The NYPD lied.

reply to post by hooper


Thats not "melted concrete" though...
I do agree thats probably what happened,but that isn't the official story.

So basically what you're doing is espousing the same wacked out conspiracy theories you hate so much
(since you dare to question the official story)

reply to post by septic


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

reply to post by septic


Why ? Dont you think police are incapable of making a mistake ?

Person who said this probably making analogy to lava.....

They was plenty of materials around WTC in form of pulverized cement, concrete, fire proofing materials (cement
and mineral fibers) and gypsum

Add water and subject to high temperatures for weeks and months at time

What you get is a a concretion - a lump of cementious materials surrounding an object in this case a gun

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

But that is impossible...

Thermite is not easy to ignite. Thermite has a very high activation energy required to start the reaction. The two most common ways to ignite thermite are:...

amazingrust.com...

Even correctly mixed thermite will not ignite from the temperatures of an office fire.

But regardless aluminum and rust will not produce thermite by itself...

It is important to mix the thermite ingredients thoroughly in order to create a homogeneous mixture. Unless the thermite is sufficiently mixed, it may be difficult to ignite or sustain the thermite reaction.

amazingrust.com...

How dare you question the official story!

Am I the only one who finds it slightly ironic that it's ok to doubt the established narrative when you're trying to disprove a doubter, but not when a doubter is trying to prove the established narrative wrong

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.

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry, I've played with Theramite.
It is easy to ignite, you bring the temperature above the burning point of Aluminum (typically with magnesium, but I'd imagine an exploding plane reaches a similar temperature!) which in turn ignites the iron oxide.
The ratio is nowhere near as precise as you might think.
(High school science you must have done it?)

==> The theramite reaction, is at its heart igniting rust. Once the rust (or iron oxide) has ignited it just burns like hell fire You notice that the source you're trying to prove me wrong with says "MAY BE DIFFICULT" that isn't the same as impossible

Originally posted by thedman

One of the pictures shows gun concretions recovered from the scene

Hooper is right - most likely cause is combination of cement, gypsum from wall board reacting with heat and
water in the pile. The rubble pile burned for 3 months, into mid December reaching temps of 1700 F in spots

Hooper and I both agree that that was most likely the case in what created the concretions. In fact, that is the first thing I thought of when I saw the pictures. The heat, combined with crushed concrete, drywall, water, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acids, rust, and God knows how many other caustic chemicals and reactions created in that toxic environment, all worked in time to create this. You can tell the ones that were exposed more to this, and others that were less.

Kinda like what happens to ships and things thrown into the sea, and time. That is what I thought of. Its like when they bring up to the surface an old wartime shipwreck relic covered in conglomerations.

reply to post by GenRadek


Then you guys should change the sign

(To be fair though, I think you had alot more to do with it than Hooper, he was just parroting what someone else said )

reply to post by thedman

Why ? Dont you think police are incapable of making a mistake ?

About such a claim that the fires in WTC6 were so hot they melted concrete? No, I'd think the police of all people would want to explain the crime of the century more accurately.

reply to post by septic

First I would like to say, good eye septic but bad title. There is a difference between lying and being wrong.

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,

With all due respect to the NYPD I find the assumption that this was due to heat absurd. It doesn't seem likely that these were planted during construction and have been misidentified nor does it make sense that these were "planted evidence" during clean up. There are other artifacts found in the ruble of 911 that show signs of "fusing" in this manner. 911 meteor.

I think there is a much simpler explination. Concrete is often recycled because it can be reused. Here is some information found on this site, Cement.org...

According to a 2004 FHWA study, 38 states recycle concrete as an aggregate base; 11 recycle it into new portland cement concrete.

I don't know the specifics of how portland cement is recycled and reused but my understanding of it is that you can break down the aggregate and separate it from the cement, remix and add water. What you will get is a new pour that will reset just like new concrete.

If this is what happened at the world trade center than these new globs would not have a very good bond, meaning they are not as strong as regular concrete. Freshly poured concrete has a much weaker bond than old concrete and the mix in such a chaotic and accidental manner would not be consistent. Poorly mixed green concrete should be obvious if anyone bothered to look. I have not seen anyone else suggest this possible theory yet so I will assume that it was overlooked.

reply to post by Devino


You don't think a "mistake" like claiming the fires were so hot they melted concrete was deliberate?

