Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts? (Update)

Smoke billows up after the first of the two towers of the World Trade Center collapses
Smoke billows up after the first of the two towers of the World Trade Center collapses in 2001 in New York City. 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.
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.


Explore further

Allergy treatment may cause new allergy

(c) 2011 AFP

Citation: Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts? (Update) (2011, September 21) retrieved 23 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 21, 2011
This is the best explanation I have ever read for the collapse. It's a simple and almost elegant solution.

Sep 21, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.

Sep 21, 2011
iPan:

Freemasons? Illuminate? George Bin Laden's nephew?

Sep 21, 2011
iPan,

You could say the same thing for science in general. After all, if the world was supported on the backs of four elephants back in 1000 BC, why all this new cosmology? What are THEY trying to hide?

Sep 21, 2011
hemitite, they are hiding the rest of the elephants.

Sep 21, 2011
iPan decided a long time ago that what he heard was convincing enough to be the truth, despite the lack of any actual substantial analysis. You will notice that most people believe the truth to be the first thing they hear, and every subsequent explanation becomes the lie, no matter what.

In other-words, there is absolutely no hope in reasoning with a person who believes they already know the absolute truth, despite evidence to the contrary.

Sep 21, 2011
So you are saying that the planes melted, and that the aluminum just happened to flow in large quantities and meet with a quantity of water to cause several explosions? Sounds very unlikely to me. Why dont people just stop investigating the twin towers collapse. The world doesnt need to know that the government betrayed its own people to motivate them to go to war, with the intent of destroying OPEC, the only obstacle to complete control of the world by the oil companies.

Sep 21, 2011
I've melted aluminum cans with a charcoal BBQ and a vacuum clean with the hose plugged into the hole that blows air.

Why can't jet fuel melt what is essentially a big aluminum can?

And every floor has water pipes attached to the bathrooms.

Sep 21, 2011
Ok, since this IS physorg I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the assumption (yes, I'm well aware of what happens when I do this) that some of you (specifically the author of this article) have SOME capacity for scientific thought. I'm not a professional so I would like SOMEONE WHO IS to explain the following to me:

How in the world is Aluminum, with a melting point of 1220ºF/660ºC, melted by Jet fuel (Jet A/A-1) which has an open air burning temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)? Is it because it was enclosed in the tower, so it was burning 2X+ as hot?

I also would like to point out that this article is also acknowledging that there WERE "explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse." Interesting.

Sep 21, 2011
Is it just me or is the best part of this article the part where they talk about a "controlled experiment" that destroyed a whole lab! Haha! I want to work there!

Sep 21, 2011
Wasn't most of the jet fuel consumed by those enormous fireballs exploding out the sides, immediately after the planes hit?
So where was the plane that took down building 7?
Does it really matter anymore? Whatever happened, it's just been an enormous fail for the US.

Sep 21, 2011
Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.

Sep 21, 2011
Why do we need a new theory after 10 years, I thought NIST settled this already. Whoops, guess not. So, does this then discredit EVERYTHING NIST SAID? This still does not explain WTC 7, which no plane hit. So if the molten metal was just aluminum from the planes, how did it get to the WTC 7 complex where no plane hit?

Sep 21, 2011
I mean, really... this is laughable. No mention the whole article about WTC 7.... someone, come on, tell me how that building fell then if this is now the theory.

Sep 21, 2011
How in the world is Aluminum, with a melting point of 1220ºF/660ºC, melted by Jet fuel (Jet A/A-1) which has an open air burning temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)? Is it because it was enclosed in the tower, so it was burning 2X+ as hot?
Coke has a relatively low burning temp but it is used to refine steel in blast furnaces. Convective air flow in the towers along with insulation from building matls might have produced these conditions.

There is a debate re thermate demolition:
http://www.youtub...iIoCiI8g

-Although to me it seems that these buildings were designed to fail specifically by jet fuel fire which softened the steel floor joists causing them to sag and pop the (2) 5/8" bolts at either end. As one side of one floor fell onto the floor below it would cause a chain reaction.

The bulk of the structure was in the skin. This tube confined the telescoping floors and landed it all in the subgrade 'bathtub'. Very neat and tidy.
cont

Sep 21, 2011
Anyone who has done their research knows that the only plausible explanation for each of the three builidings to collapse was controlled demolition.

Sep 21, 2011
This design may have been to facilitate eventual demolition of these structures but I dont see how. They dont seem to have been built to last very long... more like a K-Mart than a courthouse. Most high-rises are built out of structural steel shapes or more recently, reinforced concrete.

Steel joists seems odd for the 2 tallest buildings at the time. They were not able to be adequately fireproofed with existing technologies and yet insurance companies still ok'ed the structural concept.

Anyway this is the first Ive heard of the aluminum alloy explosion thing. Temps which could melt this stuff could have also melted bldg steel re the video.

A NYC developer -Friedman was it? -was once asked why he didnt buy the WTC. He said he didnt want to own a target. This was before 9/11.

Sep 21, 2011
Let's get back to explaining building 7.

Sep 21, 2011
WTC Building 7:

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

List of tenants:
CIA.................not known
SEC.................11, 12, 13 (records of Enron pros.)
IRS.................24 & 25
SS..................9 & 10
Mayor's Emg.Mgmt....23
Insur...............19 & 21
Financial Inst......The rest of the floors

Sep 21, 2011
tower 7 was a controlled demolition i don't give a crap what they say. if it walk like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Sep 21, 2011
It is sad to see that anyone who commented with a statement deviating from mainstream belief was given a poor ranking. As scientists, we should challenge the BS our government sold us, and seek the truth, please stop being so ignorant to the thought of it being an inside job and look at the facts, as many have pointed out.

Sep 21, 2011
There was molten metal pools for a week at g-zero. Aluminum do that?

Sep 21, 2011
As for water supply; large buildings actually have interior fire hydrants that could provide large quantities.

Sep 21, 2011
TTcarnal_force joined on 9/6/11 and has posted in only one other topic, also about 9/11.

Gyges, vesic8, and amhippi have all registered today just to post in this thread. Here's a conspiracy for you. How much do you want to bet they are all the same person?

Why do the cranks on this site feel the need to register 4, 5 and more accounts to all espouse the same viewpoint? Is it because they know they are full of shit? At some level they have to because no one can be that fucking dumb.

Sep 21, 2011
How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.
I dont think I would have relocated to a bldg right next to ground zero, which also happened to be on fire, would you?

As far as it collapsing, it had ben burning for 8 hours. Lots of smoke but few visible flames on the exterior could mean that there was still extensive heat and flame in the core. Collapse toward the center of the structure (the crimp) could be consistent with column failure in the core due to temperatures hot enough to sufficiently weaken the steel.

Or it could have been 'pulled', or demolished, as silverstein, the owner, SAID it was in the interview.
http://www.youtub...JimaumW4

-Funny how he says this... like 'Lets add even more mystery and confusion to the event by saying something cryptic here.' He says 'pulled' and then 'we watched the bldg come down.'

Sep 21, 2011
Not only does this ridiculous theory completely disregard building 7, this theory still doesn't address the fact that the twin towers gravity driven collapse model defies the law of conservation of momentum. The plane hit about 75% up the tower leaving a 25% top chunk inadequately supported underneath. Assuming the mass of the building is consistent throughout, the bottom section should have been about 3 times the mass of the top section, yet we have here a 25% chunk plowing straight thru a 75% chunk after very minimal acceleration. This is absolutely impossible absent some form of explosives/incendiaries to help the top section completely demolish the lower section. The bottom section had 3 times the mass of the top section, its a direct violation of newtons laws for it to have been crushed by something only 1/3 its mass. In a gravity driven collapse, the 25% top section could only have crushed the 25% section below it, leaving a full 50% of the building still standing.

Sep 21, 2011
blanereigns, Member since: September 21, 2011, 3:33 pm

Add another conspirator.

Sep 21, 2011
FrankHerbert, I'm not a conspirator, I'm a mechanical engineer. I just joined because I came across this article and wanted to comment. Care to address my comment? How about the mysterious collapse of building 7?

Sep 21, 2011
You guys are funny. The reason why people are signing up today, much like myself, is because this story is posted on infowars.com. So I came here to read the full article, and voila, I am now posting on it.

Its like saying someone has a low post count, so they must obviously be stupid or not know what they are talking about.

There are examples of buildings, highrises, that burned for 24 hours as raging infernos, and they never collapsed. WTC 7 fell straight down so fast that even if it wasnt technically free fall, it was pretty close to it. The middle of the building fell into itself followed by the rest of the building extremely quickly. The damage from the falling debris was on one side of the building, and even if the whole structure was up in flames, which is wasnt, the building would have collapsed much slower and not uniformly as it did.

Sep 21, 2011
The plane hit about 75% up the tower leaving a 25% top chunk inadequately supported underneath.
Youve got to factor in just what was hit and what was left to support the structure. This takes analysis.
Assuming the mass of the building is consistent throughout,
You mean in cross-section or from floor to floor? Either way its not.
the bottom section should have been about 3 times the mass of the top section, yet we have here a 25% chunk plowing straight thru a 75% chunk after very minimal acceleration. This is absolutely impossible
No its absolutely impossible to ascertain without a detailed analysis. But even without doing such, it is easy to imagine that it WAS possible.
absent some form of explosives/incendiaries
Bldgs are economically designed - pretty flimsy - compared to cars or trees. I myself favor conspiracy, but of a more basic, intrinsic sort. The towers were DESIGNED to fall just like they did - no bombs required, only jets. WTC is more problematic.

Sep 21, 2011
FrankHerbert "The Physorg conspiritor" apparently, really quit stalking people. It's an open discussion, if you don't like our arguments, counter them with counter arguments, preferably intelligent ones.

Sep 21, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.


And the rest of us who aren't crazy or have unmeasurable IQ's know the truth about people who believe conspiracy theories with no credible evidence (notice the key word credible). Of course what's incredible to those of us with a brain isn't necessarily incredible to everyone else.

Sep 21, 2011
There's probably alot more to this than anyone will ever know. My theory is that terminators from the future were sent back in time disguised as middle eastern terrorists who then constructed jets made of a futuristic metal which becomes explosive up high gravitational impacts.

They destroyed the world trade centers in order to stop the human resistance in the future from using the twin towers as a strategic headquarters to secure their alliance with the reptilian aliens who joined our forces after coming here to raid earth of it's resources and accidentally becoming stranded here once Skynet destroyed their mothership.

It's the only logical explanation.

Also hitler traveled back in time and accidentally ejaculated into the pre big bang universe thereby causing a big bang which formed the known universe, one sperm happened to survive and when the earth formed it wound up in a crude oil deposit which was refined into plastic which composed the casing for hitlers mothers dildo.

Sep 21, 2011
To all those slinging insults at us "stupid conspiracy theorists," I'll repeat, I'm a degree and practicing mechanical engineer. I'm hardly an idiot. Ad hominem insults just make you look like the idiot. Now, like I said before, we have video evidence of a relatively small top chunk of a building, moving straight thru the path of greatest resistance of a bottom chunk of much greater mass. This is a physics forum, you guys should all understand that low mass objects cannot pass straight thru high mass objects. So without adding energy to the system via exposives, how is it possible that an object of lower mass moved straight thru and demolished an object of higher mass?

Sep 21, 2011
There are examples of buildings, highrises, that burned for 24 hours as raging infernos, and they never collapsed.
Much variation in structure, matls, fire type, etc.
WTC 7 fell straight down so fast that even if it wasnt technically free fall, it was pretty close to it.
It indeed looked like many controlled demos Ive seen video of, but then Ive never seen one fall from a fire. Maybe under similar circumstances they look the same. Steel structure, 8 hour fire in the core, a few key internal columns or rivets or welds soften and fail and bawoosh. Kind of like this:
http://www.youtub...=related

Sep 21, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.


