The NYPD lied., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:01 PM by GenRadek

Or...

The fact that the pile in Ground Zero was heated up for weeks after 9/11, and that heat and corrosive agents in the pile created this concretion? You really should look into corrosion and corrosive agents. The drywall had a lot to do with this part, as well and heat, water, the burning materials, and time.

Those are the ingredients that would create this concretion. Saying it was molten concrete from heat is using the layman's term for a far more complicated chemical process. And no, thermite would not do this, nor explosives.

Also, which is it already? Thermite? Or high power super explosives? You guys bounce between the two like a ping pong ball when one gets boring or debunked.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:03 PM by Kester

Originally posted by DISINFORMANT
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)

The debris was taken to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. Rollers were used to sort the debris by size. Searchers, some if not all police, picked over the debris looking for human remains and personal effects. That's probably when these were found. The searchers repeatedly asked for the rollers to be slowed down, they would be slowed for a while then speeded up. Those in charge didn't want the rank and file to have enough time to think, 'Hey, wait a minute! The average size of the debris proves massively more energy was used than could be accounted for by gravitational collapse'. They just wanted to get it below ground as quickly as possible so they could claim, 'All the evidence was destroyed. We don't know nothing'. All that evidence is still on the landfill waiting to be dug up and properly examined.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:05 PM by septic

reply to post by hooper

If you don't deny the evidence, then why are you calling me a liar? You don't appear to be interested in discussing the topic. We can all read your insults in your posts scattered throughout these threads, so please try to stick to the topic.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:07 PM by septic

Originally posted by GenRadek
Or...

The fact that the pile in Ground Zero was heated up for weeks after 9/11, and that heat and corrosive agents in the pile created this concretion? You really should look into corrosion and corrosive agents. The drywall had a lot to do with this part, as well and heat, water, the burning materials, and time.

Those are the ingredients that would create this concretion. Saying it was molten concrete from heat is using the layman's term for a far more complicated chemical process. And no, thermite would not do this, nor explosives.

Also, which is it already? Thermite? Or high power super explosives? You guys bounce between the two like a ping pong ball when one gets boring or debunked.

I don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The police say lava, science says impossible.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:07 PM by MaxSteiner

reply to post by GenRadek

Haha love the condescension

I actually tend to think Theramite is a likely answer for alot of unexplained stuff about surrounding 9/11.
The plane is made from Aluminum, World trade center not in as good a shape as advertised and hence has a large amount of rust.

Something ignites the Aluminum, which in turn ignites the iron oxide and you now have military grade Theremite burning through the building.

But obviously thats not in the official story so its FAR TO ABSURD to consider isn't it?

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:12 PM by hooper

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper

If you don't deny the evidence, then why are you calling me a liar? You don't appear to be interested in discussing the topic. We can all read your insults in your posts scattered throughout these threads, so please try to stick to the topic.

Please direct us to this government website that you are quoting your conclusions from.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:18 PM by MaxSteiner

reply to post by hooper

Are you unable to zoom in the picture and read the plaque?

(Sorry but I've just done it and it was significantly quicker than typing this message lol).

Do you have any evidence saying it isn't?

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:19 PM by Kester

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

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.

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

Not all of it. Many, many tons, I forget how much but it was a very considerable tonnage, was dumped without the attempt at thorough sorting using the rollers. It was because the flocks of seagulls eating the human remains were witnessed by so many people that the operation was tightened up. Rats also ate some of the human remains. Sarah Palin's parents are reported to be ratcatchers who assisted in dealing with this problem. Sounds crazy but look it up before you dismiss it out of hand. I look forward to being corrected if I'm wrong.
The members of wtcfamiliesforproperburial have information on this.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:20 PM by hooper

reply to post by septic

The police say lava, science says impossible.

Please show where the police say "lava".

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:25 PM by MaxSteiner

reply to post by hooper

Hahahaha Hooper can't read, even when directed to it in the original post

(Just kidding I could barely make it out when Zoomed in).

