and expeted in fires, what about that do you have a problem with?

Explosions from EXPLOSIVE DETONATIONS a very different, such things were not observed on 911 especially not the kind required to do what truthers what which is to fling heavy steel around and so on.

dizurbqG50U




Bedunkers think that firefighters wouldn't know the difference.


So where are all the firefighters that say there were explosives in the towers?

Where are all the firefighters that agree with a single thing you guys say about WTC7? Where are firefighters that disagree with a single thing "the official story" says about WTC7?

video re: concussive injuries WTC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1)

The video title does not reflect what is in the video.

The title says "blast" but the presenter says they were thrown around by the explosion. It doesnt say they sustained blast injuries, you obviously don't know what blast injuries actually are ergo. You don't realise that if they were thrown around by explosives they would have very bad injuries consistent with explosives

[Edx]

And then, after admitting there were explosions, EdX tries to go back to his original tack of "There were no explosions!" :D

I never said there were no explosions, i said there were no explosions consistent with explosives and certainly not the HUGE amount of explosives you require. :rolleyes:

COMPARE SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

nItMYK-1vBM

TO THIS:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

OR THIS ONE:

eU8joiS62js

Notice the difference?

[ergo]

Explosions are common and expeted in fires, what about that do you have a problem with?


The part where you insist that there were none and/or they weren't heard by anyone. Even though they are "common" and "expected" in fires. ;)

[ergo]

The title says "blast" but the presenter says they were thrown around by the explosion.


:D :D :D

Because being "thrown around" by an explosion means there was no blast force.

:D :D :D

[Edx]

:D :D :D

Because being "thrown around" by an explosion means there was no blast force.

:D :D :D

Tell me ergo, exactly how do you think you are "thrown around" by a high explosive? What do you imagine is creating that force?

You dont seem to understand that if you're close enough to a high explosive to be thrown around by one you're probably going to be mincemeat, if you happen to be lucky or just out of range, your ear drums probably will be. You don't just get thrown around by explosives, its not like the films. You're going to suffer a LOT of injuries you apparently have no understanding of.


The part where you insist that there were none and/or they weren't heard by anyone. Even though they are "common" and "expected" in fires

Why do you lie? I never said that there were no explosions heard on 911, I've said that several times now. Its just that explosions from explosives are very different from other kinds of explosions. You claim heavy steel was flung around during the collapse, sorry but we hear no sounds consistent with an explosive capable of achieving that. Therefore it could not physically have happened. No sound, no power.

Watch the video I gave you (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7608769&postcount=81), people have even used the word explosion to refer to a steel crane collapsing. People use the word all the time to refer to things that were not bombs, even when they knew it wasnt a bomb before they said it. Im not just saying they are common in fires, its verifiably clear its common in fires the same way molten metal and molten steel reports are plentiful in normal fires as well. You hear explosion and conclude bomb, when it could be a hundred other things. When it comes down to it no one suffered any blast injuries and no videos picked up any sounds that suggest an explosive capable of doing what you claim they did.

[ergo]

(It's sometimes necessary just to ignore the idiocy.)


Video of a news report of concussive injuries from blast. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1)

[Edx]

(It's sometimes necessary just to ignore the idiocy.)


Video of a news report of concussive injuries from blast. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1)

You just ignored everything I said, good job. Once again this reporter does not talk about blast injuries.

Here is information on blast injuries, go learn about what they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_injury
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Blast-Injury.htm

If you're close enough to be thrown around, you're basically screwed.

[ergo]

Here is information on blast injuries, go learn about what they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_injury
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Blast-Injury.htm



I suggest you do your own reading.

[Edx]

I suggest you do your own reading.

Thats nice ergo, when you come up with an argument let me know. You fail to understand what blast injuries are or what this video shows, too bad.

[Miragememories]

If you're close enough to be thrown around, you're basically screwed.

I believe Hitler did remarkably well in that bunker assassination attempt.

A bit of solid shielding can provide a lot of protection.

MM

[Edx]

I believe Hitler did remarkably well in that bunker assassination attempt.

A bit of solid shielding can provide a lot of protection.

MM


Do you actually have any facts or just an obscure example? We know a lot about blast injuries right now, so there's no shortage of information. I even referenced some sources for you. If you're close enough to be thrown around by an explosive blast wave, especially one that you're claiming was so intense it was destroying heavy infastructure, then you're going to have a whole host of injuries, not just bumps and bruises from falling over. Truthers don't understand that, which is why they also reference people with burnt skin from fire balls as if that was an indicator of a high exploive, again, this is not an indicator of a high explosive at all.