And the rest of us who aren't crazy or have unmeasurable IQ's know the truth about people who believe conspiracy theories with no credible evidence (notice the key word credible). Of course what's incredible to those of us with a brain isn't necessarily incredible to everyone else.
Hey bite me moebius, did you know your strip has only one side? How is this possible??

There are conspiracies all around us. Remember enron or junk bonds or the secret ww1 treaties, or toxic debt for that matter?

There is also much fishy stuff regarding the major Thing which enabled the west to occupy several strategic locations in the middle east just when things were about to explode. As they now dutifully are.

Imagine a greater taliban/quaida/brotherhood rolling unhindered throughout the ME, from palestine to pakistan, had we not had the Excuse to chop it all up into manageable little pieces. Just in Time.

This is fishy to me.

Sep 21, 2011
@blainereigns
I'm a degree and practicing mechanical engineer.
But alas not much apparent formal structural training.

Sep 21, 2011
Ghost of Otto, the buildings mass was fairly consistent from floor to floor. The top floors actually had less mass because of the smaller support beams used near the top of each tower. The building were 110 floors. The planes hit around the 80th floor leaving 80 below and 30 above. 56 minutes later, the top 30 floors crushed straight thru the lower 80 floors at nearly constant acceleration. THATS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below, leaving a full 50 stories still standing. The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below, with the system losing all its energy when both sets of 30 floors were crushed, leaving 50 floors still standing. All forces are equal and opposite. 30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below. Yet it did. Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.

Sep 21, 2011
The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below, leaving a full 50 stories still standing.
You are not factoring in inertia. These are not static loads.
The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below
They would have been gaining 'energy' due to acceleration and accumulated weight.
30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below.
30 floors plus an additional floor for each floor at increasing impact loading for each floor.
Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.
And how would that work? Devices at each exterior column at each floor, or a representative of such, all wired together and controlled by some central system, all installed surreptitiously during construction with no witnesses eager to get their faces on tv, and no evidence of sequenced explosions whatsoever?

No bldg structure is designed to withstand dynamic loads like the ones at WTC

Sep 21, 2011
This is a physics forum, you guys should all understand that low mass objects cannot pass straight thru high mass objects.

Does that mean it is impossible for a micrometeorite to go through a sattelite, or for a depleted uranium shell (no explosives that add energy) to go through a much heavier tank?

Sep 21, 2011
Frank Herbert: For your information, I am an individual, and this is my only username. I have read several articles on this site over the last few years but have never run across an article that I found to be so misleading until today...which is why I registered. I find it laughable that you have attacked the credibility of our characters and ignored the bulk of our arguments preferring slander to science.

As a side note to all of us "conspiracy theorists" it has come to my attention that this site is heavily biased in the favor of what the "mainstream" thinks happened on ANY topic (or so they claim). Don't believe me? Just scroll down to the bottom below the comments and look at the comment guidelines. Here is what I am referring to:

"Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted..."

In other words: if you're not a "mainstream" thinker don't bother.

Sep 21, 2011
FrankHerbret, I'm not a conspirator, I'm a mechanical engineer. I just joined because I came across this article and wanted to comment. Care to address my comment? How about the mysterious collapse of building 7?


You aren't a real mechanical engineer otherwise you would acknowledge that many buildings that sustained as much damage as building 7 would collapse eventually. Ask yourself, what is the most likely scenario - is 9/11 all a big conspiracy of the government, or is the status quo more likely? Honestly, grow a brain.

Sep 21, 2011
Examples of top-down demos:
http://www.youtub...vj-npt5s

Building structures are usually designed to transfer and concentrate static loads in columns and cannot accomodate the type of dynamic, chaotic loading present in a collapse. For instance a column designed to support a concentric vertical load can fail if the same load is applied laterally or asymmetrically. They are truly in many ways like a house of cards.

And further you can imagine it possible to DESIGN a building to fail in a certain manner, which could explain the efficiency we saw with the towers. The bathtub basements which collected all the debris is evidence for this IMO. Whether this was done to mitigate an improbable scenario, or to Stage an Event, is a question.

Sep 21, 2011
Nice theory. Now try to apply it to WTC 7. Maybe it was hit by an invisible airplane made of aluminum. Or maybe some of the aluminum from the two towers transferred inadvertently to WTC 7 with the water needed for the mixture in the exact amount while no one was looking. We all know that things sometimes happened. I, for one, prefer the duck saying.

Sep 21, 2011
Plus, I AM a mainstream thinker - I am just sick of people like vesic8, TTcarnal_force, etc registering fake accounts on this site. Don't you people see that this is all just a big conspiracy - there are people who just want to put one view on this site and don't listen to proper arguments.

Sep 21, 2011
pancaking can explain floor collapse, but does nothing to explain how the core vanished at the same speed.

Sep 21, 2011
Now maybe if the aluminum fell down the core to the sublevels and melted their way to a bunch of water... but if that happened first you would have seen a much different collapse. Even as this theory goes, supposedly the aluminum hit water on each level just in time for that level to collapse as the building fell at the rate of free fall. Oh if only we could do some serious forensic science on the steel from the core... oh wait they melted it down immediately so we cant. If they wanted to quash the conspiracy theories, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed the evidence.

Sep 21, 2011
Nice theory. Now try to apply it to WTC 7. Maybe it was hit by an invisible airplane made of aluminum. Or maybe some of the aluminum from the two towers transferred inadvertently to WTC7 with the water needed for the mixture in the exact amount while no one was looking.
Unlike the towers WTC7 was a structural steel frame - thick steel columns presumably well fireproofed. The fire insulation blew off the steel joists in the towers during impact, leaving them exposed to quickly heat, soften, and fail.

WTC7 columns were probably insulated to last for 4 hours; the fires burned for 8. Again, it LOOKS like it was demolished professionally... but I dont know what a fire failure of a building like that would look like.

WTC7, apparently, was the only steel-framed high rise ever to fail in the manner claimed.
If they wanted to quash the conspiracy theories, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed the evidence.
Exactly. Onion layers. Area 51 was where himmler and all the nazis lived. :0

Sep 21, 2011
I haven't really followed the story over the past 5 or so years. In regards to the temp differentials between jet fuel and different metals, did anybody ever mention the stack effect ?

http://en.wikiped...k_effect

Or localized pockets of fuel in vapor form, varying fuel-air mixes, etc.

http://www.newton...9611.htm

With stairwells, ventilation chambers, gaping holes at fairly high windy altitudes, elevator shafts, etc, there seems to be room for vapor " sumps " and buildups, etc.

I think this article has solid logic, that's my 2.

Sep 21, 2011
did anybody ever mention the stack effect ?
The thermate video I posted above mentions that the core shafts were 'hermetically' sealed with dampers or somesuch to prevent a chimney effect.

But much of the core was constructed with drywall and steel stud firewalls instead of concrete block, supposedly to save weight, and blew all to hell during impact. Overpressure and other damage could well have caused this envelope to fail farther down the structure.

Sep 21, 2011
WTC7 is the one that really gets me. The BBC had a live reporter announce that the building had just collapsed 26 minutes before it actually did, despite the fact that it supposedly caught everyone by surprise. WTC7 is clearly visible in the background. There are many reputable news watchdogs that have the tape. And then 5 minutes before WTC7 did fall, the satellite feed from that reporter suddenly broke up.

Sep 21, 2011
I believe this is a very plausible explanation.
In the late 60's I worked as a Met Eng at an aluminum plant in AL. We were trying a new casting method for rod ingots that went awry. Cooling water against the outside of the aluminum molds was inadequate, the molten metal flowing out the bottom of the molds onto the water standing on the platform. The resulting steam initiated explosion killed 7 men instantly. The casting pit, the concrete work area and the adjacent conveyor system was turned upside down. We found some pieces of these men buried under 20 feet of dirt, concrete, furnace brick, etc. But most was never found.
The high grade machined steel platform was found a mile away bent in two.
I was supposed to have monitored that crew that night but was not. I was on the first rescue crew in. Still have nightmares.
I was told by an explosives expert on site that 1 pound of vaporized aluminum is equal to 77 pounds of TNT.

Sep 21, 2011
WTC7 is the one that really gets me. The BBC had a live reporter announce that the building had just collapsed 26 minutes before it actually did, despite the fact that it supposedly caught everyone by surprise. WTC7 is clearly visible in the background. There are many reputable news watchdogs that have the tape. And then 5 minutes before WTC7 did fall, the satellite feed from that reporter suddenly broke up.
Yeah I saw that. Isolated fishy things can be dismissed but a whole great pile of them makes you wonder. That and the undeniable Result of 9/11 - strategic reoccupation of the middle east by western forces - is an Effect of such overwhelming Significance that it makes you question whether it was in fact the Cause.

From our perspective it was an absolute necessity, given the growth rates and radicalization of populations in the middle east. We can well imagine a nuclear-armed caliphate having already formed. We can also see that this was EASILY foreseeable.

Sep 21, 2011
I was told by an explosives expert on site that 1 pound of vaporized aluminum is equal to 77 pounds of TNT.
Used in thermobaric weapons:

"A typical weapon consists of a container packed with a fuel substance, in the center of which is a small conventional-explosive "scatter charge". Fuels are chosen on the basis of the exothermicity of their oxidation, ranging from powdered metals such as aluminium or magnesium, or organic materials, possibly with a self-contained partial oxidant." -wiki

Sep 21, 2011
God, what a bunch of bull!! will they ever stop trying to cover this up? this still doesn't address building 7!! burn in hell Simensen1!

Sep 21, 2011
I'm not American and I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I can assure you I am a seeker of the truth, I can't imagine the horror Americans must have felt on 9/11 but is obvious to the rest of the world that men with box cutters and inappropriate flight training could not achieve what happened that day or that three buildings could defy the laws of physics and collapse neatly into their own footprints at terminal velocity. It is equally obvious that the administration couldn't care less whether or not this event was believeable as it stretches the limits of plausible deniability well beyond breaking point, it would seem the opinion of the American people or any people come to that is utterly irrelevant in this matter and it is that truth which is the real tragedy here. The world is watching as America descends into tyranny against the will of her people who may still be brave but are certainly not free. I offer my heart felt sympathy to the victims and their families.

Sep 21, 2011
And what about cold smoke explosions ? I always assumed that's what the little explosions down the side were.

Sep 21, 2011
The attempt of this propaganda is to blur the evidence of thermite use with a similar but improbable reaction involving molten aluminum.

Here is a photo of a WTC tower column that plainly shows evidence of the thermite cutters used on the lower floors:

http://www.rense....7932.jpg

When intelligent people use their intellect and training to lie to others, it's very difficult to determine the truth. Those who are scientifically literate yet politically motivated for world conquest by the new order powers betray us all with misdirections. You are our enemies.

Otto, your continual praise of the new NAZI order is threaded through nearly every word you vomit out of your treacherous mouth. Your justifications and apologies for war read like psychopathic jingo from the darkest days of Germany.

Clearly those who lust for war are those who never fight in them, and they who seek to enslave their fellow humans are the ones most worthy of destruction.

Sep 21, 2011
The flow of comments is more interesting than the article.

The article seems implausible, and says nothing about 7!!!

The physical reality of collapse is extremely important.

The investigation of that was deliberately obstructed...

Mass murder crime scenes were summarily disposed of!!!!!

