The NYPD lied.

reply to post by esdad71


Or has looked for a convincing photographic record instead of following the prompts to stick with the videos.
I agree, this is about the guns, forget the illusionary planes.

Originally posted by esdad71
No planes? Jesus, this is about a gun and not the no plane theory. Seriously though, anyone who would propose no planes is

a. joking
b. ignorant to facts
c. does not have an IQ to understand said basic facts
d. Trolling

No one lied. You are trying to tie someone who lied to a major event in history. This would be like saying Maddoff is responsible for the housing crisis since he was an investor and people lost money.

So is it a b c or d?

It's always important to accuse of being insane someone who holds a different view than yourself.

Have you been exposed to all the evidence, or do your preconceptions prevent you from considering certain options?

This thread is about the guns and the fact that the police lied...it wasn't just a little white lie, but a huge lie designed to bolster justifying the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. They created a ridiculous story of melted concrete, but you draw the line at thinking they'd lie about aluminum cutting steel.

Your inability to deal with the implications is not my problem

"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."
O.K.
I just noticed it doesn't say the concrete this revolver is embedded in melted like lava. Just because one sentence follows the other doesn't mean they apply to the same thing.

I find this quite interesting. While it seems unlikely that the concrete would have been "lava-like" without the guns melting as well, there may be some other factor that is not being presented here.

In fact this could be one of those bs statements that can easily be wriggled out of in court while still giving the required propaganda message "Intensely hot fires happened".

reply to post by Furbs

I don't think anyone is lying. I just think some people are just sadly misled.

Then someone was lying. Whoever gave the thumbs up for "melted concrete" had a reason for it, it wasn't an accident.

Originally posted by RicoVig
I find this quite interesting. While it seems unlikely that the concrete would have been "lava-like" without the guns melting as well, there may be some other factor that is not being presented here.

Or, they lied, and continue to lie, knowing American credulity will swallow any stupid story the authorities tell them.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Furbs

 

I don't think anyone is lying. I just think some people are just sadly misled.

Then someone was lying. Whoever gave the thumbs up for "melted concrete" had a reason for it, it wasn't an accident.

Yes and the reason was that they were trying to simply explain, to the general public viewing a memorial at a museum, some basic understanding of what may have happened at Ground Zero to produce the results being observed in the display. The placard was not a forensic or scientific treatise, as you well know.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by RicoVig
I find this quite interesting. While it seems unlikely that the concrete would have been "lava-like" without the guns melting as well, there may be some other factor that is not being presented here.

Or, they lied, and continue to lie, knowing American credulity will swallow any stupid story the authorities tell them.

OK, so if it was a deliberate lie, what exactly was the dark and sinister purpose ?

reply to post by hooper

Yes and the reason was that they were trying to simply explain, to the general public viewing a memorial at a museum, some basic understanding of what may have happened at Ground Zero to produce the results being observed in the display. The placard was not a forensic or scientific treatise, as you well know.

I understand you are only willing to consider options that suit your preconceptions, but no one would come up with such a story, complete with bogus museum display accidentally. The intent was clearly to support the "really hot fires" myth. People lie, especially the people you want to trust.

reply to post by hooper


But 7 pages ago you were shouting that it didn't say Lava anywhere on the sign.
Are you going to acknowledge you're argument has changed, or just pretend you've been right all along, despite the fact that anyone reading this thread can see?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by RicoVig
I find this quite interesting. While it seems unlikely that the concrete would have been "lava-like" without the guns melting as well, there may be some other factor that is not being presented here.

Or, they lied, and continue to lie, knowing American credulity will swallow any stupid story the authorities tell them.

OK, so if it was a deliberate lie, what exactly was the dark and sinister purpose ?

Really hot fires melted stuff.

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.

You skipped science class, didn't you, hooper?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by RicoVig
I find this quite interesting. While it seems unlikely that the concrete would have been "lava-like" without the guns melting as well, there may be some other factor that is not being presented here.

Or, they lied, and continue to lie, knowing American credulity will swallow any stupid story the authorities tell them.

OK, so if it was a deliberate lie, what exactly was the dark and sinister purpose ?

Really hot fires melted stuff.