[ergo]

We've discussed this already with the instances (and in most cases, lack of) barotrauma at the Murrah building bombing. EdX knows this.

No amount of evidence satisfies bedunkers on this issue. They'll say, on the one hand, no injuries from explosions were reported, then when you show them there were, they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives." :rolleyes:

It's recess time with the schoolyard bullies. Moving goalposts.

[bill smith]

So he Norwegian is a fake ? He seemed to be well supported in the media though.

[Edx]

they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives." :rolleyes:

Once again I never said that, if you're going to continue to lie over and over so openly about what I said then there's really no point continuing. :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

We've discussed this already with the instances (and in most cases, lack of) barotrauma at the Murrah building bombing. EdX knows this.

No amount of evidence satisfies bedunkers on this issue. They'll say, on the one hand, no injuries from explosions were reported, then when you show them there were, they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives." :rolleyes:

It's recess time with the schoolyard bullies. Moving goalposts.

Jesus, talk about irony. You make a career of hand waving away massive amounts of evidence, and you have the cajones to accuse US of not being satisfied with evidence. Seriously?

It must be some kind of joke.

[000063]

Bedunkers think that firefighters wouldn't know the difference.Oddly enough, no firefighters on the scene reported explosives.

It's okay, we can all see you're trying to conflate explosions with explosives again.

I also note you take five points, distill them down to three, and even have to edit the third one. Odd.

[Edx]

Oddly enough, no firefighters on the scene reported explosives.

To be absolutely fair, there is 1 single firefighter that has. John Schroeder, but of course no one that was with him reports what he does and he doesn't, or didnt, know which tower fell first. ie. what he experienced was the collapse of the South tower. Dunno what he thinks now.

[Pardalis]

So he Norwegian is a fake ? He seemed to be well supported in the media though.

Why does it always have to be a false dichotomy with you. He could be simply mistaken.

[ergo]

they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives."


Once again I never said that, if you're going to continue to lie over and over so openly about what I said then there's really no point continuing.


* yawn *


You dont seem to understand that if you're close enough to a high explosive to be thrown around by one you're probably going to be mincemeat

[beachnut]

* yawn *
Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

So you say these are due to explosives?


...
(It's sometimes necessary just to ignore the idiocy.)


Video of a news report of concussive injuries from blast. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1)
No blast injuries, the people were pushed down by a blast of air from the collapse. An explosive blast causing injuries of broken bones would turn your brain to mush. Failure comes due to lack of knowledge. You will fail until you gain knowledge.

...

[bill smith]

Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

So you say these are due to explosives?


...

No blast injuries, the people were pushed down by a blast of air from the collapse. An explosive blast causing injuries of broken bones would turn your brain to mush. Failure comes due to lack of knowledge. You will fail until you gain knowledge.

...

That fits with the definition in the jref dictionary Beachnut..

Explosion,n,....(jref)........def...[A violent release of energy that is never caused by explosives]

[TsuDhoNimh]

Has anyone checked with ALCOA to see if they really did the experiment he cites as destroying the lab? I think their safety crews would have heard about it, if only because they had to fill the crater.

If they didn't do that experiment, he's pulling his arguments ex culo and can be ignored.

[Animal]

I believe Hitler did remarkably well in that bunker assassination attempt.

A bit of solid shielding can provide a lot of protection.

MM

And that blast was barely enough to shatter a oak table leg, not nearly enough to cause significant structural damage. The only reason it did as much damage as it did was because of the small contained room.

Another troofer swing and a miss. :rolleyes:

[sheeplesnshills]

If i did the same with boiling oil. what will happen ?

Try it and find out......

[Edx]

* yawn *

Notice the part where I said you wont survive if you're that close to it. I didnt say that people wouldnt survive a explosive, I specifically said they'd sustain specific injuries like blast lung and ruptured ear drums

Stop lying about people say.

[sheeplesnshills]

I believe Hitler did remarkably well in that bunker assassination attempt.

A bit of solid shielding can provide a lot of protection.

MM

well lets forget for a second that you hadn't just lost the argument because of godwins rule.

Hitler was injured in the assassination attempt, it was a very small charge, 1kg, relative to that required to sever the huge columns of the WTC. Despite that, several people died and Hitler suffered a perforated eardrum as did everyone else in the room.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot

[MIKILLINI]

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminum , 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminum 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."[/I]



Alcoa wouldn't conduct an idiotic test of that nature..They're smarter than that.