For more:

http://www.mariju...amp;sb=5

Sep 21, 2011
I thought that, according to the "official" report, there were NO "explosions" that brought down the 3 buildings. Excuse me, they only mentioned 2. My bad. Anywho, are you saying that "explosions" brought down the 3, I mean, 2 buildings/ giant steel structures? Booms happened? I guess we need to know if "Booms Happened" HMM HMM

Sep 21, 2011
Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.

Color is related to radiated spectrum. If its hot, it turns orange, then red. ALWAYS.

Sep 21, 2011
Conspiracy theories just never die. I personally have witnessed a lot of Aluminum/water explosions and they are really nasty. The hydrogen release collects in building pockets and produces a separate explosion in each pocket.

Anyone that thinks you could mix thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel and 30 tons of Al/Mg alloy and not get molten alloy is smoking crack. Having the molten metal run through the crevices in the floors and mixing with sprinkler water is very credible. Certainly a ton more credible than a secret CIA plot to destroy America.

Sep 21, 2011

Here is a photo of a WTC tower column that plainly shows evidence of the thermite cutters used on the lower floors:

http://www.rense....7932.jpg

q]

Riiiight. So now people take photos of beams that were cut to remove debris and claim thermite cut them ?

Please, use some sense. All that tripe you spill about truth and honesty is laughable.

Rense..? ..really ?

This guy ?

http://www.rense.com/demo1.htm

..um...noe

Sep 21, 2011
There were enormous explosions, out the other sides of the buildings, as the planes flew into them. Given the aluminum on the planes was all fairly thin, it likely did burn up, but in those quite obvious fireballs. I'm no building expert, but these external explosions seem to be ignored in this theory.
As for conspiracies, those who give them no credence have little understanding of either nature, or large sections of criminal law.
Here is a quite topical historical example of how the system works:
http://michael-hu...-ripoff/

Sep 21, 2011
Parsec is correct. I have been around a lot of molten AL. It is silver with an orange/red glow. In reduced lighting (like in a furnace) you don't see very much of the silver, only the orange/red color. (I always wanted a car that color.)
An intelligent discussion of the article would be more helpful.

Sep 21, 2011
Arkalayme buddy,
Otto, your continual praise of the new NAZI order is threaded through nearly every word you vomit out of your treacherous mouth. Your justifications and apologies for war read like psychopathic jingo from the darkest days of Germany.
NaziNaziNazi.
When intelligent people use their intellect and training to lie to others, it's very difficult to determine the truth. Those who are scientifically literate yet politically motivated for world conquest by the new order powers betray us all with misdirections. You are our enemies.
Blah. It's funny, you seem to accept the concept of conspiracy but you're all too willing to blame it on mommy and daddy.

Relax. Leaders know far more about running the world than you ever could. The pain and suffering They cause you is for your own good.

Consider that if gullible people like you didn't exist we wouldn't need war now would we? Here, let me cover your cage so you can get some sleep. Awk!

Sep 21, 2011
This theory might be taking into account the properties of aluminum and water, but it doesn't take into consideration the properties of likely mostly vaporized jet fuel. Had any significant amount been trapped within those buildings, think more in terms of a piston firing. The tops of the buildings would have been blown up.
That sort of fuel flash fires. It doesn't burn slowly.

Sep 22, 2011
The theory of the article is fine with one major exception: The official report on the tower's collapse denies that any secondary explosions ever happened. The windows blowing out was caused by air pressure due to the collapse itself.

Before we can even consider the theory put forward by this article, we would have to accept that a basic premise of the 9/11 report is wrong.

Sep 22, 2011
I guess some of that melted aluminum must have sprayed through the air and landed on WTC Building 7 which also collapsed into its own footprint at near free fall speed. Nice try Mr. Simensen.

Sep 22, 2011
It's an interesting theory, but there was no evidence of explosions, especially one large enough to validate it.

Sep 22, 2011
Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fu@king skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

Sep 22, 2011
On every 9/11 thread on the internet, it seems, some guy like Vendicar Decarian comes out and fires off a dozen messages that are just name-calling. Then he repeats the name-calling some more. The purpose is to kill the even flimsy discussion that was going on.

Sep 22, 2011
Science is supposed to be about systematic doubt. Personally, I don't care whether the "government" demolished the building(s) or not. But if you're advancing what is supposed to be a scientific explanation, it had better cover all the facts. The article is only about the Twin Towers' collapse, not about Building 7. It shouldn't be faulted for not accounting for Building 7, and should be taken on its own merits.

Sep 22, 2011
oh some guys here just gave people a new method of mass Devastation and destruction:
oh just wait I will take contract to destroy old buildings with
a mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium and i will do it without Damaging other buliding nearby.Oh, No i can destroy two buliding by demolishing one only.
To supporter of these theory,there is many things which we think we know but we don't know.There are many unknown unknowns.

Sep 22, 2011
oh some guys here just gave people a new method of mass Devastation and destruction:
->I was told by an explosives expert on site that 1 pound of vaporized aluminum is equal to 77 pounds of TNT.

oh just wait I will take contract to destroy old buildings with a mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium and i will do it without Damaging other buliding nearby.Oh, No i can destroy two buliding by demolishing one only.
for me,there are many unknown unknowns out there.

Sep 22, 2011
Even if this theory were true, it doesn't explain nano-grade thermite in the dust of Twin towers. This goes on ignored. Authorities can't even investigate a crime scene? Sounds like a job for CSI if you believe that stuff.

Sep 22, 2011
blanereigns

I could place a hammer on one of your fingers and it would not cause you any problem. But if I were to drop that hammer from 3 metres (I'm guessing that you are from the US, so that would be 10 feet) on to your finger, I'm guessing that you would be taking your finger to hospital. A hammer only weighs a few pounds. As for 25% of a building the same size as WTC hitting one floor, crushing it, then hitting another floor.....

You say that you have a degree in mechanical engineering. I guessing that you have only recently passed your degree. That does not make you a mechanical engineer. You may have completed your uni education but it will take at least another ten years for you to learn your trade.

No offence, but your thoughts are very misguided.

Sep 22, 2011
1 of 2

Aluminium did not likely contribute to the collapse: Even though aluminium has a low melting point it also has a high thermal conductivity; Hence it is even more difficult to melt aluminium and to keep it molten than a metal with the same melting point that has a lower thermal conductivity.(Example to aid in understanding thermal conductivity: you pick up a cast iron dumbell in one hand and then pick up an empty styrofoam cup in the other, they are both room temperature, the iron dumbell feels cold in your hand and the styrofoam cup feels warm in your other hand.) Now consider this, suppose we boil a gallon of water, remove the heat source and take its temperature in five minutes, now suppose we boil a gallon of water and pour it down a stairway and after five minutes measure the temperature of the water that collected at the bottom of the stairs. One will be significantly hotter than the other.

Sep 22, 2011
blanereigns

Try this one, it something I learnt at school when I was 9yo. Take one empty beer/coke can and place your weight on it. It should be able to hold you. Then get one of you friends to carefully push a pen/pencil into the side of the can. Instantly the can will crush and if you are lucky, your ankle will be in one piece.

The WTC was build in the same way. Support structure on the outside.

The only conspiracy that happened on that day was proberly the fact that the US gov knew that something was going to happen. I'm guessing that George W saw it as way of finishing what daddy wasn't allowed to. (First Gulf War). Just look at the glint in GW's eye when he got told the news while at that school.

All I heard after was "how could they do this to us?". As I tried to tell the US press afterwards, You are asking the wrong question. It should've been "why did they do this to us?"
I don't blame the US people, but the US foreign policy has a lot to answer for.

Cont....

Sep 22, 2011
2 of 2
The problem I see with aluminium is that 1) it has a high thermal conductivity (it quickly radiates away its heat), 2)it has a low melting point so that the molten metal will run off and cool down before it can attain higher temperatures, 3) the further the molten metal travels the more surface area it will have to radiate away its heat, 4) it would take a great deal of energy to melt 30 tons of aluminium alloy, where did all the energy come from that was needed to melt 30 tons of metal?

Sep 22, 2011
The US foreign policy has pissed off a lot of people. Nobody likes to be told how to live their life. And just because they don't want an American culture doesn't make them wrong.

War on Terrorism and the sponsors of terrorism. I ask both the US gov and press at the time, does this mean that they are going to close down the Noraid website. A website that has been openly raising money for the IRA. A torrorist org that has killed many people, including two dear friends of mine. Guess what, no comment. Alot of that money was raised in bars in Manhatten.

The only conspiracy was that, this was allowed to happen. Thats tha Republicans for you. It keeps their share prices up in "defence companies". Should be called "war companies". Tea party??? I'm alright jack, keep your hands of my stack.

As for the conspiracy theorist, the article above, is very likely what happened. Somebody hated somebody else enough to fly planes into the WTC's. In the eyes of some, it's what stood for America.

Sep 22, 2011
Ok, for all you chemists and engineers.

What happens when you mix H2S and phosgene gas with vaporized jet fuel and water ? And how would that react with aluminum ?

Or, how do H2S, phosgene, water vapor, jet fuel and hydrogen mingle ?

Seems that I only see a few constituents mentioned here, when there were many more volatile products on the scene.

Sep 22, 2011
@Gezza

I like your analogy about standing on a can and putting a pencil through it: it certainly gets across your main idea about the design flaw of the towers. However, I'm a bit concerned that the scale of the analogy is way out of balance! Would it not be better to put a weight on the can that is more to the scale, such as maybe a brick? Your analogy makes it sound like the Great Pyramid of Giza was balancing on the top of each tower at the time that the proverbial pencil was inserted: as far as I know the pancake hypothesis has yet to be tested (computers just regurgitate whatever assumptions they are given to work with), which is why an actual scaled down model of a tower should be built and the pancake hypothesis be put to the test, not just to shed light on 911 but to aid architects in future construction projects.

Sep 22, 2011
Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it!


I think you're underestimating how sweet the original American Gladiators was.

Sep 22, 2011
Neon
Great example with the boiling water down the stairs thing. Now take some boiling water and throw it down some stairs that have been on fire for an hour and then measure the temp of it when it reaches the bottom. Oh, sorry, but there will not be any water at the bottom because it will have boiled away. You are right about the thermal conductivity of aluminium. But it does not mean that it gets rid of its heat quickly. In a perfect insulator then the aluminium would stay molten. Yes, Aluminium is a great thermal conductor. This does not mean that it readily gives heat to other things. Because if it is touching something that is not a good thermal conductor, then that thing will not take heat away from it.
Basic thermal dynamics.

Think twice before posting again.

Sep 22, 2011
Neon

Did you read my first post about the hammer on your finger from 3 metres? If does not at least trigger some kind of reasoning in your brain then you should really quit while you're ahead in life.

Sep 22, 2011
@Isaacsname

There are various reactions that can take place, but since both the reactants and their intermediate products are themselves flammable you will, as long as you don't run out of atmospheric oxygen and maintain the proper initial energy to initiate the reactions, eventually end up with: HCl, SO2, CO2, and H2O as the final products plus X amount of heat released into the surroundings over X amount of time; The mixture could make the atmosphere very toxic depending on the concentration, but would have to be present in large quantities and in very confined spaces to cause explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts that connect floors and outward through windows than to be directed towards the reinforcing structures of the building (pressure follows the path of least resistance and the buildings support structures offer the most resistance).