That's no answer. Everyone knows that really hot fires melts stuff. You have yet to explain why anyone should set up this exhibit and deliberately lie about what it was.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by hooper

 

But 7 pages ago you were shouting that it didn't say Lava anywhere on the sign.
Are you going to acknowledge you're argument has changed, or just pretend you've been right all along, despite the fact that anyone reading this thread can see?

It didn't say "lava" it says "like lava". Unlike the poster who conveniently left out the "like". That's why he is a liar.

reply to post by AwakeinNM

You skipped science class, didn't you, hooper?

No, I skipped pseudo-homemade-make it up as you go along-close enough science class. That's why I have such a tough understanding these conspiracy fantasies.

Originally posted by septic
I understand you are only willing to consider options that suit your preconceptions, but no one would come up with such a story, complete with bogus museum display accidentally. The intent was clearly to support the "really hot fires" myth. People lie, especially the people you want to trust.

This is pretty ironic.

You are coming up with a grand conspiracy involving.. City Police, Federal Government, Private Citizens, and Museum Employees.. because YOUR preconceptions were that "People lie, especially the people you want to trust.'

This kind of rationality is hallmark of paranoid delusions. While I will not single you out as someone who is paranoid delusional, I will merely reassert that some people may be misled by those that are. It is a vicious cycle, really. You have those that prey on delusionals for profit of various kinds, then the delusionals become mouthpieces for those selling a product. The product being sold here is, of course, fear. Fear and Sex sell.

I've not seen a single thing conspiracy theory on the 9/11 thing that stands up to even the smallest bit of appreciative inquiry.

reply to post by septic

Good effort bringing the issue here in such detail. Thats what we need on here to make any informed analysis... PICTURES:


Any one with metal smelting experience can tell you in a heartbeat that this is a picture of slag from the melting of various metals in the basement(?) furnace of 911. The conglomerate of items have been "fuzed" together at hi tempratures but not hi enough to melt the firearm component(?) protruding from the clump. Clearly visible are the metal cladding or spatter of a mix of elements that coated this chunk of concrete(?) and whatever. Everything has been glued together by the slag from the "melt". Thats all the metal spatter and globby black grey stuff. This was not a "homogenous" melt as evidenced by the "bubbly" and "conglomerate" look of it.

This is a part of a much larger mass that was "baking" for days in the basements of the trade centers as evidenced by the smoke and hot spots seen and reported by on site personnel. As those hot spots cooled metals that melt at lower temperatures than steel and concrete solidified and congealed, sticking to and binding everything they covered like glue. So you get this as an end result. The forged steel casting of the firearm(?) and concrete are merely glued together in the mass, not melted together. The concrete did not become lava, and then become clinker like some others have suggested.

Concrete is really a mix of gravel, sand, and silica (stone) and did not melt here. The evidence of that is the gun part. Steel would melt at temperatures far lower than concrete and would not be sticking out of lava that "used to be concrete". It is concrete and steel held together. Hit it hard with a hammer and it would break apart like a stony dirt clod.

Thats how you know that these temperatures were below the melting point of steel ( in this mass). I didn't say steel did not melt on 9/11 (it did), just not here.

Heres a pic of a ceramic crucible that has been used in refining of metals. You can see how the slag sticks to it but has not melted thru. Its like glue. The crucible's life time is determined by factors such as temperature and the nature of the metals being smelted. It would break down and spill its contents if not retired but it doesn't melt in contact with molten metal. It would "crumble" before that.


One can also google slag and click on images to see this looking stuff. Slag has many forms and the look of it depends again on the process and content of the melt. I got some in my garage buried somewhere. It's worthless stuff, a by product of refining. This piece will be worshipped some day. It's probably cursed. shudder.

Originally posted by Alfie1
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 ?

What nefarious purpose could there be?

Well seems like some people are trying too hard to cover up the truth and thereby unknowingly handing out important information about 9/11.

reply to post by intrptr


And I was just about to say it looked like concrete made with slag as one of the ingredients.
The fuzzy message people who aren't paying close attention hear is just 'intensely hot fires' which is unconsciously transferred to the 'collapse caused by intensely hot fires' message. When I first tried to talk to people about the WTC issue I'm sure they were recalling the endless reruns of the initial fireballs and the childish part of their minds was saying, 'big fireball, lots of fire, weakening of steel possible' regardless of the location or duration of the fireball.