This Forum is Closed

The War Room => 9/11 Material & Research => Topic started by: Optimus on September 22, 2011, 12:38:52 pm

Title: New theory about 9/11 that the MSM allows [even crazier than no planes]
Post by: Optimus on September 22, 2011, 12:38:52 pm
Chemical reactions between molten aluminum and sprinkler water is what caused the explosions in the towers? Give me a break! That is an impossible scenario the MSM and the government is trying to force feed us into believing! Buildings falling to the ground at near free-fall speeds can only be explained as controlled demolition! There was chemical reactions that brought down the buildings, that is what explosives are as evidenced by the explosive residue of nanothermite that was found and confirmed. How stupid do they think we are to believe this ridiculous propaganda in the quoted article below? (See my response below the quoted article that completely debunks the propaganda it presents.)

Quote from: Dig
These guys know they are caught and instead of trolling BS on the internet like they did with no planes, now they are going right to the MSM with their zionuke jesuit grey aliens from xenu crapola. Are these Bilderberg morons even trying any more?

Did chemical reactions cause Twin Towers collapse?
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 -- 5:18 pm

PARIS A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference. "If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water," Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway, said in a statement released Wednesday. "From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions." 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. Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, the blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said. This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below. The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building like a house of card, he said. The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped. 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 Aluminium International Today. "The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust. "The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said. By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations. Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers. The debris -- especially plaster, which blocks the transfer of heat -- would have formed a shield protecting the rest of the building. At the same time, however, it would created a super-hot, oven-like zone around the aircraft, heated by burning fuel. 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," 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. The mix would immediately boost temperatures by several hundred degrees, releasing combustible hydrogen in the process. Such reactions are even more powerful in the presence of rust or other catalysts, which can boost temperatures to more than 1,500 C (2,700 F). A meltdown period of 30 to 45 minutes would also be consistent with the timing of the explosions and subsequent collapse of both buildings in relation to the moment of impact. Simensen said there are lessons to be learned, if his theory is correct, that could help avoid a similar disaster were another skyscraper to be hit by a big jet. "We could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors beneath the point of impact," he said. Firing a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could also help prevent metal alloy from melting.

Oh man, what the f*ck, this is beyond the thermal expansion garbage.  cloudylissa puts things in perspective with her more plausible theory in the satire section...

My new 9/11 WTC collapse theory in response to Simensen's WTC collapse theory

Here's how molten aluminum reacts with water. Note that NO explosion takes place when they react.

Molten aluminum into cold water

Uploaded by josiah2j on Nov 10, 2010
Experiment to see what a couple pounds of molten aluminum in a steel crucible would do as it is dumped into 5 gallons of cold water.



Aluminium powder heated in steam produces hydrogen and aluminium oxide. The reaction is relatively slow because of the existing strong aluminium oxide layer on the metal, and the build-up of even more oxide during the reaction."

Three Hydrogen Myths

Myth #3 Hydrogen is just too dangerous.

The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more than a half-century. Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen's hazards are different and generally more tractable than those of hydrocarbon fuels. In the vast majority of cases, leaking hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases where it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume of gas is 22 times weaker than that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as has been claimed, "essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite."

Hydrogen is four times more diffusive than natural gas or 12 times more than gasoline fumes, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away from its source. If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a non-luminous flame that can't readily scorch you at a distance, emitting only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7% cooler than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen's clear flame because they need a viewing device to see it in daylight, victims generally aren't burned unless they're actually in the flame, nor are they choked by smoke.

One videotaped test of a standard passenger car compared a hydrogen leak with a gasoline leak. In the first test, a hydrogen leak was created, assuming a very unlikely triple failure of redundant protective devices. The leak discharged the entire 1.54-kg hydrogen inventory of the fuel-cell car, but the resulting vertical flame plume raised the car's interior temperature by 1-2C (0.6-1.1 F). The passenger compartment was unharmed. In the second part of the test, gasoline leaked from a 1.6-mm (1/16") hole in the fuel line. The resulting explosion gutted the car's interior and would have killed anyone trapped inside. Because the hydrogen-leak test didn't damage the car, the gasoline part of the test was conducted using the same car. Had the gasoline portion of test been done first, a second car would have been required for the hydrogen leak test.

Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, these safety attributes of hydrogen actually helped save 62 lives in the 1937 Hindenburg disaster. An investigation by NASA scientist Dr. Addison Bain found that the disaster would have been essentially unchanged even if the dirigible were lifted not by hydrogen but by nonflammable helium, and that probably nobody aboard was killed by a hydrogen fire. (There was no explosion.) The 35% who died were killed by jumping out, or by the burning diesel oil, canopy, and debris (the cloth canopy was coated with the primary chemical components of rocket fuel which ignited due to discharge of static electricity when the dirigible docked). The other 65% survived, riding the flaming dirigible to earth as the clear hydrogen flames swirled harmlessly above them.

Here's a great response to the impossibility of this BS scenario taking place:

The reaction he 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.