[MRC_Hans]

So he Norwegian is a fake ? He seemed to be well supported in the media though.

Media support is a very good measure of scientific credibility, right?

Fake, or mistaken.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Alcoa wouldn't conduct an idiotic test of that nature..They're smarter than that.


No, I also wondered about that. If you know something might be explosive (and why make the test, if you didn't suspect it to be), would any sane person start with 20kg? :eye-poppi

Personally, I would start with about 2g.

Hans

[leftysergeant]

We've discussed this already with the instances (and in most cases, lack of) barotrauma at the Murrah building bombing. EdX knows this.

Not even sure I want to know whose septic tank you excavated that from . I am sure there was a lot of barotrauma on the ground floor, and there should have been some on the second.

Most of the injuries would have been done by flying or falling debris. That is not rocket science. Nor does it mean anything inb this context. It was McVeigh's bomb that did it. Do you have aq further point to make, maybe one that means something in this context?

No amount of evidence satisfies bedunkers on this issue. They'll say, on the one hand, no injuries from explosions were reported, then when you show them there were, they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives."

Horse hockey. The last clip you offered is about concussive injuries when people were slammed into stationary surfaces, like their ambulances. This is apparently following the collapse of one of the towerrs.

That much rubble falling from that height will create an incredible wind. Wind can pick you up and slam you into a wall so hard that you squish like a bug on a windshield.

Had they been buffeted thusly by high explosive charges, they would not have been able to answer reporters' questions because to this day, they would no longer be able to HEAR even Alex Jones with a bullhorn ASKING the questions. The sound of the explosion would have been that freaking LOUD.

[000063]

We've discussed this already with the instances (and in most cases, lack of) barotrauma at the Murrah building bombing. EdX knows this.http://crashingpatient.com/trauma/030-blastinj.htm

In the Oklahoma City bombing, the incidence of auditory injury was 35%.1,13 This does not count those patients with partial, temporary hearing loss or those who complained of tinnitus for an extended period of time.

No amount of evidence satisfies bedunkers on this issue. They'll say, on the one hand, no injuries from explosions were reported, then when you show them there were, they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives." :rolleyes:Except for the part where those were from compression blasts, not boom-boom, and the long held debunker position, which you ignore all the time to speak to your imaginary audience(because you certainly can't argue with anyone who actually knows what they're talking about), is that explosives are not necessarily indicative of explosives. Not only do you not refute these claims, they don't even seem to register. These aren't moved goalposts, this is your own oddly consistent misunderstanding. You are either outright lying, or you have a confirmation bias problem. Possibly both.

It's recess time with the schoolyard bullies. Moving goalposts.Indeed you are.

[ergo]

In the Oklahoma City bombing, the incidence of auditory injury was 35%.1,13 This does not count those patients with partial, temporary hearing loss or those who complained of tinnitus for an extended period of time.



http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf :
The most common types of injuries reported by those interviewed were soft tissue injuries (61%)... Organ systems injuries, including auditory damage and smoke/dust inhalation, accounted for 19% of injuries...

The proportion of people who did not hear the noise was highest in the Murrah Building (45%)...

(In case you didn't know, that's the building that got bombed.)

Forty-nine percent of the study population suffered hearing injuries including ruptured eardrums, short-term or long-term hearing loss, tinnitus, and equilibrium/balance problems. Of persons who sustained hearing injuries, 62% heard the noise of the blast while 29% did not. The highest proportion of people who suffered hearing injuries were located outdoors (72%) and in vehicles (67%)...

[beachnut]

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

So you say these are due to explosives?





That fits with the definition in the jref dictionary Beachnut..

Explosion,n,....(jref)........def...[A violent release of energy that is never caused by explosives] A failed definition for a demented movement.

The quotes, from people who heard bodies hitting the ground on 911.

[000063]

http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf :


(In case you didn't know, that's the building that got bombed.)Um;

Locations of Deaths and Injuries
Deaths. Of 167 persons who died, 163 were occupants of the Alfred P. Murrah Building
(Figure 2). Of these, 118 worked in the Murrah Building, 15 were children in the day-care
center, and 30 were visitors (including 4 children) in the building, Two additional deaths
occurred in the Water Resources Building, one death in the Athenian Building, and one death
occurred outdoors near the blast.

