Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

[Spanx]

The molten concrete is one of the sources, the "meteorite" is another and the iron spheres that RJ Lee said were created from molten iron during the WTC event are yet another. The numerous professionals who saw molten steel, the "fires" that lasted for months despite a million gallons of water being poured on them, all add to the preponderance of evidence.

Thermite can explain all this evidence. There is no other known possibility.

You can recite possible alternate explanations for some of these things from the deniers playbook but you will not acknowledge that the NYPD Museum, Bart Voorsanger, RJ Lee, Mark Loizeaux and many others could be correct because you cannot accept the consequences.

Everyone is wrong except the experts at the JREF forum. You all say so, so it must be so.

Thanks for your reply Chris. I personally do not claim to be an expert, I have no website forcing the "Truth" on anyone, I also have no financial interest in 911.

As far as the "Meterorite" goes, if the concrete is molten why isn't the steel ?

The whole truth argument evolves around thermite. Can you provide a link non 911 related which shows how to melt concrete with thermite? If you are going to use the plasma route please show how it was used during 911 and provide any evidence you have.

These are simple questions which the truth movement should be able to answer without changing the subject.

 

[GlennB]

The article talks about cement, not ground up concrete - big difference.

Rubbish. The article is about the water/cement ratio used in concrete:

"In these days of an ever increasing demand for improvements in concrete performance, it is easy for specifiers to continually decrease the maximum allowable water/cement ratio for concrete they specify. "

And it's in this context that they note incomplete hydration.

 

[Sunstealer]

There is every reason to doubt it, as concrete doesn't melt in any way that resembles a phase-change that would allow it to return to its original form on cooling. It's held together and attains its hardness through chemical bonds. 'Melted' concrete, on cooling, would more resemble a pile of loose mineral material with a different chemical identity than the original.

Crushed concrete exposed to moisture, on the other hand, does a fair job of re-setting (in bulk and rolled flat it resets very well). This is probably all that happened to that exhibit.

What's worse is the idea that temperatures high enough to melt concrete seem to have zero effect on the steel made gun which would melt at a considerably lower temperature.

Any truther who claims that this concrete was in liquid form and solidified around the gun must believe something stupid like the gun melted, but then solidified into the exact same gun shape or that thermodynamics such as conduction don't apply between different materials or the concrete miraculously cooled rapidly and solidified in seconds around the gun.

It's one of the most ludicrous beliefs in the whole truth movement. Any rational truther would drop this like a hot potato and say it's obvious that the museum made a mistake.

However, truthers never drop anything no matter how ludicrous. Anything to do with 9/11 they will look for some anomaly to the detriment of all reason.

 

[Sunstealer]

The NYPD Museum didn't just guess that this was molten concrete, they no doubt had a qualified person make the determination. They would not have put it on the plaque if they were not sure. You would like to think they are incompetent because you don't want to believe that concrete melted, but that is not a valid reason.

Source? Citation? Have you contacted them?

Any competent person would not have cited molten concrete just as any competent person would not state that 1+1=3. Someone made a mistake based most likely on ignorance.

You are arguing from a point of ignorance and when it's pointed out to you that you are wrong you continue to be ignorant wilfully simply because you believe it supports your position. All you are doing is showing the world that you will throw all rationality out of the window in order to indulge in fantasy.

If you believe that concrete can melt then cite a source for melting.

Sources telling you it doesn't melt: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_degradation#Thermal_damage

If you understood what concrete is, what it's made from and it's reaction to heat as well as the temperature required to melt it's constituents then you would understand that it is impossible for the gun to remain solid if it came into contact with such a high temperature material.

What has likely happened is the material that encases the gun has been produced from the collapse of the building. So they'll be a range of particle sizes from building material such as concrete (and it's constituents, gypsum (from dry wall) etc that has covered the gun. (That material may have been heated sufficiently to remove the water). Subsequently this material has been exposed to water which has then bonded all those particles together in just the same way that water does when mixed with cement and aggregate to form solid concrete.

If you want to see this for yourself then it's simple to do. Get a steel rod (or other steel material), smash up a load of concrete, add crushed drywall and surround the steel with it. Now add water and leave it to dry. Come back in a week. Voila! A steel rod encased in molten concrete!

 

[beachnut]

Some people just can't accept anything that proves temperatures far in excess of what carbon based fires can attain.

There is no reason to doubt that the plaque is correct.

There was no thermite, no melted concrete, no melted steel. When will you back up your nonsense with evidence? Never.

The museum made a mistake, there was no melted concrete. Your posts on this subject amount to nonsense, opinions and BS.

Yankee451 thinks missiles did 911, he knows the concrete was not melted. It is the only thing he got right on 911.

Did you read his original OP? It is a BS filled bigoted attack on police. Yet. Yankee451 knows the concrete did not melt because in his fantasy 911 world of nonsense, the police are spreading lies to cover-up 911, so they have to have HIGH temperatures to support the plot, the fantasy plot Yankee451 has in his head. Another failed conspiracy theory.


Here is your big problem - Yankee451 says no high temperatures, only missiles and some silly plot - You say there were high temperatures. What we have here is the two sides of a failed movement of lies, 911 truth. Two silly takes on the same event, as if you could change history to fit your fantasy, one you can't define or prove; like Yankee451.

Next time read the OP, it is this web page http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/...
Now comment on this - http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/ - the original OP, a cut and paste of this web page.
You and Yankee451 are two opposing sides to a failed anti-intellectual movement of woo.

 

[Christopher7]

Thanks for your reply Chris. I personally do not claim to be an expert, I have no website forcing the "Truth" on anyone, I also have no financial interest in 911.