Sep 22, 2011
Gezza,

A hammer on a finger? A person on a coke can? In both your examples the item being dropped is many times the mass of the item being crushed. The top section of the tower that was "dropped" onto the lower section was only 1/3 of the lower sections mass! And it wasn't even dropped, the steel supports should have slowly deformed as they weakened. I still maintain that this collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum absent a precise sequence of explosions. What you're failing to grasp is the fact that as the top section crushes floors of the lower section, floors of the top section are being crushed as well. Equal and opposite forces. After all the floors of the top section are crushed and the system has decelerated to 0, where did all the energy come from to crush the remaining 50 or so floors that should have remained standing? Look up videos of the Verinage demolition technique. They always remove a floor in the middle of the building, not 3/4 the way up.

Sep 22, 2011
@Gezza

The stairs don't have to be ice cold to cause the molten aluminium to solidify, they only need to be a few degrees colder than the melting point of the alloy. Don't forget that the difference between a liquid metal and a solid metal is less than one degree! That's basic chemistry. What concrete lacks in thermal conductivity it easily makes up for in surface area; Not knowing the conditions is our blahs!

I'm going to leave it at that! I wasn't there to record the conditions and neither were you. I believe it will be very difficult if not impossible to use the scientific method to determine what happened inside that building that day if there are no reliable empirical and detailed records of the events that indirectly and directly led to the collapses. It is a frustrating problem since all the relevant physical evidence has appearently been destroyed: what really happened on 911? I don't know, but I do know that conjecture is a flimsy substitute for empirical knowledge.

Sep 22, 2011
Neon
If you were to drop an 8lb weight a distance of 4ft then the force of inpact is equal to a 400lb stationary weight. (Thats an increase of x50) Therefor, the moment that that floor gave way, what came crashing down (the top 25% of the building) had an equivelent mass of 12.5 times the entire mass of the building. Each floor it crushed, it would not only gain the mass of that floor but also continue gaining momentum due gravity minus the resistance of smashing steel and concrete along the way.
Most demolitions start of with charges on the ground floor follow a fraction of a second later by charges of the first floor then second etc etc.. It means that they can use the inertia of the falling building to cut down on the explosives required. Quite often the top two floors are still intact, but this is not an issue as it then becomes easy to finish the job with machinery.
What you are failing to grasp is that a moving object carries more mass. E=mc^2.
You are boring now.

Sep 22, 2011
Neon, Sorry, last comment should have been directed at blanetard.
As for the molten ali, I'm sure it would have been at a temp well above its melting point. I have melted down ali before and I have turned off the heat and still been able to dip more ali in the pot that has continued to melt.

Sep 22, 2011
bit concerned that the scale of the analogy is way out of balance! Would it not be better to put a weight on the can that is more to the scale, such as maybe a brick?
The scale is appropriate. Structural design is economical; buildings are not designed to support any more than they have to. A can can support your weight but when it's integrity is compromised it fails under the same load. Just like a building would.
as far as I know the pancake hypothesis has yet to be tested
It has not only been tested, top-down demo is routinely used. I posted this earlier:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Read the blurbs. More examples on YouTube. I'm not sure if this is what blanereigns is referring to.

Sep 22, 2011
blanereigns
56 minutes later, the top 30 floors crushed straight thru the lower 80 floors at nearly constant acceleration.
False. The top 30 floors fell onto the next floor which then became 31 floors onto the next, then 32 onto the next and so on. They did fall 'straight through' they collapsed on each floor in turn. There is also a FALSE claim that they fell at free fall rate. That too did not happen. They fell at pretty consistent rate with no acceleration.

THATS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM
That is a strange thing for an engineer to claim. There was a force involved you know. Its called gravity. That you would make such a strange statement is evidence that you are either not an engineer or you are not rational on this.

The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below
Nonsense. The fall mass increases with each floor. Do try to reason this out.>>

Sep 22, 2011
explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts that connect floors and outward through win
You are idly speculating. Design of damage limiting construction to accommodate explosions is fairly complex. Pressure waves can do much damage before they reach the exterior. Many factors including the shape of the space and contents are considered.

Sep 22, 2011
E=mc^2? so your suggesting the building is moving at relativistic speeds now? are you suggesting a falling building has the energy of an atomic bomb?
Neon
What you are failing to grasp is that a moving object carries more mass. E=mc^2.
You are boring now.[/q

Sep 22, 2011
The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below,
Why? Magic? They were under gravitational acceleration and the falling mass was increasing with each floor.

All forces are equal and opposite.
Magic again? Gravity was towards the center of the Earth at all times during the collapse.

30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below.
True but thirty one floors had enough to fall onto another and another and eventually sixty floors were falling onto the remaining thirty floors. Did you try thinking on this at all?

Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.
No. It is the explanation of the irrational conspiracy fan.

I wonder how much overlap there would be in a Venn diagram of 9/11 conspiracy fans and Birther idiots. The weird part is how many of the 9/11 fans are Right Wingers yet they think Bush was involved. The fear on his face showed that he knew nothing about it.

Ethelred

Sep 22, 2011
OK I tried to explain it to you guys in terms you would understand and all I heard in return are assignations on my character and intelligence. Pathetic. Just look up the Verinage Demolition Technique and take notice of the floor they remove to demolish the building. Its always the middle floor. Anywhere else would not demolish the building. Your arguments about picking up mass on the way down are nonsense. If that were the case, why not remove the second from the top floor and let gravity and accumulated mass do the rest? Its impossible. The only way for Verinage to work is to remove the middle floor so the top and bottom sections have roughly the same mass. But enough about the twin towers. Jut watch a video of building 7's collapse. If you can't immediately discern from the video that it was a controlled demolition, you're an idiot and don't belong on a physics message board. The building collapsed suddenly, symmetrically, and reached free-fall acceleration on its way down.

Sep 22, 2011
There is also a FALSE claim that they fell at free fall rate. That too did not happen. They fell at pretty consistent rate with no acceleration.
While I will sometimes accept erudition as sufficient authority, I usually prefer links:
http://911debunke...unk.html

-The gentleman, like you, says there is no acceleration in verinage demos but his graphs seem to show otherwise.

I would also think that the resistance to freefall would have to do with the ratio of footprint to the height of the bldg. There would be more weight to resist as the collapse progressed in a tall slim Bldg as opposed to a short squat bldg, all things being considered.

And blane, the intact structure below would indeed present some resistance to freefall. As to how much, this could be approximated through analysis.

Sep 22, 2011
@Gezza

I'm not dismissing the pancake hypothesis, if you look at one of my earlier posts I suggested that the hypothesis be tested using a scaled down model of one of the towers. I am a scientist, conjecture does not pay my bills! I am NOT disputing with you: basic physics, thermodynamics, or chemistry. I am suggesting to you that conjecture alone may be enough to satisfy your curiousity but I test my hypotheses' and faithfully record my empirical results and when appropriate make them freely available so that others may attemp to duplicate my findings. However, I don't push my hypotheses on others when it has not been tested repeatedly and an abundance of empirical evidence is manifested for others to study. Furthermore, I avoid leaning too hard on assumptions, even when I'm liking what I see, because building one assumption upon another upon another without validation is the epitome of pseudoscience, of which I do not wish to take part.

Sep 22, 2011
None of the buildings reached free-fall. Despite VD's posts. Or yours.

An "assignation" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Try using evidence instead of simply insisting that things happen in ways that do not fit actual physics.

Verinage is not the only way of doing demolition.

Some people are also bringing up the core of the buildings as if the buildings were built out from a core when they were supported by the outer frame as are most curtain wall buildings.

WC7 went through a lot before it collapsed. And if there was a demolition team in all three buildings how come no one ever noticed them? According to the conspiracy theory there had to a LOT of work done to cause explosion every 15 stories or so.

Controlled Demolition, Inc does NOT just blow one level and they have more experience than anyone else. They cannot do their job in secret as they have to do a lot of preliminary work to get the job done.

Do let us know how all the work was done in secret.

Ethelred

Sep 22, 2011
Milford
I hope you are joking. If a mass gains energy by inertia then its relative mass has increased. Energy = mass (E=mc^2) Try placing a brick on your face. Then try throwing one at your face. I'm sure you'll agree that the second brick seemed to weigh a little more than the one. You should try this experiment. Its very scientific and you'll learn a great deal from it.

Sep 22, 2011
explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts that connect floors and outward through win
You are idly speculating. Design of damage limiting construction to accommodate explosions is fairly complex. Pressure waves can do much damage before they reach the exterior. Many factors including the shape of the space and contents are considered.

No! I was generalizing the dynamics of a vague and hypothetical event in which no special consideration was given to the layout because the layout was not given any relevant specifications. It's kind of like me saying a breaching charge on a wall will be less effective if tamping is not at all employed while not specifying the nature of the wall, the breaching charge, or the tamping. I know that generalizing can get you into trouble with some people, however the question was general and open-ended.

Sep 22, 2011
Vendi,
Don't be a dickhead. It was purely an example of how a moving object carries a lot more relative mass than a stationary object. Yes, you are correct O great one. I did leave out the bit about how sudden the stop was. But as it was not in direct reference as to how exactly, to the pinpoint second, velocity and blood spatters of how these building collapsed, I didn't think it was needed.

At the end of the day, thousands were killed, more were injured and even more are still struggling to come to terms with it and here you are, biting my head off for leaving something out of a very broad example.

Shame on you, Vendi. You don't deserve to have a forum like Physorg to voice your opinion.

I think you should go and have a quiet word with yourself in the corner.

Sep 22, 2011
I hope you are joking. If a mass gains energy by inertia then its relative mass has increased. Energy = mass (E=mc^2) Try placing a brick on your face. Then try throwing one at your face. I'm sure you'll agree that the second brick seemed to weigh a little more than the one. You should try this experiment. Its very scientific and you'll learn a great deal from it.


You're not using this properly. The brick doesn't hurt your face because of E = mc^2. Ek = 1/2mv^2 would make more sense since it's referring to kinetic energy (ie. energy transferred to your face from the delta_Ek of the brick from v=v_init to v=0).

You're also mixing up the terms mass and weight. Weight is a measurement of force. Weight on earth is determined by Weight = m*g where g is acceleration due to gravity. This is why you weigh less on the moon since g_moon < g_earth. Mass refers to how much matter something is made up of. They're related by the above equation, but they're not equivalent.

Sep 22, 2011
Perhaps Mr. Hood can explain how equal amounts of water and molten aluminum were distributed such that the damage yielded by the explosion was uniform enough to cause symmetrical collapse.

Sep 22, 2011
To noticeably increase the mass of something using E=mc^2 you need to be going REALLY fast.

Think about it. c^2 is about 9*10^16 m^2/s^2. If you have a car weighing 1000kg going 100 km/h (~60mph), you're looking at a kinetic energy of about 772kJ or 772000kg(m/s)^2 (someone can check my math if they want).

Now plugging this energy into E=mc^2 to get the equivalent mass increase due to that car travelling at that velocity gives me 8.58*10-12 kg or 8.56 nanograms which is about 90* the mass of a red blood cell (thanks WolframAlpha ;) ).

Needless to say, the small amount of increased mass from throwing that brick would be orders of magnitude less than what it would be from this car so that increased mass does not explain why it hurts your face.

Sep 22, 2011
America deserves to suffer 10,000 additional 911's for it's long campaign of global criminality.
Lets use some math to see just how big an asshole VD is being this time.

3,000 X 10,000 =30,000,000

A number equaling all of his country's population. Nearly as many as died in WWII.

You are an utter ass way too often VD. And you had been doing so well lately. Hadn't called for the death of all conservatives in several weeks.

Why don't you and the other newbies go play house with Oliver?

That ought to confuse all the ignoramuses that just showed up for this one discussion.

Ethelred

Sep 22, 2011
How many people died in building 7? Seriously, I can't seem to find the numbers anywhere.