Occupants of the Alfred P. Murrah Building experienced the highest number of injuries and
deaths (Figure 3). Forty-five percent (163/361) of the building's occupants died, and 47%
(168/361) were injured, yielding a combined fatal and nonfatal injury rate of 92% (331/361).
Within the second floor day care center of the Murrah Building, 76% (19/25; 15 children and 4
adults) of the occupants died. Additionally, 1 death (which was not a direct result of the blast)In other words, most of the people who died were inside the building. It's kinda hard to tell if they heard the explosion if it killed them.

Noise Perception and Hearing Damage.
Figure 6. Noise Perception by Location
Sixty-five percent of persons said they Oklahoma City Bombing
heard the blast noise; 27% did not hear the
noise; and for 8% of respondents noise
perception was unknown. The proportion of
people who did not hear the noise was
highest in the Murrah Building (45%),
followed by the Water Resources Building
(24%) and the Journal Record Building
(24%) (Figure 6).
Forty-nine percent of the study population
suffered hearing injuries including ruptured
eardrums, short-term or long-term hearing
loss, tinnitus, and equilibrium/balance
problems. So, anything else you want to quote-mine?

You are carefully not addressing the paragraph of my post that includes the highlighted portion. I find that odd.

[ergo]

Quoting everything I already quoted, but making absolutely zero point. Interesting.

[fezzic]

Alcoa wouldn't conduct an idiotic test of that nature..They're smarter than that.

Found something that might be helpful or relevant.

Source: http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/insight_newsletter/Aluminium_Insight_2011-02_Wise_Chem-Explosions.pdf

Some extracts. The whole thing is only one page but posting the whole thing would be a no no, I believe.

The Aluminum Association who has categorized water / molten aluminium explosions into three levels.

A Force 1 explosion is also referred to as a steam explosion. This occurs when molten aluminium traps water which is then quickly vaporized to steam. The metal is shot up to 15 ft (~4.5 m) and normally involves less than 10 lb (~4.5 kg) of metal.

A Force 2 explosion results from a violent steam reaction. Metal is ejected 15–50 ft (~4.5–15 m) and involves much more than 30 lb (~14 kg) of metal.

A Force 3 explosion is a catastrophic event where a large volume of metal is projected more than 50 ft (~15 m). Fatalities often occur along with near total destruction of the immediate area.

One pound of aluminium in a Force3 explosion is equal to 3 lb (1.4 kg)of TNT.

Something from same that may form the basis for part of the claim of destruction:

An Alcoa paper titled “Molten Aluminum / Water Explosions” published in 1979,points out another problem. This was a test to evaluate various coatings. Itinvolved the standard 12 x 12 x 12 in box half full of water into which 50 lb (~23 kg)of molten aluminium is dropped and an impact hammer hits the side to initiate the explosion. Various coatings are tested this way. In one test, Red Rustoleum was used, but before the explosion could be initiated it went off by itself. Red Rustoleum contains large amounts of iron oxide, which reacted with the molten aluminium and caused the explosion.

Note: A cubic foot of water would be about 62 pounds. Half that would be 32 pounds or about 15 kilograms.

So the dangers are known, it would seem that YES there can be an explosion, but NO maybe not quite the kind that has been postulated.

[ergo]

http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf



83 people were hospitalized for bombing injuries (out of a total of 851 injuries)

Out of a total of 851 injured, 167 people died.

46% of injured persons suffered auditory injuries, according to treatment records.

Of 491 follow-up study participants, 49% suffered auditory injuries. The highest proportion of these had been outdoors (72%) and in vehicles (67%).



EdX, care to expound more on your theory about bomb explosions and barotrauma?

[Edx]

http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf



83 people were hospitalized for bombing injuries (out of a total of 851 injuries)


Out of a total of 851 injured, 167 people died.


46% of injured persons suffered auditory injuries, according to treatment records.


Of 491 follow-up study participants, 49% suffered auditory injuries. The highest proportion of these had been outdoors (72%) and in vehicles (67%).



EdX, care to expound more on your theory about bomb explosions and barotrauma?


Well you just showed that people caught in actual explosions caused by bombs have blast injuries. Where are all the people on 911 that sustained blast injuries? People getting bumps and bruises from falling over is not a blast injury. :rolleyes:

[ergo]

Well you just showed that people caught in actual explosions caused by bombs have blast injuries.

But not even a majority of them, as you had insisted. And most of the hearing injuries were sustained by people who were not in the building. Does that say something about how building structure can mitigate blast effects?? In the blasted-out lobbies of the towers, everyone who was there to witness it was dead.