Think about how many people still believe concrete melted like lava, and how many people still talk about the "rivers of molten steel, weeks after 911".

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

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.

I hate to be gruesome about it, but there simply is no other way to say this. The Police Officers and Fireman of New York City who were killed in the towers were quite literally destroyed in every sense of that term, in more cases than officials would ever want to talk about.

I would be far MORE suspicious if an Officers duty weapon was found still on his body than finding it at some distant point from the churning and smashing of debris and tons upon tons of garbage moving in all directions as they were crushed.

As sad and sobering as the site of those firearms encased in crud are to view...they don't surprise me a bit. In fact, I really would question the whole event far more if things like this hadn't been found here and there. Previous disasters have shown us that these things do happen and should often be expected.

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?

reply to post by septic

I think most people have resolved themselves to accepting the first theory that came along that explained this or, as others have called it, the official theory. Not many people are interested in questioning the official theory as this brings up too many doubts about the political state we are in.

I would like to add that I agree with you here;

Think about how many people still believe concrete melted like lava, and how many people still talk about the "rivers of molten steel, weeks after 911".

One can't have it both ways, either there was enough heat to melt both steel and concrete or there wasn't. Too claim that the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel yet there were fires hot enough to melt concrete is absurd.

Thinking about this as "like lava" or otherwise melted concrete/rock that has re-solidified brings up an obvious question. Has anyone actually tested this theory? Slicing off a piece to have a close look at the nature of the material inside should do it. It should be easy to determine if this was due to heat (melting), chemical disaggregation or pulverization.

Personally I don't know of any chemicals that can quickly and readily dissolve or otherwise separate concrete and then allow it to reset. Maybe thedman or GenRadek would care to explain this.

Originally posted by hooper
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.

This is pretty rich, a guy claiming someone else is ignorant, while not responding in any intelligent way to a genuine question.

It is claimed (not by the OP) that these are Police handguns encased in concrete after the concrete had melted. And it is indeed scientific fact that the melting point of silicone dioxide is higher than the melting point of steel. So how did a metal become encased ins something that was hotter than its own melting point?!

This isn't rocket science, it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to understand the question, and it reveals a very interesting question too.

How does something become encased in something else, when that something else is hotter than the melting point of the article being encased? That's a VERY reasonable question to ask.

You try putting a marshmallow in a bowl of boiling oil and tell me what happens.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by septic

 

I think most people have resolved themselves to accepting the first theory that came along that explained this or, as others have called it, the official theory. Not many people are interested in questioning the official theory as this brings up too many doubts about the political state we are in.

True enough, it is not a comfortable subject to say the least.

A museum is a place of learning = education. If the first base is askew, it is hard to give creedence elsewhere. I would expect that the gun exhibits had been inspected forensically for the content, and you would think no better than a police forensic department would you not? If this then is concrete which is pretty specific in the makeup, it would be obvious to forensics. If it is a mish-mash of stuff as Gen Radik says plausibly enough, then that also would be obvious to forensics and actually the mish-mash would be very important to 9/11 investigators, and there is a bit of it sitting in the police museum, masquerading as concrete???

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by ANOK

 

Sorry, I've played with Theramite.
It is easy to ignite, you bring the temperature above the burning point of Aluminum (typically with magnesium, but I'd imagine an exploding plane reaches a similar temperature!) which in turn ignites the iron oxide.
The ratio is nowhere near as precise as you might think.
(High school science you must have done it?)

==> The theramite reaction, is at its heart igniting rust. Once the rust (or iron oxide) has ignited it just burns like hell fire

You notice that the source you're trying to prove me wrong with says "MAY BE DIFFICULT" that isn't the same as impossible

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

If I were to throw flower and water at each other do you think bread will appear? If the thermite mixture is not in the correct proportion, and very finely ground it will not react. Thermite is a chemical reaction, not just burning particles. Lumps of aluminum and rust, are not going to react.

More sources that say you're wrong...

The ignition temperature of thermite is extremely high. Therefore, traditional ignition methods like fuse, matches, and electrical igniters do not work.

www.pyroguide.com...

Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started. It will not ignite using ordinary safety fuse, or from contact with open flame.

www.unitednuclear.com...

The thermite reaction has a high ignition temperature, so it takes some serious heat to initiate the reaction

chemistry.about.com...

Sorry but for some reason I don't believe you.