Sep 22, 2011

It certainly looks like it was demolished so that the owner could collect on his insurance policy.

So what?


So you agree that wtc7 was purposely demolished? It takes months to wire a building for a demolition that precise and symmetrical. If it was wired in advance, they had foreknowledge of the attacks, and didn't try to stop them. And if one of the buildings was wired, its not a leap of logic to assume all 3 were wired. Also, based on your above posts, your weak grasp of physics would lead you to believe that a Verinage demolition would be successful if it were the second from top floor removed, rather than the middle floor. Am I correct in assuming this? Because that is essentially what your arguing here...

Sep 22, 2011
None of the buildings reached free-fall. Despite VD's posts. Or yours.
Are you talkin to me ET? If so my answer to this is -correct-. Resistance was presented by the intact structure below.

Some people are also bringing up the core of the buildings as if the buildings were built out from a core when they were supported by the outer frame as are most curtain wall buildings
This does not make much sense. By 'built out' do you mean 'supported by'? At any rate, in the towers there was an internal structural steel structure at the core and an outer structural envelope which were what supported the floors and allowed for column-free office space. It was a non-typical design.

Curtainwalls are supported by internal structure, usually either concrete or steel. Curtainwalls are not structural.

"curtain wall is an outer covering of a building in which the outer walls are non-structural" -wiki

Sep 22, 2011
There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America in that crime. Another million dead in Iraq war 1. At least another million in Korea. 30,000 Nicaraguans. 8 million Native Americans.
Canadians were also part of Desert Storm. And Korea. Would you have abandoned the Koreans to their fate? The Kuwaitis to Saddam? How many 9/11s does Canada deserve VD? Care to nominate yourself as a sacrifice? How about the Chinese? It's not like they weren't involved in Korea. Have they paid the price yet? The Russians in Vietnam? Come on, is it that, hell, we should all just swallow a grenade like it's Advil and wait for the end? Who's "worthy" not to be murdered in your eyes anyway?

Nobody in those towers deserved what happened to them that day. Not the CEOs, not the janitors, not the secretaries and not the firefighters. Nobody. No more than the kebab vendors or the professors killed in Iraq, but the suffering or death of one doesn't justify the suffering or death of the other.

Sep 22, 2011
@Gawad

Do you believe in hell?

Sep 22, 2011
No! I was generalizing the dynamics of a vague and hypothetical event in which no special consideration was given to the layout because the layout was not given any relevant specifications.
If you were generalizing with a working knowledge of explosions within buildings you would have assumed that pressure waves would have done considerable damage before they had had the chance to dissipate. Confinement is not necessary to create pressure.

I believe these would have been detonation events - shock wave faster than sound - as opposed to deflagration. Which, as it sounds, is worse.
explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts
-And the shafts were fire-rated drywall construction and were definitely not designed for overpressure. As the shockwave from impact or explosion propagated it blew these out too which is why the stairwells were impassible.

Sep 22, 2011
@Gawad

Do you believe in hell?

I'm agnostic. What's your point?

Sep 22, 2011
There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America blah
Just as an aside, if VD is not just posturing here then he knows as little about the cause of war as Arkaleus does. Those casualties would have happened anyway; perhaps not to those specific people but to the ones who would have been formed up into armies in order to make war on innocent neighbors and their own populations. Casualties would have only been worse.

The cause of war is TOO MANY PEOPLE. Without war there will STILL Inevitably be WAR.

Arknuts wants to sit down and discuss peace rationally with these guys?
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-He thinks our mere existance gives these people the right to blame their starving children on US? Their obsolete religionist culture is the CAUSE of overgrowth and instability. It was DESIGNED to wage war by supplying cannonfodder and the compelling reasons to throw them at an enemy.

You guys still think Munich Agreements are a good idea? Want one with Iran?

Sep 22, 2011
@Gawad

Do you believe in hell?
Hell is when you ignore an enemy until he is busting down your door. THAT is hell.

Hell is avoidable with Effort. This is why our civilization survives and thrives.

Sep 22, 2011
...so, as to mechanisms of failure.

Metal at high temps is highly susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. WTC used low carbon steel, right ?

Water and molten aluminum produce hydrogen gas as a product.

H2S causes SSSC, sulfide stress-cracking.

" If steel is exposed to hydrogen at high temperatures, hydrogen will diffuse into the alloy and combine with carbon to form tiny pockets of methane at internal surfaces like grain boundaries and voids. This methane does not diffuse out of the metal, and collects in the voids at high pressure and initiates cracks in the steel. This selective leaching process is known as hydrogen attack, or high temperature hydrogen attack and leads to decarburization of the steel and loss of strength and ductility."

^^ as per Wiki

So, a high voltage short to hot carbon steel in an atmosphere of H and H2S, among other things, would cause rapid and accelerated embrittlement ?

I ain't no engineer..*sniff*.. but I saw one on TV one time.

Sep 22, 2011
"Confinement is not necessary to create pressure."

Thick metal is very difficult to destroy using a low VoD FAE like hydrogen 4-75%/air mixture 15.8 bar @1968 m/s. Even though 1968 m/s sounds fast it really isn't. These lower velocity waves tend to "bounce" off of thick metal while a higher VoD of say 8000 m/s tends to cut metal like a hot knife through butter. The thickness of those support beams is comparable to heavy tank armor. So I think the hydrogen explosion hypothesis should be tested, but I will say that at this point seems far fetched. Thermite on the other hand could cut the thick beams or extremely hot fires could potentially weaken them causing them to buckle and fail.

Realistically either:
1)high Vod charges blasted the beams
2)thermite cut the beams
3)extremely high temperature fires weakened the beams

Only the third one is innocent, but has yet to be tested to my knowledge. Again the hydrogen from Al seems unlikely but it should also be tested.

Sep 22, 2011
These lower velocity waves tend to "bounce" off of thick metal while a higher VoD of say 8000 m/s tends to cut metal like a hot knife through butter. The thickness of those support beams is comparable to heavy tank armor.
Blah? You unfortunately dont know the difference between horizontal beams and vertical columns. Stop throwing numbers please youre annoying me.
The thickness of those support beams is comparable to heavy tank armor.
Blah. You have no clue sir.

Sep 22, 2011
So, a high voltage short to hot carbon steel in an atmosphere of H and H2S, among other things, would cause rapid and accelerated embrittlement ?
I think you misused 'rapid'. What is the expected rate if diffusion? I would think pretty slow? And how deeply and in what quantity to affect the strength of structural steel sections?

Sep 22, 2011
Even if the whole molten aluminium / water ---> H2 AlO were to pan out and it could be proven that enough H2 was produced and then somehow the 1968 meters per second shockwave were to rip in half the tank-armor like beams without even blowing out every window on that floor first and on and on... still wouldn't explain what happened to building 7?

Sep 22, 2011
So, a high voltage short to hot carbon steel in an atmosphere of H and H2S, among other things, would cause rapid and accelerated embrittlement ?
I think you misused 'rapid'. What is the expected rate if diffusion? I would think pretty slow? And how deeply and in what quantity to affect the strength of structural steel sections?


I agree with you on this one Otto! If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.

Sep 22, 2011
Remember OTTO, I'm not saying that the hydrogen FAE scenario is impossible I'm just saying that it is a new and exciting hypothesis that should be tested. And then let the results speak for themselves. I agree numbers from old books by men that are in their graves are not nearly as appealing as a brand spanking new high tech and well documented, peer reviewed series of experiments that could potentially lay at least one hypothesis for two of the buildings to rest.

Sep 22, 2011
My use of the term "beam" in these posts is generic to refer to any significant load bearing steel structure that had to fail in order for those towers to fall!

Sep 22, 2011
My use of the term "beam" in these posts is generic to refer to any significant load bearing steel structure that had to fail in order for those towers to fall!
Generic to those who dont know structural engineering and shouldnt be speculating about it?
If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.
Depends on the ignition temp, impurities, and a host of other variables.
Most probably true. And also true for the millions of civilians who died in Iraq and Vietnam due to the corrupt, criminal actions of the Bush father and son death tag team.
VD thinks important decisions like these are left up to transients elected by ignorants based on personal appeal and the strength of their PR. Lose the dogma and use your brain. Spokesmodels do not Produce tv shows. Nor do they Conceive them or Write them or Direct them, or even watch them for that matter. They do their Job.

Sep 22, 2011
I think you misused 'rapid'. What is the expected rate if diffusion? I would think pretty slow? And how deeply and in what quantity to affect the strength of structural steel sections?

Good questions, all outside my knowing admitedly, all moduli can change very rapidly under extreme P/T as thresholds are approached, I've read enough on metallurgy to know that. After spending the past few hours reading up on things, I see that there could have been endless chemical reactions and products produced, the water makes sense as light smoke means water vapor, black smoke is heavy in particulates and you can see in the pictures that the lower smoke is the lightest.

Th high voltage arcing is what is really in the back of my mind. The power was still on when the towers fell right ? Water & high voltage = phenomenon like water bridges, etc.
Cathodic protection usually prevents embrittlement, right ? So too much is detrimental ?


Sep 22, 2011

I agree with you on this one Otto! If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.


How can people be disregarding things like electrochemical reactions ? ..Seriously ?

Btw, phosgene isn't flammable.

Sep 22, 2011
[quote]Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers.[/quote]

It could have been the spaghetti monster. Wherever they are buildings just pulverize to dust and leave molten metal all over the place. It would explain the same molten metal in de pits of WTC7. Ok, I'm off to experiment and proof my theory.

Greets, the disturbed professor

Sep 22, 2011
so what's the explanation for building 7.. which "collapsed" in the same relative frame of time, with explosions, ( squibs), forewarning, and in perfect symmetry and of course... was NOT hit by a plane.. keep trying you spin doctors.... you just make yourselves look more incredulous.

Sep 22, 2011
How many people died in building 7? Seriously, I can't seem to find the numbers anywhere.
no one died in building 7... the occupants were mostly govt and were forewarned about the building coming down and subsequently were evacuated prior to the event.

Sep 22, 2011
TTcarnal_force joined on 9/6/11 and has posted in only one other topic, also about 9/11.

Gyges, vesic8, and amhippi have all registered today just to post in this thread. Here's a conspiracy for you. How much do you want to bet they are all the same person?

Why do the cranks on this site feel the need to register 4, 5 and more accounts to all espouse the same viewpoint? Is it because they know they are full of shit? At some level they have to because no one can be that fucking dumb.

isnt it interesting to note that those without facts, rely on personal attacks?.. you going to attack me, thinking ( erroneously) that i am this same person?... mr. Frank Herbert.. if you actually WERE Mr. Herbert ( who is DEAD btw) you would look at facts and not just make fun of people.

Sep 22, 2011
How many people died in building 7? Seriously, I can't seem to find the numbers anywhere.
no one died in building 7... the occupants were mostly govt and were forewarned about the building coming down and subsequently were evacuated prior to the event.


Are you suggesting that 911 wouldn't, in your view, be a government conspiracy if building 7 was full of government employees at the time that it collapsed?

Sep 22, 2011
so what's the explanation for building 7.. which "collapsed" in the same relative frame of time, with explosions
Youre begging the question. Internal fires burning for 8 hours could have critically softened steel fire-protected for only 4 hours. But it does look fishy due to the symmetricity of the collapse and the totality of it. It didnt collapse inward on itself as if the failure were localized. It just sank.
http://www.youtub...BImVvEyk
http://www.youtub...=related

-This is a convincing and conventional explanation for the collapse:
http://www.youtub...q663m0G8

Sep 22, 2011

I agree with you on this one Otto! If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.