[Edx]

But not even a majority of them, as you had insisted. And most of the hearing injuries were sustained by people who were not in the building. Does that say something about how building structure can mitigate blast effects?? In the blasted-out lobbies of the towers, everyone who was there to witness it was dead.

Look what you quoted:

"83 people were hospitalized for bombing injuries"
46% of injured persons suffered auditory injuries, according to treatment records.
Of 491 follow-up study participants, 49% suffered auditory injuries."
-

Thats a lot of people with blast injuries and barotrauma.

You cant even find a single person with the most minor blast injuries associated with explosives on 911, yet truthers will even quote names of people who were caught in an explosion, thrown around by one, or even burnt by one (although burning is not a characteristic of a high explosive) Why dont truthers find these people and ask if they suffered blast lung or ruptured ear drums ("auditory injuries")?

[ergo]

Look what you quoted:


Thats a lot of people with blast injuries and barotrauma.

But not the majority, as you tend to insist. This was a bomb that was detonated outside the building. Should have seen a lot more, according to you.

You cant even find a single person with the most minor blast injuries associated with explosives on 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1

[Edx]

But not the majority, as you tend to insist. This was a bomb that was detonated outside the building. Should have seen a lot more, according to you.

You debunk yourself, you provide a source that showed hundreds of people with "auditory injuries". Blast injuries includes "auditory injuries". I guess when they specify "bombing injuries" they are being even more specific than that. The reason why you'd get "auditory injuries" ie. ruptured ear drums, or just injured ear drums, is becauseof how loud a bomb is, as a truther youy dont really understand how loud bombs actually are.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U&NR=1

And how many suffered any ""auditory injuries"? How can you be thrown around by the blast wave of a bomb, but not suffer the most common injury associated with an explosive?

[ergo]

You debunk yourself, you provide a source that showed hundreds of people with "auditory injuries". Blast injuries includes "auditory injuries". I guess when they specify "bombing injuries" they are being even more specific than that. The reason why you'd get "auditory injuries" ie. ruptured ear drums, or just injured ear drums, is becauseof how loud a bomb is, as a truther youy dont really understand how loud bombs actually are.

:boggled:

You don't even know what you're talking about now.

And how many suffered any ""auditory injuries"? How can you be thrown around by the blast wave of a bomb, but not suffer the most common injury associated with an explosive?

I don't know. Why don't you ask the news clip? What a stupid question.

[leftysergeant]

You don't even know what you're talking about now.

Your ignorance of forensic medicine is overwhelmingly obvious.

Just listening to loud music will screw up your ears. Bombs powerful enough to damage a building are far louder than the biggest honking woofer available for outdoor rock concerts.

I don't know. Why don't you ask the news clip? What a stupid question.

So you have nothing. Figures.

[leftysergeant]

Of 491 follow-up study participants, 49% suffered auditory injuries. The highest proportion of these had been outdoors (72%) and in vehicles (67%).
[/LIST][/INDENT]


EdX, care to expound more on your theory about bomb explosions and barotrauma?Dude, you are clearly not paying attention.

People outside suffered barotrauma in OKC. We know that that was from a bomb.

Nobody inside the basements or the stairwells suffered barotrauma from the explosions or explosion-like events they experienced.

We thus know that those events were not caused by bombs.

Were you aware that being in an enclosed space aggravates barotrauma?

[ergo]

Dude, you are clearly not paying attention.

People outside suffered barotrauma in OKC. We know that that was from a bomb.

Nobody inside the basements or the stairwells suffered barotrauma from the explosions or explosion-like events they experienced.

We thus know that those events were not caused by bombs.

Were you aware that being in an enclosed space aggravates barotrauma?


Being in an enclosed space with a bomb tends to aggravate death.

Barotrauma at the Murrah building occurred predominantly to those who were outside. Most of the people inside were protected from the blast wave by the building's mitigating structure. But they suffered many other injuries which are characteristic of secondary and third-order blast injuries.

These kinds of injuries are what are also described in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U) I've posted.

Here's another news clip about a ground level explosion at the WTC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIvm0GDbCQ

[NoahFence]

You're using real-time reports as concrete evidence?

How truthfully typical.

There were no bombs. There were plenty of explosions. This is the worst terrorist attack on US soil, probably anywhere, ever.

Stuff's gonna go "boom".

[Edx]

:boggled:

You don't even know what you're talking about now.


Really? You apparently dont know that the most common blast injury from an explosive is an "auditory injury", such as ruptured ear drums.

