The NYPD lied.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by thedman

 

Hooper is right - most likely cause is combination of cement, gypsum from wall board reacting with heat and
water in the pile.

You lost me at "Hooper is right" but beyond that care to explain how gypsum, heat and water can disaggregate and reset concrete?

Was it actually concrete? Or maybe it was just that: crushed and powdered gypsum, crushed and powdered concrete, heat, water, and rust, and time? You see, its a lot more complicated that just saying it was magically melted concrete. Let's be honest here: To actually melt concrete into any sort of lava, you would need temperatures far higher, hotter than what would be needed to melt the gun itself. If it was hot enough to melt the concrete, then the gun should be an unrecognizable puddle.

I almost forgot to add one more important ingredient: PRESSURE. All that stuff mixing in together, and crushed and smashed together, it was like a pressure cooker. It would have been nice to find out when exactly they pulled out that particular piece.

reply to post by GenRadek


But, given that the OP and the title are about the official story being wrong....
are you saying you agree with the OP?

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by GenRadek

 

But, given that the OP and the title are about the official story being wrong....
are you saying you agree with the OP?

Actually, isnt it just possible that someone................................ made a mistake?

I mean seriously, it never fails to amaze me how in the Truth Movement, if someone that is part of the "official story" (what ever THAT is) said something incorrect, he/she MUST BE LYING!!!!!1!11!! But when a Truther blatantly LIES repeatedly, that person is protected, and even defended, and not even questioned. How is that? Why is that?

Let us just say, that your two choices are wrong. I'll go with Choice C: The museum placard is wrong. There. NO conspiracy. No fuss, no muss.

edit to add:
Also, if the guns were deposited waaaaay back before the Towers were built up, so what? Unless someone actually found out how old the guns are, or where they were located, the OP cannot say the NYPD lied about anything.

reply to post by GenRadek

I agree with you that this question is more complicated than it first appears. Just researching the melting point of concrete reveals that there are many different elements that make up this stuff and no real simple answer. Heat of around 1000°C seems to separate and boil off water and CO2 from the cement which is what binds the aggregate together. It would seem that this would case the concrete to crumble apart.

Never the less, how would this stuff recombined? So far you just listed some ingredients that were present along with heat pressure and time. Can you think of any other scenario where the ingredients were similar and the result was "fused" balls of concrete and steel? In other words how could we simulate this process?

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by GenRadek

 

But, given that the OP and the title are about the official story being wrong....
are you saying you agree with the OP?

There is no other choice really, if the exhibit is concrete, it is not a result from 9/11, if it is a mish-mash/conglomerate whatever, then it is not concrete.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I agree with you that this question is more complicated than it first appears. Just researching the melting point of concrete reveals that there are many different elements that make up this stuff and no real simple answer. Heat of around 1000°C seems to separate and boil off water and CO2 from the cement which is what binds the aggregate together. It would seem that this would case the concrete to crumble apart.

Never the less, how would this stuff recombined? So far you just listed some ingredients that were present along with heat pressure and time. Can you think of any other scenario where the ingredients were similar and the result was "fused" balls of concrete and steel? In other words how could we simulate this process?

I did read that as well, that heating up concrete basically dries it up and boils off the H2O present. Like you said before, all the different components of concrete have various melting points, so extreme heat would be needed to actually melt the rock and everything else inside.

As to how it recombined, well that depends on where it was, what else was around it, how long it was in there, and most importantly, what is it exactly. I wouldnt know where to exactly start with trying to simulate the process. We need to take in all the variables. Corrosion of the guns is also important to recall. What types of chemical reactions would have been present in this area. It would be great to found out the exact environment these guns were in to create this. Like I said, even just having the crushed drywall dried out from the heat, mixing with crushed concrete, getting wet and then setting with the heat could have caused this caking and baking. But I am just taking an educated guess.

reply to post by GenRadek

Actually, isnt it just possible that someone................................ made a mistake?

Sure it's possible. It's not like the NYPD has a sophisticated forensics lab or anything, mistakes happen.

Is it possible there is another explanation, what would happen if the pistols were heated up close to melting point, the heat you would expect a blacksmith to work on a horseshoe or other metal object, and at such heat were surrounded and pressed with collapsed smashed up heated concrete would the concrete not press into the metal of the gun, and when it cooled down would those pieces not be stuck to it? I am not saying this is what happened, there could be other factors involved, there was much more than just the building materials in the WTC, plastics, glass etc which would also melt at much lower temps and have a bonding effect.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't think this is the smoking gun (pun intended), I think it is possible that this is stuck to the gun some other way, or even a melted ball fell on the gun and cooled before the gun melted, hit by water say, and while the top of the police may well be corrupt, there was nothing corrupt about those brave officers who died that day doing their utmost to save as many lives as they could, their actions that day were of the highest bravery what ever their track record was.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


The claim is the concrete melted due to the fires being so hot. It is the official claim of the NYPD. Coming up with another more rational explanation for the guns doesn't change the fact it is the official story. It appears to be intended to bolster the myth of hot fires. Why did the fires in WTC6 get so hot? Melted concrete? Come on.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


That could have happened as well. But the Truthers refuse to think outside their world of thermites and magical weaponry, and ignore anything that may sound far more rational or boring. I mean, crushed and mixed concrete and drywall compressed in heat is not as sexy sounding as exotic thermite melting concrete.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

Congratulations septic. You have proven a museum placard to be inaccurate. I suggest you report this to the museum.

