The NYPD lied.

reply to post by septic


I would just like someone to show me a beretta 92fs from 1966???

Jaden

Originally posted by hooper
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.

You mean "pseudo-homemade-make it up as you go along-close enough science" as differentiated from "actual science that doesn't align with your belief system" science?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by hooper
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.

You mean "pseudo-homemade-make it up as you go along-close enough science" as differentiated from "actual science that doesn't align with your belief system" science?

No, no...I skipped the class on pseudo conspiracy science. I am not as familiar as I should be with the scientific method wherein you contrive a theory that satisfies your world view and then go looking for "evidence" to support your theory.

Originally posted by Kester
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.

Are you suggesting that the fires at the World Trade Centre could not have weakened the steel? Interesting assertion.

reply to post by Alfie1


The exhibit supports the "hot fires" lie, need I make it any more clear? If the fires were really, really hot, hot enough to melt concrete, the simpleton sheep crowd will think they were hot enough to melt steel.

Geddit?

Originally posted by septic

What exactly is your point? Are you saying the office furniture is what caused the concrete in WTC6 to melt, or are you saying the claims of kerosene running down elevator shafts and blowing out the elevator doors aren't factual? What do you think caused the steel of the towers to collapse on themselves if it wasn't the kerosene?

I can see that are very far behind on facts with regards to what an office fire is and fire safety issues in tall structures.

I thought it was clear that the jet fuel is what STARTED the fires, and then office fires continued. The fires from the burning office contents are what did it in. Including the burning airliner inside.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by hooper
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.

You mean "pseudo-homemade-make it up as you go along-close enough science" as differentiated from "actual science that doesn't align with your belief system" science?

No, no...I skipped the class on pseudo conspiracy science. I am not as familiar as I should be with the scientific method wherein you contrive a theory that satisfies your world view and then go looking for "evidence" to support your theory.

It still doesn't change the FACT that concrete does not melt and become 'lava' or anything 'like lava' before steel melts. Science.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by septic

What exactly is your point? Are you saying the office furniture is what caused the concrete in WTC6 to melt, or are you saying the claims of kerosene running down elevator shafts and blowing out the elevator doors aren't factual? What do you think caused the steel of the towers to collapse on themselves if it wasn't the kerosene?

I can see that are very far behind on facts with regards to what an office fire is and fire safety issues in tall structures.

I thought it was clear that the jet fuel is what STARTED the fires, and then office fires continued. The fires from the burning office contents are what did it in. Including the burning airliner inside.

So you ARE saying office furniture reached 3000 degrees and melted concrete. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by septic

What exactly is your point? Are you saying the office furniture is what caused the concrete in WTC6 to melt, or are you saying the claims of kerosene running down elevator shafts and blowing out the elevator doors aren't factual? What do you think caused the steel of the towers to collapse on themselves if it wasn't the kerosene?

I can see that are very far behind on facts with regards to what an office fire is and fire safety issues in tall structures.

I thought it was clear that the jet fuel is what STARTED the fires, and then office fires continued. The fires from the burning office contents are what did it in. Including the burning airliner inside.

You mean the burning airliners and "raging" office fires inside Building 7?

Uh oh, not again.

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.

Or ya know, they just threw two guns in some concrete mix and had a BBQ -- then planted them at the scene.

MUCH more likely.

If the guns were really in a "lava" the guns wouldn't exist anymore. Period.

Originally posted by Kester
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.

Hey you grunt... wassup? good to see you up here and fightin in the ignorant trenches!

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
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.

I don't know if you've seen this thread or not TA...
Get Smart Episode 52
I wouldn't dismiss the possibility until you've had a look at that one.

reply to post by twitchy


I'm covering my version of this in my thread on reinforced concrete infill panels.

reply to post by AwakeinNM

It still doesn't change the FACT that concrete does not melt and become 'lava' or anything 'like lava' before steel melts. Science.

So tell you what - call the New York Times, tell them you just cracked the case wide open. Based on your scientific analysis of a display placard at a 9/11 memorial in the police museum you have determined, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the NYPD fabricated the concretion embedded handguns in order to bolster the false argument that there were fires in the vicinity of the World Trade Center shortly on and after 9/11/2001.

Science!!!

By the way, no one has yet to prove that if pulverized concrete is mixed with water and heated that it would not flow and look like lava and be able to encase the handguns as shown in the display without melting them.

Good luck science boys!!

Months. The WTC burned for months. Not days. Not weeks. Months. That is more than enough time to create the one 'cool rock with gun to put in museum' as well as thousands of others. Trust me if one looked like Jesus it would be in the museum but this is NY and not Florida.

You 100's of thousands of tons of material that was suddenly pushed together. Do you think nothing will

1. Compress
2. Heat up for a few months
3. Finally cool
4. Finally found buy crew

It happened for months. There are thousands of photographs of materials on fire/left/compacted that you do not see on this site unless some NADS(see my sig) tries to pick it apart and add planes, remove planes, include reptiles or even as the Great John Lear did swear it was holograms with speakers throughout the city for sound.

What would you expect those materials to look after those buildings fell. Washers and twine?

reply to post by esdad71

Months. The WTC burned for months

Yeah, that's the story.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Alfie1

 

The exhibit supports the "hot fires" lie, need I make it any more clear? If the fires were really, really hot, hot enough to melt concrete, the simpleton sheep crowd will think they were hot enough to melt steel.

Geddit?

But I have only ever seen truthers banging on about steel melting. Are they the "simpleton sheep crowd " you mention ?

Originally posted by esdad71

What would you expect those materials to look after those buildings fell. Washers and twine?

The majority of those materials are on the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. The people who searched those materials for human remains, personal effects, and evidence as they passed rapidly in front of them on conveyor belts know what it looks like. The families who received no remains, who were told the 'fines' containing the missing remains would be moved to a respectful place and then found the 'fines' had been bulldozed over the rest of the debris know what it looks like. The landfill is the only gravesite they can visit.

When it's realised that the only way we're going to end this is to dig up the debris, with the oversight of wtcfamiliesforproperburial, and do the basic testing NIST neglected. Then we'll all have the opportunity to see what it looks like.

It looks like what it is.

The result of extraordinary demolition

reply to post by Masterjaden


I was corrected earlier. The back story has it the guns were from an evidence room, but the claim remains the burning office building got so hot it melted concrete.

reply to post by Alfie1


Truthers, sure, and sheep like these:

Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains

Source

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

Source

"Molten Steel, like lava"
Source