Norwegian scientist proposes new alternative theory

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

Dave

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

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

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

Hans

 

[Animal]

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

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

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

 

[Macgyver1968]

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

I'm calling shenanigans.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

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

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

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

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

Not a chance.

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

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

 

[Sunstealer]

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

I'm calling shenanigans.

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

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

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

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

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

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

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



Hans

 

[Marokkaan]

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

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

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

Hans

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

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

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


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

Yes he does, here:

Ah its in the other article.

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

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

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

 

[bill smith]

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

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

 

[twinstead]

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

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

You are biased.

 

[bill smith]

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

You are biased.

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

 

[twinstead]

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

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

 

[Macgyver1968]

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

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

In my searching..I did find this:

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

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

 

[Sunstealer]

Does anyone know if the sprinkler systems were actually functioning?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

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

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


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







Ah its in the other article.

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

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

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

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Does anyone know if the sprinkler systems were actually functioning?

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

 

[Architect]

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

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

 

[Architect]

Note, truthy people reading this:

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


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

I thought exactly the same.

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

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

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

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

 

[twinstead]

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

I'm shocked!