I appreciate your need to underplay the significance of the "inaccurate placard", so I'll make it plain.

If they'd lie about 911, what wouldn't the New York Police Department lie about? These guns are not evidence that the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, yet the claim still stands. The claims of molten steel, and and the rest should all be taken with the same grain of salt.

It's a police museum exhibit. It's not a science museum, nor was it used in any propaganda or evidence in 'the official story. It's probably just an unintentional error made by whomever assembled the exhibit, based on their own limited understanding. Even if your conjecture that guns were dumped in the concrete of WTC during construction is correct, that doesn't tie the guns to the NYPD. Furthermore Even if these were proven to be NYPD service weapons used in some crime and then dumped in the concrete, (and you're far away from proving this), that would tell us nothing about 9/11.

There is no version of the official story that includes molten concrete, AT ALL. The whole exhibit is just miscellaneous police related items recovered from ground zero. I'm sure they took as much care as possible identifying badges and personal effects of officers correctly, and probably scientific explanation of the "meteorites"/ concrete was a much lower priority.

You haven't even proved that anybody lied. You're pushing on thread, as usual.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

There is no version of the official story that includes molten concrete, AT ALL. The whole exhibit is just miscellaneous police related items recovered from ground zero. I'm sure they took as much care as possible identifying badges and personal effects of officers correctly, and probably scientific explanation of the "meteorites"/ concrete was a much lower priority.

You haven't even proved that anybody lied. You're pushing on thread, as usual.

Oh boy, here we go splitting the "official story" hair. What is the official story? Did the steel weaken from the fires or what? Why would anyone think WTC6 could burn so hot it could melt concrete? If we're not witnessing a deliberate propaganda ploy designed to bolster the "hot fires" myth, what other explanation can you jokers come up with?

Why would anyone who wasn't lying look at the guns and think concrete melted and then re solidified?

reply to post by septic


The NYPD forensic labs are used to investigate crimes, in order to provide evidence for prosecution. How would a full-on scientific investigation of this piece of stuff even plausibly get us even a millimeter closer to understanding any aspect of 9/11?, besides the processes at work in the rubble pile in the weeks following the crime?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

The NYPD forensic labs are used to investigate crimes, in order to provide evidence for prosecution. How would a full-on scientific investigation of this piece of stuff even plausibly get us even a millimeter closer to understanding any aspect of 9/11?, besides the processes at work in the rubble pile in the weeks following the crime?

Who the hell would look at it and think "melted concrete re solidified" and then create an exhibit in a museum to that effect? Honest people or lying propagandists?

Originally posted by septic

Oh boy, here we go splitting the "official story" hair. What is the official story? Did the steel weaken from the fires or what? Why would anyone think WTC6 could burn so hot it could melt concrete? If we're not witnessing a deliberate propaganda ploy designed to bolster the "hot fires" myth, what other explanation can you jokers come up with?

Why would anyone who wasn't lying look at the guns and think concrete melted and then re solidified?

Hm, wasnt WTC6 mostly crushed by debris falling from the WTC towers? Couldnt that have helped? Remember that huge gaping hole in the middle? What do you think happened when 8 floors of offices got crushed into the basement by falling debris?

Originally posted by septic
If we're not witnessing a deliberate propaganda ploy designed to bolster the "hot fires" myth, what other explanation can you jokers come up with?

Why would anyone who wasn't lying look at the guns and think concrete melted and then re solidified?

It's probably a simple error, attributable to the fact that the placard is in a police museum, and not a science museum. Perfectly correct scientific explanations of each artifact is not even the purpose of this exhibit.

What you're doing is nothing more than quotemining a technically incorrect statement from a non-technical source, attributing evil motives where simple error is more likely, and then filling in the gaps with nonsense that doesn't even add up to a conspiracy theory.

reply to post by GenRadek


Hot enough to melt concrete. Rivers of molten steel, weeks after 911. More old wives' tales distributed to support the "hot fires melting steel" story.

Originally posted by septic

Who the hell would look at it and think "melted concrete re solidified" and then create an exhibit in a museum to that effect? Honest people or lying propagandists?

Hmm, maybe they thought, "Wow! Look at what the destruction and fires and burial of the WTC managed to do to these guns!"

Seriously. Is that the best you can come up with?

Originally posted by septic

Who the hell would look at it and think "melted concrete re solidified" and then create an exhibit in a museum to that effect? Honest people or lying propagandists?

Any person who was unaware of the near impossibility of that scenario, and more concerned with the historical significance of the recovered items than the scientific explanation for their condition. A person like a curator or exhibit designer at a museum dedicated to the history of the NYPD.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Hot enough to melt concrete. Rivers of molten steel, weeks after 911. More old wives' tales distributed to support the "hot fires melting steel" story.

And exactly what could create molten rivers of steel and molten concrete, WEEKS after 9/11? Dont you know how thermite works?