It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The NYPD lied.

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Corruption in big city police departments is legendary.

At the time of 911, Bernie Kerik was NYPD commissioner, and from there he went off to be the "Interim Minister of Interior - coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq" - he was allegedly not pilfering war-funds (you know, those pallets of cash that simply disappeared as soon as they arrived), but training locals to be good, honest cops. He's currently doing time in a federal prison for other charges, but it gives a good idea of the kind of character that was in charge on 911.


On October 20, 2009, Kerik's bail was revoked after he allegedly disclosed information which was under seal.[47] He was remanded to the Westchester County Department of Corrections jail in Valhalla, New York, which has a section reserved for federal prisoners.[5] Kerik was referred to as "a toxic combination of self-minded focus and arrogance" by Judge Stephen Robinson on October 20, 2009.[48]

On November 5, 2009, Kerik pled guilty to tax fraud and lying to White House officials.[6] The prosecution and defense recommended that Judge Robinson sentence Mr. Kerik, who faced up to 30 years in prison on the most serious charge, to 27–33 months. The judge, who was not bound by the recommendation, set sentencing for February 18. On that date, Kerik was sentenced to 48 months in prison;[49] he was also ordered to pay restitution of nearly $188,000.[50]

Kerik is currently serving his sentence at a minimum security prison camp located at the Federal Correctional Institution, Cumberland in Maryland and is scheduled for release on October 15, 2013.[51]

Source

Mayor Guiliani is the godfather of Kerik's kids.

Much of the photographic "evidence" of jet parts was supplied by Bernie Kerik's police department; photographs like this, showing a wheel wedged in an exterior panel are offered as proof of the power of the alleged impact:



The New York Police Museum offers this display of firearms encased in concrete as evidence that the concrete turned to "lava" and then re-solidified, encasing two cops' service weapons inside.


My personal experience with heating concrete tells me that it crumbles and breaks up as it heats. Because concrete is not "stone" but a mixture of sand and gravel bonded with cement and water, the melting temperatures of the components of concrete must be considered.

Once the water and CO2 are boiled away (breaking up the concrete), the remaining components of sand and gravel would need to melt before the concrete would be considered "lava". Google searches for the melting point of sand vary, but in general, silicon dioxide (sand) needs to reach at least 1510-1710 C before melting.

Source


Concrete does not melt, at least not in the way you may be thinking. Concrete is composed largely of gravel an sand, with Portland cement that holds the sand and gravel together into a solid mass. The sand and gravel will melt, but you will not be doing it in your kitchen oven! A temperature of several thousand degrees is needed, and the result will be much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos. After all, gravel and sand are just rock, as is molten lava. The Portland cement in concrete, is a mixture of various hydrates and silicates of calcium, aluminum and other elements. It too is a "rocky" material that will not melt at any practical temperature, either.



So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.


Ask A Scientist

A quick evaluation of the images shows the concrete aggregate is still visible, which proves it did not turn to "lava". This is simply scorched concrete.



Steel melts at between 1452-1540 C. but the guns didn't melt.

Right here is simple proof the police lied. Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction. If the weapons are police service firearms, then the evidence is pretty strong the police were responsible for that too.

The police lied.





edit on 19-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Steel melts at between 1452-1540 C. but the guns didn't melt.

Right here is simple proof the police lied. Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction. If the weapons are police service firearms, then the evidence is pretty strong the police were responsible for that too.

The police lied.


Or you. I am betting you.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



Steel melts at between 1452-1540 C. but the guns didn't melt.

Right here is simple proof the police lied. Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction. If the weapons are police service firearms, then the evidence is pretty strong the police were responsible for that too.

The police lied.


Or you. I am betting you.


Thanks for your kind response.

I am simply repeating the words of what appears to be a government website, so are the scientists lying or are the NYPD?


So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.

Ask A Scientist



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction.


Yeah right. The WTC opened in 1973. And the initial phases of construction started in 1966, and that would be about the time the concrete was poured. So are those weapons from police officers in 1966-68?

So back in the late 60's, they were preparing for 9/11.

Now come on man, truthers have it bad enough without this kind of cheese.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Ever heard of baked Alaska? It's ice cream baked in an oven.

Besides a gun encased in some unknown hard substance that look similar to concrete I would call it concreted.

You are trying to split hairs to shore up your conspiracy theory.
But at least you admit to planes hitting the towers with that nice picture.
There's hope for you seeing the light.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



A quick evaluation of the images shows the concrete aggregate is still visible, which proves it did not turn to "lava".

Please show me in that government website where this sentence appears.

These are your words.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
OP doesn't seem to be making any judgment in his post, just you two guys...
He's actually providing a very interesting piece of information.

I'd be interested to see if that effect could be replicated with Theramite...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by septic
Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction.


Yeah right. The WTC opened in 1973. And the initial phases of construction started in 1966, and that would be about the time the concrete was poured. So are those weapons from police officers in 1966-68?

So back in the late 60's, they were preparing for 9/11.

Now come on man, truthers have it bad enough without this kind of cheese.


Thanks for your kind response.

Why would you think the police who dumped the firearms 30 years earlier were involved in 911?

The concrete clearly didn't turn to lava, the very existence of the firearms proves it. So what can better account for them being encased therein? Is it such a stretch to think dirty cops dumped their pieces in the wet concrete after committing a crime back in '69? Why jump to more conclusions than the evidence supports?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


You mean the part where he speculates that they were throwing handguns into the concrete in the 60's isn't an opinion?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


You mean the part where he speculates that they were throwing handguns into the concrete in the 60's isn't an opinion?


It is a conclusion based on the evidence. Science shows that had the concrete turned to "lava", it would have needed to reach temperatures higher than that needed to melt the steel of the hand guns.

Do you dispute the evidence?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No, that is whats known as a possibility.
You, claiming it must all be lies is an opinion.

edit ===> Still it should be easy enough to determine the age of the gun from sight shouldn't it?


edit on 19-12-2011 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
OP has a point..
if you were to heat a chunk of concrete to the point that it would turn to "lava", it would destroy any steel object it encases.

so if these are modern police firearms encased in concrete, and the police claim the concrete was in a molten form and solidified around these firearms... Someone's been manufacturing evidence.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Ever heard of baked Alaska? It's ice cream baked in an oven.

Besides a gun encased in some unknown hard substance that look similar to concrete I would call it concreted.

You are trying to split hairs to shore up your conspiracy theory.
But at least you admit to planes hitting the towers with that nice picture.
There's hope for you seeing the light.


You are trying to clutch at a straw that doesn't exist.

For the concrete to have been hot enough to turn to lava, it would have been hot enough to melt the firearms. Do you deny this?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by hooper
 


edit ===> Still it should be easy enough to determine the age of the gun from sight shouldn't it?


edit on 19-12-2011 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)


Exactly right. These were found in WTC6 I believe, so I would be very interested to learn what models were used at the time of the pour. The police do claim these pieces to be theirs, but is it more believable that they withstood 1700 C temperatures, or that the police came up with a lie to cover for what appears to be evidence of corruption from 30 years back.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


What are you betting though? Not really a bet if you aren't wagering anything


Are you going to provide any evidence that he's lying, or just make a pithy one line comment that breaks this sites terms and conditions without adding anything to the conversation?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
In addition to what i said above, not only would have the molten concrete melted the steel firearms... But also upon cooling, you would find that what's left of the firearms would be stuck to one side or the other of the blob of re-formed clinker(whichever side was the bottom when it cooled), not encased inside it. This is because steel is MUCH heavier than concrete, and when dealing with liquids, heavier substances always sink to the bottom.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
It would also be interesting to find out which NYPD officers lost track of their firearms on 9/11..
I know that an officer's weapon is very well secured in his holster to prevent it from being lost or taken away.
Although I suppose some leeway should be granted, considering how hectic a day it was..

But what are the odds that in the process of cleaning up what must have been countless tons of rubble both these firearms would be found and not tossed in a dump truck like so many other chunks of concrete..?
edit on 12/19/2011 by DISINFORMANT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I agree that the guns are not likely to be encased in concrete which became molten due to heat because the guns would have melted first. Seems to me to be more likely baked on almost anything from the rubble.

But what would be the point of manufacturing and displaying such items ? What nefarious purpose could there be ?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



It is a conclusion based on the evidence.

No, its a fantasy based on delusion.

Science shows that had the concrete turned to "lava", it would have needed to reach temperatures higher than that needed to melt the steel of the hand guns.

No, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows some NYPD weapons incorporated into a conglomorate that was the result of the conditions at ground zero.

Do you dispute the evidence?

No, your whacky conclusions.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISINFORMANT
But what are the odds that in the process of cleaning up what must have been countless tons of rubble both these firearms would be found and not tossed in a dump truck like so many other chunks of concrete..?
edit on 12/19/2011 by DISINFORMANT because: (no reason given)

Actually, in this case? The odds are 100%. The rubble from the World Trade Center site was first sorted in a very passing and casual way, looking for specific items like flight recorders or other obvious items of evidence or identification at the scene, but then it was gone through one tiny piece at a time....ALL OF IT....at the Fish Kills dump site. There are photos and such of the assembly line type layout they had set up to sift every single bit of the debris out of the entire WTC site. It's really quite staggering to look at for that aspect of it.


To the OP: It seems to me this could be settled VERY quickly and with finality on the question of whether those were weapons from 9/11 or from much much earlier. First, I find it rather hard to believe the serial numbers would be gone forever. It isn't just etched like a home engraver. It's stamped to actually compress the metal in a permenant way. It seems to me that the right equipment, such as an MRI or specialized industrial X-ray equipment could read that pattern of compressed metal and literally pull the number for exactly which officer the weapon had belonged to.

More important than that though, a lot changes in a Department over the time between construction of the WTC and 9/11. Weapons issued for carry, for instance. The very firearms themselves change over that much time. Fine details and improvements to designs in subtle aspects should determine a 1970's manufacture from a late 90's manufacture of even the same make and model, as the eye would see it. So.... I'm just wondering, if there is actually any debate at all about the origin of these encased weapons...why haven't these been done to settle it with absolute cetainty?

Then again..perhaps the vast majority don't see the point of questioning the origins of some Police weapons that once sat on the hip of Officers who probably died in the towers that morning.




edit on 19-12-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join