HUNDREDS of people in the OKC Bombing had such injuries, how many people suffered "auditory injuries" on 911 despite you guys claiming bombs were going off all over the place? How can so many people be caught in explosive blasts that you truthers claim are so powerful they are destroying heavy infastructure and yet not even suffer the most basic injury caused by an explosive? You guys even know the names and identities of these people, why has no truther tried to contact these people and ask them if they sustained any of these injuries?


I don't know. Why don't you ask the news clip? What a stupid question.

How can I ask a news clip? Are you high? You should have stopped talking after you said "I don't know".

[000063]

Quoting everything I already quoted, but making absolutely zero point. Interesting.Funny, I seem to have misunderstood your point in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7619389&postcount=112). Could you clarify? I made my point already.

In other words, most of the people who died were inside the building. It's kinda hard to tell if they heard the explosion if it killed them.That would be the point I made, leaving aside the remarks pertaining to you. I would like to further clarify that my point was that if they weren't killed outright, the victims almost certainly would've receiver hearing damage.

Incidentally, here are those numbers on the Murrah occupants. Again.

Occupants of the Alfred P. Murrah Building experienced the highest number of injuries and
deaths (Figure 3). Forty-five percent (163/361) of the building's occupants died, and 47%
(168/361) were injured, yielding a combined fatal and nonfatal injury rate of 92% (331/361). Looks like a majority to me.

I do like how you're nitpicking about a "majority" hearing/being killed by the explosions, when even as low as, say, 10% of the people in and around the Twin Towers on 9/11 would've meant hundreds of people hurt or dead. All you've been able to find is a few compression blast injuries.

[catsmate1]

You debunk yourself, you provide a source that showed hundreds of people with "auditory injuries". Blast injuries includes "auditory injuries". I guess when they specify "bombing injuries" they are being even more specific than that. The reason why you'd get "auditory injuries" ie. ruptured ear drums, or just injured ear drums, is becauseof how loud a bomb is, as a truther youy dont really understand how loud bombs actually are.



And how many suffered any ""auditory injuries"? How can you be thrown around by the blast wave of a bomb, but not suffer the most common injury associated with an explosive?
Not to forget longer term effects such as Blast-Related Traumatic Brain Injury; if high explosives were used there'd be a significant number of such cases.

[ergo]

Being in an enclosed space with a bomb will tend to cause death.

Barotrauma at the Murrah building occurred predominantly to those who were outside. Most of the people inside were protected from the blast wave by the building's mitigating structure. But they suffered many other injuries which are characteristic of secondary and third-order blast injuries.

These kinds of injuries are what are also described in the posted video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4JYQpZk91U).

[leftysergeant]

Barotrauma at the Murrah building occurred predominantly to those who were outside.

Well DUH! The freaking bomb was outside.

Most of the people inside were protected from the blast wave by the building's mitigating structure. But they suffered many other injuries which are characteristic of secondary and third-order blast injuries.

The problem was that that intervening structure on the first floor was set into motion laterally or vertically, causing immediate blunt-force trauma on the lower floors and lifting parts of the upper floors off the foundations and dropping them back down again.

The only thing that this proves is that Benton Partin is full of crap.

Had there been demolition charges inside the Murrah Building, most of the survivors would probably be stone deaf today.

[ergo]

The only thing that this proves is that Benton Partin is full of crap.

In what way, and of what relevance?

Had there been demolition charges inside the Murrah Building, most of the survivors would probably be stone deaf today.

The injuries sustained by the outside survivors does not suggest this. On what data do you base this claim?

[000063]

Being in an enclosed space with a bomb will tend to cause death.

Barotrauma at the Murrah building occurred predominantly to those who were outside."Outside" is generally not considered "enclosed". Incidentally, the death rate was 163/646. About 25 percent. What was the death rate from the alleged 9/11 explosives?

Most of the people inside were protected from the blast wave by the building's mitigating structure. But they suffered many other injuries which are characteristic of secondary and third-order blast injuries. Yes, such as death.

Incidentally:

The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.And Wikipedia's (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070703233435/http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/okcfr_App_C.pdf) sources (http://web.archive.org/web/20070213112339/http://www.safetysolutions.net.au/safety/ss/ss_30.asp).

Did we see anything like that on 9/11?

[000063]

In what way, and of what relevance?The relevance is that lefty thinks he is wrong.

The injuries sustained by the outside survivors does not suggest this. On what data do you base this claim?Hold up, hoss. We're going to need some numbers. How many people were in the Murrah Building? How many of those people were killed? What percentage of the people in the building were killed?