Molten aluminum theory proposed to explain “conspiracy” explosions of Twin Towers

New Theory Explains Collapse of World Trade Center’s Twin Towers

According to a theory advanced by a SINTEF materials scientist, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminium from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.


Just before the two New York skyscrapers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, leading many people to believe that overheated steel beams in the building were not the cause of the collapse.

The explosions fed the conspiracy theories that someone had placed explosives inside the towers.

Source: ScienceDaily.com

Interesting and quite long interview with the author is included. This work was presented at a materials conference and is published in the journal Aluminum International Today.

  4 comments for “Molten aluminum theory proposed to explain “conspiracy” explosions of Twin Towers

  1. September 22, 2011 at 5:19 PM

    This hypothesis is quite frankly absurd.

    For a start we know the fires were oxygen starved (thick black smoke, little flames). Compare with Windsor Tower fire which was an inferno (which interestingly remained standing, bar a few slumped floors).

    In addition there is the famous picture of the woman standing in the impact zone of the North Tower. Note the absence of soot on jeans or burn injuries or even (as far as we can tell) any singed hair. Note also the absence of any kind of raging inferno behind her.

    The fires in both towers moved up to the floors above (as fires tends to do). Heat also rises. This would have meant the majority of the heat (which was not particularly significant anyway) would have quickly migrated to above where the plane debris was embedded.

    Next we have the fact that Brian Clark of Eurobrokers managed to escape (with another surviver) from his office which was the 84th floor of the south tower which was ABOVE the plane impact zone. They made it down through the stairwells situated in the cores, which he said was TOTALLY INTACT despite the plane having impacted several minutes before. This proves that at least some of the core remained virtually untouched and that there was no raging inferno in the south tower either (in the locations described).

    You can hear Brian’s testimony at the beginning of this documentary.

    Then we have the recordings of the fire fighters in the south tower in the minutes leading up to the destruction of the building. No major fires to report there either.

    Also we know a large quantity of the jet fuel exploded outside the buildings on impact, particularly with the south tower which was hit off centre.

    Next we have the nature of the buildings’ destruction itself.

    In this video of the south tower we can clearly see the following observations:

    1. multiple explosions ejecting pulverized concrete and steel girders at high speed and from multiple floors simultaneously.
    2. This is occurring while the top section of the tower is still toppling over to one side many floors higher up. In the video it can be seen toppling at the start and disappearing into the dark smoke/ dust.
    3. Note also the uniform leading edge of these explosive ejections (on both visible sides).
    4. The wave of explosive ejections is traveling down both faces of the buildings but the ejections themselves are coming out sideways.
    5. This downward wave of destruction is traveling ahead of any collapsing debris indicating this wave of destruction is traveling down both visible sides faster than free fall. In fact relative to the actual collapse which is still happening approx 20 floors higher up this wave of explosive ejections is racing down the buildings at a phenomenal speed!
    6. Note the visible corner of the building which remains intact over many floors (presumably still intact behind much of the dust as well)
    7. Note the contrast in dust colour. The explosive ejections are a uniform light colour while at the initial onset zone (above) there appears to be a mixture of light and dark concrete dust and smoke.
    8. Be aware of the scale of the twin towers. They were HUGE. The explosive ejections appear at one stage to be occurring on perhaps 20 floors simultaneously (I’m sure an exact figure could be calculated from all of the footage). Let’s be conservative and say 10-15 floors. This is still the equivalent of watching a 10 – 15 story building being blown apart virtually instantaneously in all directions.

    video removed (editor)-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

    These few selected observations alone (out of many more which could be given) completely contradict the ‘exploding aluminum’ hypothesis. Not only was there insufficient heat present but the explosions witnessed are too powerful, too uniform, to widespread and too controlled to be the result of random melted aluminum leaking through ‘cracks’ and stairwells etc.

    Whatever did cause these massive explosions it was clearly not a melted airliner coming into contact with a sprinkling system.

  2. Danno
    September 25, 2011 at 1:19 AM

    Your attack on this hypothesis is what is absurd. Was the Windsor Tower fire caused by a large jet loaded with fuel and weighing hundreds of tons slamming into it at hundreds of miles an hour? No. Then why even offer it as a comparison. Was it built to the same standards, with the same materials and to the same height as the WTC? No. Then why offer it as a comparison. So since your initial logic is so inherently flawed, why even bother reading the rest of your faulty argument and looking for more inevitable gross errors. What degrees in science do you possess and what scientific research at which laboratories have you performed in these areas?

    • October 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

      Danno – “Then why offer [windsor tower] as a comparison.”

      Because it is a steel framed high rise tower which caught fire. Yes it is true it wasn’t hit by a plane but it is ALSO true that it burned intensely for 24 hours (with bright yellow hot flames shooting out of the building hundreds of feet high), yet the steel still maintained enough structural strength to keep the structure as a whole standing.

      By comparison WTC 1,2 and 7 burned for about an hour (about 5 hours for WTC7) with fires so small the flames hardly even poked out of the windows of a few floors.

      Steel framed buildings are build to the same building codes which have tolerances many times that required (ie they have to be over engineered).

      To a certain extent you can group all steel framed buildings together just as you can group all commercial airliners together. Or cars. The whole point of HAVING such rigorous material and construction codes and regulations is so we don’t have to set fire to every new building or plane or car to know if the materials will melt or buckle. We’ve already tested such things.

      So far these codes and regulations have worked well for every high rise building ever built and which ever suffered a fire. Then inexplicably they (supposedly) fail three times on the same day before continuing to work fine for the next decade. If you don’t find that at least curious then you are beyond help.

      But the Windsor tower is still just a single supporting observation, and not in any way part of the main case for a controlled demolition hypothesis.

      I notice you don’t address the other 99% of my post containing irrefutable observations of explosive ejections of concrete (together with a link to video footage of the same), eyewitness testimony and so on.

      But perhaps you are busy right now preparing another comment to address the main substantial evidence I present.

  3. richard napp
    September 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM

    this dosent answer building 7 which was not hit by an airplane and explosions were going off in there too

Comments are closed.