> (AP) ?WASINGTON Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says
> that as an engineer he's sure the twin towers were not brought
> down by jetliners.
> Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it
> would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the
> towers simply by hitting them. he says some kind of planned
> explosion must have taken place.
> Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the
> disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world
> should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United
> States as well.
> Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site
> of the World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making
> another attempt this year. He's in New York City for the U.N.
> General Assembly.
New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies
By Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com 17 hrs ago....
Many 9/11 *** theories revolve around explosions that were seen
and heard in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers prior to their
collapse. Despite scientific investigations that have explained the
processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some *** theorists
suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the
fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" that explosives had been
implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what
really brought them down.
Now a materials scientist has come up with a more scientific
explanation for the mystery booms, and says his model of the Twin
Towers collapse leaves no room for conspiracies. "My model explains
all the observed features on 11th September: the explosions, molten
metal coming out of the window, the time passing between the crash and
the collapse, the fact that the explosions took place in a floor below
the place it was burning, and the rapid collapse," Christen Simensen
of SINTEF, a research organization in Norway, told Life's Little
As detailed in the new issue of Aluminum International Today, Simensen
argues that molten aluminum from the airplane bodies chemically
reacted with water in the buildings' sprinkler systems, setting off
the explosions that felled the Twin Towers. [Did Nostradamus Really
Predict the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks?]
Chain of events
When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of
walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would
have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the
plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in
debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would
have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees
Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum of which there was 30
tons in each plane fuselage within an hour. The molten aluminum
would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and
"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much
heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the
next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic
sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was <filled with
"When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a
fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of
hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to
1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.
Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a
whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of
the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse
within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two
World Trade Center towers.
This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum
Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water
explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide
leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in
special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such
explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For
instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20
liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30
meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."
The third tower
A third building, World Trade Center 7, fell eight hours after the
others. Scientists explained that this happened because of fires that
ignited in the building upon the collapse of WTC 1, but some
*** theorists take it as further proof that the impacts of the
<hijacked airplanes> weren't what brought any of the buildings down.
Simensen says his theory does not challenge the accepted scientific
explanation of the collapse of WTC7.
"The official governmental report said the collapse [of World Trade
Center 1 and 2] was due to overheating steel bars in the buildings and
did not mention anything about explosions. Their theory can be used
to explain why WTC7 collapsed. This collapse took place after eight
hours of fire and was much slower than the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC
2," Simensen wrote. [10 Ways 9/11 Impacted Science]
Simensen's new collapse model has not gained immediate acceptance by
proponents of earlier models.
"Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the
best," said Thomas Eagar, a materials scientist at MIT who has also
studied the fall of the towers. "I do not see any merit to this new,
more-complex explanation. Any firefighter trying to <extinguish a
fire> without having the water or the electricity shut off will tell
you that there will be periodic explosions from inside the building. I
don't need to invoke some water/molten aluminum theory to explain
Eagar also objects to the notion that the aluminum, if it did melt,
would definitely have reacted with the water it encountered. Most of
the time when water is sprayed on molten aluminum, "there is no
explosion because the water turns to steam and excludes the oxygen,
preventing the growth of the combustion," he said.
Along similar lines, Zdenek Bazant, a professor of mechanical
engineering at Northwestern University who was first to model how
fires could have caused steel columns in the towers to buckle (leading
to the buildings' collapses), thinks that the official explanation
suffices. "I've explained it in six papers in leading journals,"
Bazant said. In his opinion, all factors related to the collapse have
been accounted for.
But not everyone in the industry agrees with the simpler, official
explanation. Roughly 1,600 architects and structural engineers across
the country, who have banded together in a group called "Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," say it does not fully account for the
buildings' collapses. With so many people looking for answers,
Simensen's alternative theory is likely to receive further attention
This article was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to