How can people be disregarding things like electrochemical reactions ? ..Seriously ?

Btw, phosgene isn't flammable.


Thank you for pointing it out! As for its breakdown I envision:
Phosgene plus hydrogen sulfide = Carbonyl sulphide (flammable) plus Hydrogen chloride
H2S plus COCl2 -----> COS plus 2 HCl

then onward to the most stable end products:

2COS plus 4O2 ----> 2CO2 plus 2SO2 plus O2

I believe that the reaction of phosgene with hydrogen sulfide is endothermic but believe that the energy for the reaction can be provided by burning H2 in air. Alternatively, the phosgene can react with the steam to form CO2 and HCl. There are many dozens of reactions that may have been taking place during the fires. I'm very thankful I wasn't up there choking on my chemistry.

Sep 22, 2011
Well thought out and presented. One problem. How is it the author can make the assumption that water was pooling in significant quantities, and not running down the same stairwells and cracks he suggests the molten metal ran through? If the sprinklers were below the impact zone the water would have a head start while the aluminum melted. This theory, literally, "holds no water'! If molten metal can not be trapped on one floor and pool up, why is it water can?

Sep 23, 2011
[Quote]
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.
[/Quote]

http://en.wikiped...Thermite

thinknig

???
==
PROFIT!!!

Sep 23, 2011
Which is still less than the total number of people murdered by the corrupt American state over it's short history.
Amazing how many errors a Troll can manage in one sentence. There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt. Short, is utter nonsense. It is the oldest constitutional government in the world and a much older nation then yours. And you are thoroughly misusing the term murder. That claim is as rational as you claim that all conservatives should be executed.

There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America in that crime.
A dubious number but it was not a crime. It was war and we did not start it nor did we start the killing of civilians there. It may be that we shouldn't have been there but that was not because the North or the Viet Cong were doing the right thing as they were killing civilians DELIBERATELY if they had anything to do with Americans OR the South Vietnamese government.>>

Sep 23, 2011
It was mess but both sides were guilty of atrocities and frankly the Viet Cong did them as a matter of policy.

The main problem the US had with North Vietnam was some bad decisions that were made to support the French. Eisenhower should have supported Ho Chi Mihn in his efforts to get rid of the French.

Another million dead in Iraq war
Another war started by someone other than the US. It is NOT criminal to protect ones allies.

At least another million in Korea.
Yet another war started by the other side. And a lovely government the South Koreans would have wound up with if we had not joined in the FULLY LEGAL UNITED NATIONS effort to stop the North Korean effort to subjugate ALL Korea to a psychotic government.>>

Sep 23, 2011
8 million Native Americans
Bullshit. The number is completely bogus and death by disease is not an act war. There was ONE incident where a seriously sick asshole, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63) discussed sending infected blankets to hostile tribes and may have done so but there is no evidence for that. However Captain Simeon Ecuyer, another Brit, apparently gave two blankets and a handkerchief to the Delawares but the disease was allready in the area. Indeed the infected blankets were from Brits in the fort.

Most of the deaths of Amerinds by disease was caused before the English and the French even got here. The Spanish brought small pox to the New World accidentally.>>

Sep 23, 2011
This is not to say that a LOT of Amerinds didn't die in the various Indian wars but most of the deaths were due to disease and even starvation. But 8 million would have been rather difficult since there weren't that many Amerinds in what became the US after the De Soto expedition.

America's list of state sponsored terror goes on and on and on
VDs lies go on and on.

Really you had been doing so well for several weeks. Then the Troll in you had enough of being good and it had to come out like some serial killer that hadn't killed in way to long.

Ethelred

Sep 23, 2011
Lol the only "serial killer" in your scenario is the US government.

Sep 23, 2011
"Spokesmodels do not Produce tv shows. Nor do they Conceive them or Write them or Direct them, or even watch them for that matter. They do their Job." - Otto

And remain complicit in the production.
As does Ronald McDonald in the production of your mcburger. So what? Plans for the western reoccupation of the ME took decades to unfold. You blame one minor player, you miss the whole Purpose.

Which is the Purpose of spokesmodels to begin with. They're convenient diversions for the starstruck masses. You all want somebody you can praise or blame and so that's what you're given. Just like israel and its kings.

Dupe.

Sep 23, 2011
Here's the thing: You cannot beleive what you see in the media. You must look at things logically and make your own conclusion. Logically, it would seem that there were just way too many different strange things going on on Sept. 11th 2001. Look into, you will know in your heart that something was planned on that day.

Sep 23, 2011
Just out of continuing curiousity on my part..

Did the Trade Center Towers have mass damping systems ?

http://en.wikiped...s_damper

Where were they, how were they controlled, can they go out of control( from damaged elements in the system ) and provide extra torque in the form of oscillations, misread wind speed and over-compensate, etc, etc.

Hit me.

Sep 23, 2011
There's always LME to consider too, since liquid aluminum and steel happen to be the most prone to suffer this effect.

http://en.wikiped...ttlement

@ otto, you are correct, it's not a " rapid " embrittlement, it's " drastic loss in tensile ductility ".

My bad.

Sep 23, 2011
" I'm very thankful I wasn't up there choking on my chemistry " ~Neon

True, Le Châtelier himself would cringe at all the possible reactions/products.

Sep 24, 2011
As one side of one floor fell onto the floor below it would cause a chain reaction.


Wouldn't that mean that one side of the building would fall before another side, causing the part of the building above to tilt?

Sep 24, 2011
@ethelred

"There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt."

This assumes that the current US Government is not corrupt. I wish it weren't so, but the level of corruption in the US Government is higher now than any time in its history. Do you really think a corrupt system can correct itself?

"It is the oldest constitutional government in the world and a much older nation then yours."

No, Iceland has the oldest constitutional government. Also, it is an error to say the U.S. is a constitutional government. It has a constitution, yes, but it hasn't honored it in a long time. In fact, supporting the Constitution can get you on the "Terror Watch List."

"A dubious number but it was not a crime. It was war and we did not start it nor did we start the killing of civilians there."

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured to justify the Viet Nam war. This was recently documented in declassified documents.


Sep 24, 2011
The main problem the US had with North Vietnam was some bad decisions that were made to support the French. Eisenhower should have supported Ho Chi Mihn in his efforts to get rid of the French.


Actually, the U.S. Government shipped a huge amount of military aid to Ho Chi Minh right after the Japanese surrender. It then in fact engineered the Viet Nam war from that point onward. Read Col. Fletcher Prouty's book on Viet Nam.

Another war started by someone other than the US. It is NOT criminal to protect ones allies.


Depends on which war you mean. The second Iraq war is being discussed, and it was a war of aggression, pure and simple. And a war of aggression IS criminal, it was THE REASON why German officials were executed after WWII.

Sep 24, 2011
This is not to say that a LOT of Amerinds didn't die in the various Indian wars but most of the deaths were due to disease and even starvation. But 8 million would have been rather difficult since there weren't that many Amerinds in what became the US after the De Soto expedition.


Historically, in war, most deaths are due to things like disease and starvation. It is ingenuous and incorrect to suggest that the U.S. Government did not have a policy to get rid of the native Americans. From the beginning, even in colonial times, they pushed them west from their ancestral homes and would have pushed them into the Pacific Ocean if so many hadn't (most conveniently) already died from "disease and starvation".

America's list of state sponsored terror goes on and on and on
VDs lies go on and on.


No, do a little research on state sponsored terrorism, and it is an awesome list. The U.S. Government isn't the only perpetrator, just the very best.


Sep 24, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

The bulk of the structure was in the skin. This tube confined the telescoping floors and landed it all in the subgrade 'bathtub'. Very neat and tidy.


-Although to me it seems that these buildings were designed to fail specifically by jet fuel fire


You must know, of course, since the whole 9/11 community has made this the cornerstone of their analysis, that the WTC towers were not simple tube structures, but had a huge central core and were not "built to fail." You must also know that the buildings were specifically built to withstand multiple jetliner collisions, including jet fuel. In fact, the towers were built so that jet fuel could not flow to the bottom of the structures and were built in three separate modules specifically to prevent this.

How you have the time to spend on comments, what with singing the Horst Wessel Lied and marching about consuming most of your time, is a mystery to me. Die Fahne Hoch, and all that.

Sep 24, 2011
@LuckyBrandon
actually you are incorrect (not on the 8 million deaths though, thats bs).


"David Stannard notes that more conservative demographers cite a figure of about 7 or 8 million inhabitants. The Library of Congress uses 900,000 as the total number in its educational article "Destroying the Native American Cultures". By 1900, the Native American population in the United States had dwindled to approximately 250,000. As the direct result of written and broken treaties, warfare, and of forced assimilation the Indians were virtually destroyed by the European immigration that created the United States." - Wikipedia article on "American Indian Wars."

BS?

Sep 24, 2011
You must also know that the buildings were specifically built to withstand multiple jetliner collisions, including jet fuel.
No sorry youll have to reference this. But is this why each fell down by getting hit with just one??

I HAVE read in different sources that this possibility was never considered. Ostensibly.

The core structure indeed functioned as an integral part of the structure but could not have supported itself without lateral support from the tube and floors. What does your statement have to do with anything?
Depends on which war you mean. The second Iraq war is being discussed, and it was a war of aggression, pure and simple. And a war of aggression IS criminal, it was THE REASON why German officials were executed after WWII.
And it is suicide to wait and let an enemy attack you when THEY are ready, and on THEIR own terms. Sun Tzu 101.

Otto uber alles.

Oh hey the word is DISingenuous. I always look words up when I am not sure of them.

Sep 24, 2011
@GhostofOtto1923

I've been thinking about the link you provided that demonstrates top-down building implosions and after watching those buildings fall over and over and then watch the fall of the twin towers I have to say that the pancake hypothesis is "gaining momentum" and I now am seeing that, although not unequivocal, it is highly plausible:

http://www.youtub...=related

Another important consideration is the plumes seen being ejected from the towers as they fall: while solid debris of the towers are limited to a free falling speed or less than free fall speed, the air inside the lower floors of the building can certainly be compressed by the compaction of upper floors pushing downward on the columns of air as they fall. Furthermore, this compressed air maybe responsible for the plumes seen being ejected from the lower floors as the upper floors are moving downward. This concept is easy to demonstate at home using a plastic screwcap bottle...

Sep 24, 2011
Excellent. As I said the core was supposedly sealed against smoke and fumes but as it was mostly drywall construction, could not resist overpressure and I am presuming liquids.

Pressure from collapsing floors above could have travelled down the core openings and emerged to blow out windows on lower floors before the collapse reached them.

And some windows could have popped from deformation as the entire structure began to stress. Someone said in one of the interviews that they thought the whole Bldg had twisted from the impact and that they were looking out in a slightly different direction. This glass-breaking could have been most pronounced at the corners as they probably would have experienced the most shear from twisting.

Sep 24, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Compressed air is wickedly powerful stuff: I remember one experiance of it some years ago when I placed a large screw nut in a new hydraulic press to test its strength. What I forgot to consider was that as the metal nut was being compressed so was the air inside the nut as the nut was placed in the press ring-side down: the result was a startling explosion that caused the metal nut to fragment at a high velocity into small pieces all over the work area.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but were not the core columns of the world trade centers hollow steel rectangular columns? If so then they might have failed like the threaded nut in the hydraulic press: instead of the air inside the columns being compressed hydraulically the air may be compressed thermally. This can be expressed by Charles's law in which the pressure of a gas is proportional to its temperature when both its mass and volume are kept constant, as they would be in an airtight steel column.

