• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Norwegian scientist proposes new alternative theory

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

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



1 And the Daily Mail......
 
Macgyver1968 said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.pyrotek.info/documents/n...um_Times_-_2009-08_-_Safety_Coatings_(A4).pdf

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

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

The energy released when 0.5 kg of aluminium fully reacts with oxygen, according to the reaction equation set out below, is equivalent to detonating 1.4 kg of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
2Al+3H2O = Al2O3+H2 + Energy
 
The only recent Alcoa plant explosion I could find was a minor one in Evansville Indiana on April 21, 2010:


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

Reported by: Craig McDanell

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, as already pointed out throughout this thread, there are no observables supporting this scenario as a failure mode.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
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
Click to expand...

I found a Google preview of the proceedings from the TMS 2011 140th Annual Meeting and Exhibition where Christian Simensen presented his paper: A Model for the Collapse of the World Trade Center

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

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

It is bit embarrassing actually, he should have spent far more time studying
all the videos showing the aircraft impacts and the collapses. And of course a far more careful reading of the NIST reports on WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.
 
Norwegian Broadcasting Cooporation asked NIST for an interview, to give their reaction in connection with a popular science program that covered the theory Christian Simensen presented. But NIST declined since their opinion was that the theory would not change their conclusion.

Source:http://www.nrk.no/vitenskap-og-teknologi/1.7793083
(Written in new Norwegian of all things, an official dialect of Norwegian)
 
Marokkaan said:
Ah here is it clear he can not explain it. And sticks up to the version of NIST. he just speculates about it.

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

I agree with you. Speculation, errors, and no investigation are not a good way to convince people of your theory.
 
Sabrina said:
His theory is interesting... but it fails in one key area.

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

Exactly, no one heard that alleged explosion and this new theory doesn't explain the inward bowing of the external columns which is not just a theory, it's a fact.
 
ergo said:
Except for the people who reported hearing one. But they must be mistaken, right? It was probably a water cooler.
Click to expand...

For the nth time...

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

  • Explosions are expected in fires
  • Reports of explosions are expected in fires
Click to expand...



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

    Bedunkers think that firefighters wouldn't know the difference.


    [*]Explosives causes blast injuries
    Click to expand...

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

In the many videos of the collapses we do not hear any detonations whatsoever, especially not ones capable of causing the kind of of effects truthers claim were occurring like ejecting heavy steel hundreds of feet etc.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom