Michael Rivero Punches Holes in the Latest Twin Towers Collapse Theory

Wikimedia Commons

9/11 researcher and former NASA scientist, Michael Rivero, issued a rebuttal to the new theory of how the Twin Towers could have collapsed after being struck by planes. The salient point that is made by Christen Simensen of SINTEF, a research organization in Norway, as detailed in Aluminum International Today is that molten aluminum from the airplanes chemically reacted with water in the buildings’ sprinkler systems, which set off the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers.

Rivero responds:

“The reaction he is talking about is one in which hot aluminum will ‘steal’ oxygen from water, leaving hydrogen gas. There are two problems with this theory, of course.

The first is the hydrogen gas is very light and floats upward even faster than helium. The ruins of the World Trade Towers were ‘porous’ and as the smoke trails prove, there was a strong wind from the side. This means that hydrogen could not collect together anywhere in any amounts enough to cause an explosion, certainly not down in the basements, where some explosions were reported.

Second, even under the most ideal of circumstances of perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, impossible in the natural atmosphere and under those conditions, hydrogen may burn fast but does not detonate. Recall the destruction of the Hindenburg. Huge fire, no ‘bang.’

So this latest official ‘explanation’ is a desperate attempt to reconcile eyewitness reports and video recordings of explosions (like the one that initiates the collapse of building 7) with the rapidly collapsing official story.

In any event, this new ‘aluminum’ theory does NOT address all the evidence for a conspiracy. The aluminum theory does not explain how the United States Secret Service knew it was safe to leave George Bush sitting at that school reading about goats, with an airport just four miles away, nor does it explain how the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 twenty six minutes before it actually happened.

Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?”

As for Building 7? Simensen agrees with the official government report.

We welcome your comments, as well as comments from other experts who wish to critique the latest Twin Towers collapse theory.

Please also visit Michael Rivero’s website What Really Happened, which continues to be a premier resource for tracking and analyzing the catalog of deceptions surrounding the events of September 11th.

Source for this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collapse-model-could-squash-9-11-201204097.html?cache=clear