Sep 24, 2011
A picture of what I was thinking:

http://911researc...ore3.jpg

If these were hermetically sealed at both ends by joiners and exposed to fire then Charles' law takes over and they will blow up when the temperature causes not the metal to fail due to temperature but rather the pressure of the air inside the column to to cause ultimate failure of the steel.

Sep 24, 2011
thermite nano particles were found in dust
witch brought them down

no need to make up srpinklers brought down the tawers
how stupid they think people are?

Sep 24, 2011
Thermite is used in welding during construction of railroads and can also be used to join columns and beams like were used in the WTCs construction. I will try to find out more about it, but don't discount that thermite may have been used heavily during the construction of the towers which would explain artifacts of thermite reactions on structural pieces of the towers. Please confirm that it wasn't used during the construction of the towers: you should seek to exhaust all the possible ligitimate reasons thermite residue would be found on pieces of the tower before you go grasping for the illigitimate reasons one would find it there.

Use the scientific method and the process of ellimination and at the end be honest with yourself based on the plain hard facts. Do you care more about the truth or do you care more about your conspiracy theories and conjectures?

Sep 24, 2011
Learn some manner, guys. This forum's purpose is being ruined by all the caps-locking. Anyone typing invalid physics in such an aggressive tone should be ashamed. And, in general, the aggressive tone is counter-productive. I'm disappointed.

Sep 24, 2011
I already stated quite clearly an earlier post that I don't know what happened on 911. I'm not jumping to any conclusions because like I said conjecture is a flimsy substitute for empirical knowledge.

I think the problem here is that it was a big Emotional event! If this were on the other hand the collapse of an old dam then I think less storytelling and more measurements and testing would be performed to determine the cause of its failure. And when the final report comes out on the cause it would not be politically charged to accept the conclusions of the experts who had the best access to the relevant evidence. However, since George Bush was president, and you didn't vote for him, then the findings of the commission cannot be trusted because they were appointed by a government that you do not trust.
The problem is that the official story is plausible, but there is simply not enough evidence to verify it, and by the same token there isn't enough evidence to disprove it.

Sep 24, 2011
Those who refuse to accept the most likely explanation that the buildings fell from controlled demolition try to promote explanations that are increasingly ridiculous. It is as if any explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is preferable to the most likely explanation. Also distorting evidence like suggesting that the core columns were hollow, or that the buildings were designed to fail. Or ignoring the presence of unignited namothermite, which is an advanced Defense Department product, just like the anthrax used in the pre-"Patriot Act" scare. This kind of reasoning is not scientific. A scientific approach is to follow the evidence to the best conclusion, no matter what your personal feelings are.

Sep 25, 2011
What makes you think these are indications of corruptitude?

VD again demonstrates his lack of appreciation of the exigencies of war.

All of war is deception.
Peace is only the preparation for war.

-Therefore all of peace is deception.

Apologies for the wordmath. I didn't make the first two up I only took them to their logical conclusion.

Sep 25, 2011
The above comments show how public confidence in government leaders has declined since the finding that climate scientists manipulated temperature data and leaders of the scientific community covered up ('whitewashed') the problem.

Apparently world leaders and leaders of science agreed to promote two falsehoods in ~1971 [1,2] to unite the world:

a.) Bilderberg model of the Sun as a stable H-fusion reactor.
b.) Humans therefore caused Earth's climate change.

After failing to whitewash Climategate, they are trapped like rats on a sinking ship, who must:

c.) Admit deceit and risk retaliation, or
d.) Ban open discussion of Climategate.

Statesmanship is needed to resolve the situation and restore:

e.) Integrity to government science.
f.) Citizen control over government.

1. http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo


Sep 25, 2011
Amusing that someone like "Vendicar Decarian" can cite all the gross immoralities of invading Vietnam, Iraq, etc., with the unimaginable loss of life ... and yet not think that there might be some people evil enough to use the U.S. government's cloak of legitimacy to either allow the 9/11 attacks to happen or even help bring them about.

The new theory outlined in this article should be taken on its merits. Thankfully, internet comments sections are no substitute for the peer review process.

Sep 25, 2011
The 3 million civilians murdered by American in Vietnam who died from Amerian bombs, American Napalm, and American Bullets.
Sorry you can't understand the difference between a war and criminal actions. The Vietnamese did the same thing except for the napalm and they other things instead. It was war. Its nasty.

Hitler would have been proud of America's level of civilian extermination
We killed a lot his as well. It was war in both cases and thus not criminal.

There are few things that are criminal for nations. Piracy is one. Privateering is not.

Not corrupt like the Nixon administration
What part of periods of corruption did you fail to understand? Nixon was corrupt. The government is no more inherently corrupt than yours is.

massive quantity of civilian deaths in Vietnam from the American people.
He didn't actually do that. He hid the failures from himself though. And the deaths of civilians were not intentional.>>

Sep 25, 2011
Quite unlike WWII were civilians were targeted. And you seem to be evading the clear INTENTIONAL killing of civilians by the Viet Cong. They were criminals.

Corrupt like Bush Administration 2 - the most corrupt government in U.S. history?
Funny those were all Republicans and you botched it anyway. REAGAN was the most corrupt based on convictions and as a percentage the one you left out was the worst, President Grant and he wasn't corrupt himself. Just incompetent enough that he didn't know it was going on.

"There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt." - Tard Boy

Buildings don't need to be hit by airplanes to fall down.
I think you botched a quote there.

Corruption by all those Republicans came from them NOT having any respect for the US government. Not from anything inherent in America. Inherent in humans maybe.

Ethelred

Sep 25, 2011
this article has close to zero scietific merit

because it trys to explain away the know fact
by anyone who is noT mentally retarded

that WTC 1 WTC2 AND WTC7

WERE CONTROLED DEMELITIONS

Sep 25, 2011
In regards to the whole nanothermite particle issue... isn't using molten aluminum against a rusting steel building an aluminothermic reaction anyway?

I'd be surprised if you didn't find evidence of thermite after an explosion like that.

Sep 25, 2011
explain #7...

Sep 25, 2011
ADENDUM
this article has close to zero scietific merit BECAOUSE ITS CLEARLY A BLATANT ATEMPT TO VALIDATE THE OFICIAL STORY LINE

it trys to explain away the know fact
by anyone who is noT mentally retarded

AND TOOK HIS HEAD OUT OF THE OFFCIAL STORYS ASS AND DID
FEW HUNDERED HOURS OF RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT

THAT WTC 1 WTC 2 AND WTC 7

WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS


Sep 25, 2011
explain #7...


The monsterous shockwave and resonance vibration from the other towers falling after the aluminum-water mix ignited the rusty girders?

Bridges collapse due to resonance, I don't see why a building couldn't.

Sep 25, 2011
WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
I thought they WERE CONTROLED DEMELITIONS -?
FEW HUNDERED HOURS OF RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT
Did you read the same article a few hundred times?

Sep 25, 2011
I have as yet to see any scientific explanations here which would back up the conspiracy claims. Structural specifications would be a good place to start IMHO. Maybe the "Mechanical Engineer" could fire up his CAD program and spit out some real (though still virtual) "stress-baring" numbers to support his arguements.

Sep 25, 2011
@Ethelred

Sorry you can't understand the difference between a war and criminal actions. The Vietnamese did the same thing except for the napalm and they other things instead. It was war. Its nasty.


Well, there is NO difference between a STAGED war and criminal actions. The Viet Nam war was completely fabricated by the U.S. starting right after the Japanese surrender, starting with the shipment of arms to Ho Chi Minh, relocation of 1 million Northern Vietnamese to the South, etc. It was created to produce huge profits for the military industrial complex. When JFK tried to put a stop to it, he was killed. Read Col. Fletcher Prouty's book on Viet Nam & JFK.

Sep 25, 2011
@DGBEACH

I have as yet to see any scientific explanations here which would back up the conspiracy claims.


You have to be specific. Which conspiracy claims do you mean? The ones (plural) that the government has foisted on us which make no sense? Or the ones that question the official conspiracy theories?

The word "conspiracy" is highly misused and people really ought to look it up in the dictionary.

Rejecting the official conspiracy theory promoted by the government and asking for a new investigation is not in itself a conspiracy claim, it is a rational response to an absurd tale told by a corrupt government.

Sep 25, 2011
explain blah blah...


Squibs ~ No squibs, simple dimensional analysis that you yourself can do, proves this. Explosions don't start small, expand and then die down like the video shows, they start big and die down. Simple.

Fire temps ~ seriously ? This is simple thermodynamics. When you burn a " fuel " in a " system " like an " engine " you remove " energy " in the form of " work ". " Adiabatic flame temperature " , google it.

Thermite ~ Um, no. Ever used it or made it ? I have. Besides, how does anybody know what part of the buildings this " nanothermite " came from since it was scooped from a big pile of rubble ?

Tensile strength of hot metals ~ something like low carbon steel loses ~ 50% tensile strength at~ HALF of the melting temp, it goes plastic far under melting temps see ?

The problem with you " conspiracy people " is that you don't think for yourselves. I probably could debunk any of you. Try me :)

Sep 25, 2011

The problem with you " conspiracy people " is that you don't think for yourselves. I probably could debunk any of you. Try me :)


Don't you realize that you are one of the "conspiracy people?" It's just that you are defending the conspiracy story told by the government.

So hot plastic metals... If this is the mechanism of collapse, it does little to explain the free fall acceleration seen in all three buildings.

The presence of thermite in the dust would be enough for a fire investigation team to suspect arson. The presence of nanothermite would be enough for them to investigate how anyone could get their hands on a high-tech military explosive, regardless of which part of the building it came from.

There were numerous witnesses to explosions. Well documented.

But these are facts, which mean little to defenders of the government's story, I have noticed.

Sep 25, 2011
i'm trying to upload certain urls, doesn't seem to be working. if you google nine-eleven, architects, engineers and truth you will see 1500 professionals who have been looking into this these past 10 years...

Sep 25, 2011
The Viet Nam war was completely fabricated by the U.S. starting right after the Japanese surrender, starting with the etc
Well of course it was. And when you study other wars in depth, any war you might choose, you see the same recurring patterns of Preparation, Staging, Provocation, Management, and Conclusion.

The only thing you fail to realize claw-claw is the Reasons these things are done. If wildfires are inevitable, then in order to maintain the forest and prevent irrecoverable damage then you have to set them yourself. YOU determine when where and how. If you don't you risk losing everything. Your nice forest will look like Afghanistan.

ANY OTHER approach is EVIL and corrupt. Failure to take action and let civilization fall is not an option.

Vietnam is stable and productive today ONLY because the religionist cultures which would have prevented the 25M ABORTIONS since 1976, were systematically destroyed by the concerted Efforts of all Players involved.

Accept the Truth.

Sep 25, 2011
i'm trying to upload certain urls, doesn't seem to be working. if you google nine-eleven, architects, engineers and truth you will see 1500 professionals who have been looking into this these past 10 years...


http://ae911truth.org/

Sep 25, 2011


The only thing you fail to realize claw-claw is the Reasons these things are done.


Oh, you and I have gone over this before at length. I understand what you regard as reasons. I even agree with you. I just don't like it.

Your reasons have to do with the idea of the Superman, might makes right, the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism. I think we can do better than that, so I guess I am evil.

Sep 25, 2011
Oh, you and I have gone over this before at length. I understand what you regard as reasons. I even agree with you. I just don't like it.
Me neither.
Your reasons have to do with the idea of the Superman, might makes right, the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism.
It is biology pure and simple. The horror caused by the tropical human repro rate.
I think we can do better than that, so I guess I am evil.
Many people thought this way. And while they were desperately pleading and entreating and... praying, forces were AGAIN building in the east, and their city walls were soon to crumble. Solomon said you cannot resist the seasons.

The End is on the horizon. This is a Program that works where nothing else ever could.

Sep 25, 2011
Claudius

There were numerous witnesses to explosions. Well documented.


Yes, and the source of those explosions has been identified, read the article again.

The presence of thermite in the dust would be enough for a fire investigation team to suspect arson.


Then cite your source, where is this claimed, by who, and how was this determined. Computer nerd amateurs relying on wikipedia do not know enough about chemistry like this to make a correct call, I've seen a lot of people say; 'because of the molten blabbity bla it must have been thermite.' That is an unbelievably naive example of proving something, I expect you to cite a much more reliable source than the typical 'just because' method.


Sep 25, 2011
And out come the internet engineers who think they know everything about buildings and engineering because they watched a youtube video and they are sudden experts. The CT nuts can't even agree on 1 theory, some say it was bombs, thermite, mini nuke, particle weapon from space. There were commerical planes, they were military planes, they had bombs on them, they were no planes and were holograms projected to make use think they were planes. To them, thousands of people had to be in on this to wire the building with thermite over many months as it would have taken, killed planes of people, blew up the towers with holographic planes shown to the public, all to go after Iraq? That is the most complicated scheme in the history of man and absurb that it could have been pulled off. If that was their plan, why not just take a suitcase nuke, blow it up in the building and say Arabs did it? Would that have not been 10000x times easier and have the same result. Nutjobs, go away.

Sep 25, 2011
Thermite found. That one makes me laugh. Steven Jones "says" people kept WTC dust for 9 years and then gave it ALL to him and only him for testing. He tested with no review of his data and published it in the Bentham journal, a pay-for-publish journal that has no merit. The leader of Bentham quit over his paper being published and New Scientist did a test where they had a paper "peer-reviewed" by Bentham that made no sense at all, it was gibberish, but as long as the check clear, the paper cleared. The 1500 "engineers" A&E has? Go look at the list, people with a degree in "landscaping engineering" are experts in building design? Someone with a "computer engineering" degree is an expert in buildings coming down? They are a fraud. Go look how much Richard Gage "begs" for each month in donations. Go look how much they sell DVD's and books for. It's a scam like any other scam, follow the money and you'll soon see the "truth".

Sep 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 25, 2011
@GeToChKn: How did Building 7 come down? That also looked exactly like controlled demolition and was not hit by a plane. In fact, the only three steel construction buildings to ever fall from fire were the Twin Towers and Building 7. Other steel structures have burned far more intensely for longer periods of time and yet remained standing.

Only a "nutjob" would live in a self-created fantasy world where governments have never done this type of thing. You need to hit the history books a bit harder. What concerns me is how you de-bunkers always use ad hominem attacks in the end.

If building 7 was controlled demolition (admitted on tape by building owner Larry Silverstein), then all three buildings were controlled demolition. Larry, his daughter and his son who were all scheduled to appear in the towers that day but didn't quite make it to work...all have a lot of esplainin' to do.

Sep 25, 2011
Typical nutjob tactic, take was Larry said out of context. How did 7 come down? How about the huge gaping hole in it. The building went from a half circle sized building to a crescent moon shaped building as huge chunks of 1 and 2 fell on it. Instead of believing Richard gage and his trickery in video (he's been caught 3x changing the speed of 9.8m/s to suit his needs) and look at the rare videos of the other side of building 7 and the huge HOLE that almost cut it in half over 90% of the way down, or the fire that burned for 9 hours, look at them on video too. Nutjob.

Sep 25, 2011
@GeToChKn
Ad-hominem attacks again. Who are you defending anyway? If I'm a nutjob, then you must also include the members of the 9/11 Commission themselves who doubt the official story. Oh, and the high-ranking military officers who also doubt the official story. There seem to be nutjobs everywhere you look huh?

It's laughable that you would call what Larry Silverstein said about deciding to pull the building down "out of context". Do you not find it even the remotest bit odd that all three buildings collapsed symmetrically, appearing exactly the same as what a controlled demolition looks like? Exactly the same. Then Larry said on television that they decided to pull building 7...but that is out of context? Are YOU a nutjob? Are YOU Larry Silverstein?

Sep 25, 2011
Ad-hominem attacks again.
Except hes right and youre wrong.
It's laughable that you would call what Larry Silverstein said about deciding to pull the building down "out of context". Do you not find it even the remotest bit odd that all three buildings collapsed symmetrically
Except that a large part of wtc was already gone. AND if you look at the video shot from the side you see the rest of the center fall first as the interior truss gives way. This is not symmetrical.
controlled demolition looks like? Exactly the same.
Ive never seen a controlled demo of a partially destroyed bldg which is on fire. Have you?

How would you get inside and set charges safely with all that smoke, flame, and debris? How could you control a demo with the structure already compromised? How would you engineer a coherent demo plan of a partially destroyed and burning bldg in the 9 hours between the initial damage and final collapse?

I am writing here as these things occur to me.

Sep 25, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923. It doesn't matter what you say, the wingnuts just repeat standard "Loose Change" quotes over and over. You know whats funny about "Loose Change", is the makers made it as a spoof movie, a pretend documentary. Nutjobs soon latched on, so the makers enjoyed the fame for a bit. Now one is selling heroin, the other living back at moms working at his high school pizza shop begging for money online to "continue the cause", and the main maker, has recanted the video, saying he made it up and the nutjobs got to him and brought him into their cult for a while, now, wanting to be a serious film maker, he is trying to distance himself from "Loose Change". "Screw Loose Change" tears it apart, so they made another, that got torn apart, they made another version, and another, each time removing things they said that were totally wrong. They are like religious people, they will hold their beliefs to their death, wrong or not, they're nutjobs. Plain and simple.

Sep 25, 2011
Yeah haven't studied the issue much. But I look at Bldg 7 and right away I have questions. If it was damaged to the extent it was from initial debris and fire, it would have been unsalvageable anyway. So why risk the lives of a crack demo team, who would have had to make complex decisions about placement and size of charges in light of unknown damage conditions, while anticipating and avoiding the spread of fire, all to take down a condemned Bldg in 6 hours or less? Why not wait until an assessment could be made and a proper demo done to minimize ancillary damage and maximize safety?

And if demo charges and a system to set them off were already in place, how would have this been affected by the damage and ongoing fires? It must've been a hugely expensive and elaborate setup with extreme redundancy and hardened to prevent premature activation from anticipated calamity.

The videos from the good side of the Bldg were misleading. The far side of the Murrah Bldg looked pretty good too.

Sep 25, 2011
Why do the 9/11 commissioners themselves have doubts?

Sep 25, 2011
I'll let you guys in on the truth, absolute and real. I don't have proof but I have literally experienced the end of the universe, it was pretty neat to say the least. Not to be conceited but among the aliens I'm called the world ender (rough translation) because I convinced them to commit suicide at the end of the universe. They had been trying to live forever and once they knew everything they attempted (will attempt) to create new information by traveling backward in time. They pick us (humans) up and take us to the end to see how we react to their predicament. I convinced them to end it because they were stuck in an infinite loop. They are still around but I think I did them a service by allowing their long journey to finally end. Who knows if they had a fail safe.

Anyways on to the main point, the US Govt. only invaded the middle east to find ancient alien artifacts and study them, they may have used 9/11/01 as the catalyst for invasion.

I would bet my life on it.

Sep 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 25, 2011
I'll let you guys in on the truth, absolute and real. I don't have proof but I have literally experienced the end of the universe, it was pretty neat to say the least. Not to be conceited but among the aliens I'm called the world ender (rough translation) because I convinced them to commit suicide at the end of the universe. They had been trying to live forever and once they knew everything they attempted (will attempt) to create new information by traveling backward in time. They pick us (humans) up and take us to the end to see how we react to their predicament. I convinced them to end it because they were stuck in an infinite loop. They are still around but I think I did them a service by allowing their long journey to finally end. Who knows if they had a fail safe.



Sounds like the plot of Slaughterhouse 5. Say hi to Montana Wildhack for me. What are you ON?

Sep 25, 2011
How much of the lack of confidence in our government came from efforts of world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to "whitewash" clear evidence of manipulation of temperature data in the Climategate scandal?

That issue is discussed on Professor Curry's blog, "Whos anti-science?"

http://judithcurr...science/

The world social structure is in danger when so many members of the public think our government had more to do with the 911 event than Iraq did!

Statesmanship is needed to resolve this stand-off and restore:

a.) Citizen control of government, and

b.) Integrity to government science.

Otherwise we may face social disaster.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09


Sep 25, 2011
See Professor Ian Pilmer's new book, "How to get expelled from school:"

http://joannenova...ew-book/

The foreword was written by Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. He is one of few politicians who understands the serious danger facing our society today.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Sep 25, 2011
"Rejecting the official conspiracy theory promoted by the government and asking for a new investigation is not in itself a conspiracy claim, it is a rational response to an absurd tale told by a corrupt government."
Unfortunately THAT gov't is no longer available to answer questions...who ya gonna call?

Sep 25, 2011
I am sorry but you can't counter conspiracy nuts with facts reason or an appeal to use Occham's razor.

I have learned from these noted academics that my new answer to everything I can't explain is the amazing Building 7 that impossibly collapsed after burning for a scant 8 hours!

Also I should like to state that I am an engineer and part of the Jewish cabal that secretly controls the US government and used this incident to get the US to attack Iraq from some reason I can't quite explain.

Sep 25, 2011
The reason nobody knows what a steel framed building collapsing after fire looks like is becuase its never happened before in the history of the world. Many buildings have caught on fire, none have collapsed. Building 7 is the giveway, that and the footage of molten steel.

Sep 25, 2011
iPan,

You could say the same thing for science in general. After all, if the world was supported on the backs of four elephants back in 1000 BC, why all this new cosmology? What are THEY trying to hide?


Turtles all the way down.

Sep 26, 2011
Ghost Busters.

In any case. the least the population should come to expect, especially with all the controversy surrounding the subject. Anther investigation, perhaps from seperate parties. And some explanations about actions and quotes from people surrounding the incident need to be questioned.


Science isn't biased. Let it do its Job. i feel like the evidence was disposed of very fast. air chrash investigateions rebuild the whole plane over years in rented warehouses and we sell everything to china. Science had no chance.

Not one government body has answered al the questions. Nor is completely thourough in there investigations.
people on the same scientific board disagree. NIST disagress.
the conclusions people come to belivev from the NIST investigations i feel are completely distant from what evidence composes today. but in anycase. what harm can checking and re-checking and checking again. why not if there is so much interest on the subject. even if its just conjecture .

Sep 26, 2011
Democracy in this case says investigate again.
if universities are still pondering possible outcomes and still questioning why isnt the government
sorry about my spelling , but meh

Sep 26, 2011
Who knows if they had a fail safe.



Sounds like the plot of Slaughterhouse 5. Say hi to Montana Wildhack for me. What are you ON?


have you read slaughter house 5? the only thing my story shares with that book is time travel which is a common theme. You may not remember your "abduction" they usually do it while you are asleep so it seems like a dream or else they can erase memory, which would be pretty easy for a time traveling race of aliens.

Vonnegut would get what I'm saying, sad he died a couple years back...he was a real literary genius. Sirens of titan was the first book of his I read and it is probably more similar to my story than Slaughterhouse 5.

I also really like the short story called 'report on the barnhouse effect' which was in his book of shorts called 'welcome to the monkey house'. very interesting how they removed the secret code in the latest printed edition and I cant find the old version ANYWHERE and I work in a used bookstore.

Sep 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.