Here is the text from the label behind the guns in the cabinet:

"Gun Encased in Concrete and Gun-Casing Remains
The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."

Are you going to apologize to Septic? Or are you incapable of being wrong?

Edit ===>This is what I was talking about, even when parts of the official story AREN'T written by experts you're not allowed to question it... Way to deny ignorance people

edit on 19-12-2011 by MaxSteiner because: Wanted to add a line

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:26 PM by zatara

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.

You'd be surprised what determent people can prepare, set for a goal 50 years into the future.....you would just consider it unbelievable.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:29 PM by smurfy

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by hooper

Are you unable to zoom in the picture and read the plaque?
(Sorry but I've just done it and it was significantly quicker than typing this message lol).

Do you have any evidence saying it isn't?

Those guys don't believe in looking for anything, this time they really jumped the gun. It's embarrassing.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:30 PM by septic

reply to post by smurfy

this time they really jumped the gun

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:32 PM by MaxSteiner

reply to post by smurfy

Hahaha its totally true, a definite face palm moment if ever there was one

Denial is the laziest form of debate, since it requires no work on the debaters part. Tends to ring alarm bells for me whenever I see someone using that as the sum total of their argument.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:33 PM by hooper

reply to post by MaxSteiner

Gun Encased in Concrete and Gun-Casing Remains
The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."
Are you going to apologize to Septic? Or are you incapable of being wrong?

LIKE Lava. Like. Thats a word. It has meaning. The matter of the fact is the guns were not being described as NYPD weapons as the OP states. They are thought to come from the US Customs arsenal. And the placard on the museum display says LIKE lava. Not to mention is a placard on a display, not a scientific report.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:35 PM by septic

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

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.

I believe the story that these guns rode on the hips of officers who died is false if it is presumed their bodies were engulfed in molten concrete, but their guns survived. The fact that the guns were embedded in concrete disproves the claim they were on the officers' hips that morning. A more realistic explanation is they were dumped in the still wet concrete after a crime was committed.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:39 PM by septic

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MaxSteiner

Gun Encased in Concrete and Gun-Casing Remains
The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."
Are you going to apologize to Septic? Or are you incapable of being wrong?

LIKE Lava. Like. Thats a word. It has meaning. The matter of the fact is the guns were not being described as NYPD weapons as the OP states. They are thought to come from the US Customs arsenal. And the placard on the museum display says LIKE lava. Not to mention is a placard on a display, not a scientific report.

The placard says MELTED.

Concrete is sand and gravel held together with cement. It breaks up when heated and for it to be hot enough to MELT would require temperatures higher than the steel of the guns could withstand.
I repeat:

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.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:41 PM by hooper

reply to post by septic

I believe the story that these guns rode on the hips of officers who died is false if it is presumed their bodies were engulfed in molten concrete, but their guns survived. The fact that the guns were embedded in concrete disproves the claim they were on the officers' hips that morning. A more realistic explanation is they were dumped in the still wet concrete after a crime was committed.

Or that the encasements were found in the vicinity of the US Customs aresenal and that the concretions are a result of heat, gypsum, stone and water which were more than well in supply to create a concrete without the actual pre-existing concrete being reduced to a liquid state and then reconstituted to a solid.

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:44 PM by MaxSteiner

reply to post by hooper

Sorry, but you've made a big mistake, at least have the balls to admit it.
You said where does it say Lava. You've been shown.

No never mind, I can already tell you're one of those people who can't ever bare to be wrong about anything....

Edit ==>Furthermore, you attempt at deflection is PATHETIC!
Of course its LAVA LIKE, ITS NOT REALLY LAVA, IT DIDN'T COME OUT OF A VOLCANO.

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

reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 02:46 PM by hooper

reply to post by septic

The placard says MELTED.

You said lava. Not "like" lava. Gotcha. Like is a word. Its use has a purpose. You did not use it in your OP yet you had knowledge that the presntation did include the word. Hmmm. There's a word for that.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^