Norwegian scientist proposes new alternative theory

[bill smith]

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

 

[Marokkaan]

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

Lol

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

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

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7

I hope he heard about wtc7

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lol

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

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

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

No, he just tries to supplement it.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7

I hope he heard about wtc7

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

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

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

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

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

You neglected to answer my question in that other thread:

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

So in which sequence were these beams melted?

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

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

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

I await your answer.

Hans

 

[bill smith]

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

You neglected to answer my question in that other thread:

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

So in which sequence were these beams melted?

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

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

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

I await your answer.

Hans

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

OK. Then:

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

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

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

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

Hans

 

[Marokkaan]

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

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

No, he just tries to supplement it.

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

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

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

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

Hans

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

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



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

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

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

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

Hans

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

 

[Marokkaan]

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

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

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

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

I just place my quote again.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7

I hope he heard about wtc7

But ok i will answer it.

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

 

[little grey rabbit]

Lol

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

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

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

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

 

[bill smith]

OK. Then:

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

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

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

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

Hans

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



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

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

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

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

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

 

[newton3376]

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

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

He comments on technical aspects that he:

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

2. Has not done even basic research on.

3. Does not understand at all.


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

 

[Marokkaan]

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

He comments on technical aspects that he:

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

2. Has not done even basic research on.

3. Does not understand at all.


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

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

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

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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




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

I just place my quote again.

Now im curious how he wants to explain about wtc 7
I hope he heard about wtc7

But ok i will answer it.

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

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

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

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

Hans

 

[Peephole]

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

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

 

[MetalPig]

he does not talk about wtc 7.

Yes he does, here:

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

 

[twinstead]

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

 

[MetalPig]

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

Yep, back to the fire-resistant silent explosives