As far as the "Meterorite" goes, if the concrete is molten why isn't the steel ?

The whole truth argument evolves around thermite. Can you provide a link non 911 related which shows how to melt concrete with thermite? If you are going to use the plasma route please show how it was used during 911 and provide any evidence you have.

These are simple questions which the truth movement should be able to answer without changing the subject.

The thermite reaction produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F. There is an abundance of evidence that there was molten steel and two cases of molten concrete. There is no reason to doubt the NYPD or Voorsanger. Both no doubt got their information from a qualified person. Thermite is the only known possibility to explain the molten steel and concrete.

A steel gun would not melt instantly, it takes time to heat the steel. As the heat was transferred from the flowing molten concrete to the steel gun, the temperature of the concrete was reduced to less that the melting point of the steel in the gun before the gun was completely melted.

 

[Kid Eager]

The thermite reaction produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F. There is an abundance of evidence that there was molten steel and two cases of molten concrete. There is no reason to doubt the NYPD or Voorsanger. Both no doubt got their information from a qualified person. Thermite is the only known possibility to explain the molten steel and concrete.

A steel gun would not melt instantly, it takes time to heat the steel. As the heat was transferred from the flowing molten concrete to the steel gun, the temperature of the concrete was reduced to less that the melting point of the steel in the gun before the gun was completely melted.

The obvious flaw with your assertion is that there is a complete absence of molten iron produced by the alleged thermite. Nice try though.

 

[Christopher7]

Source? Citation? Have you contacted them?

I contacted the curator at the NYPD and he said he would get back to me but never did. There is no reason to doubt the NYPD Museum or Voorsanger other than not wanting to believe them.

Any competent person would not have cited molten concrete just as any competent person would not state that 1+1=3. Someone made a mistake based most likely on ignorance.

That is just denial born of your inability to accept the facts.

You are arguing from a point of ignorance and when it's pointed out to you that you are wrong you continue to be ignorant wilfully simply because you believe it supports your position.

Willfully ignorant is denying all the evidence of molten steel/iron and concrete.

I am simply presenting evidence that, at very least, collectively makes a prima facie case for the presence of molten steel/iron and molten concrete.

If you believe that concrete can melt then cite a source for melting.

The melting point of concrete varies between 1800-2500°C (3272-4532°F)
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm[/FONT][/FONT]

What has likely happened is the material that encases the gun has been produced from the collapse of the building. So they'll be a range of particle sizes from building material such as concrete (and it's constituents, gypsum (from dry wall) etc that has covered the gun. (That material may have been heated sufficiently to remove the water). Subsequently this material has been exposed to water which has then bonded all those particles together in just the same way that water does when mixed with cement and aggregate to form solid concrete.

I covered that in post #680.

Once the cement has coated the sand and rock it cannot be removed. There cannot be enough free cement to bind everything again. Furthermore, the WTC dust was not just concrete, it was everything in the buildings.

In addition, when the rock is pulverized there in a lot more surface area.

If you want to see this for yourself then it's simple to do. Get a steel rod (or other steel material), smash up a load of concrete, add crushed drywall and surround the steel with it. Now add water and leave it to dry. Come back in a week. Voila! A steel rod encased in molten concrete!

Nada. You cannot reconstitute concrete.

 

[Christopher7]

Rubbish. The article is about the water/cement ratio used in concrete:

"In these days of an ever increasing demand for improvements in concrete performance, it is easy for specifiers to continually decrease the maximum allowable water/cement ratio for concrete they specify. "

And it's in this context that they note incomplete hydration.

They are discussing fresh cement, not crushed concrete - completely different and you know it.

 

[Christopher7]

The thermite reaction produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F. There is an abundance of evidence that there was molten steel and two cases of molten concrete. There is no reason to doubt the NYPD or Voorsanger. Both no doubt got their information from a qualified person. Thermite is the only known possibility to explain the molten steel and concrete.

A steel gun would not melt instantly, it takes time to heat the steel. As the heat was transferred from the flowing molten concrete to the steel gun, the temperature of the concrete was reduced to less that the melting point of the steel in the gun before the gun was completely melted.

The obvious flaw with your assertion is that there is a complete absence of molten iron produced by the alleged thermite. Nice try though.

Pure denial. There is an abundance of evidence of molten steel/iron and two official sources for molten concrete. The problem is;

You can't handle the truth.

 

[beachnut]

When will 911 truth produce evidence of melted concrete, and melted steel?

Remember, this web page is the OP... http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/
Read it?

The thermite reaction

No thermite was used on 911. Why bring up a 911 truth fantasy?

produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F.

So? It was not used at the WTC, and no molten iron was found on 911.

There is an abundance of evidence that there was molten steel and two cases of molten concrete.

Abundance for 911 truth is zero. You have no evidence of melted steel, no evidence of melted concrete. This is a lie. Ironically, Yankee451 says no melted steel, no melted concrete while he rants against police.

There is no reason to doubt the NYPD or Voorsanger.

NYPD did not say there was melted steel, or melted concrete. Where is your source?

Both no doubt got their information from a qualified person.

Name the person. lol

Thermite is the only known possibility to explain the molten steel and concrete.

Now the termite melted concrete, but left no iron. good one.

A steel gun would not melt instantly,

Oh, a gun in melted concrete would not melt? What heated up the concrete? lol, thermite that left no iron?

it takes time to heat the steel.

And how long to heat the concrete. Got some numbers to go with your fantasy? Anything other than silly claims?

As the heat was transferred from the flowing molten concrete to the steel gun,

Got some numbers for this? This is science, put up some numbers with your silly fantasy. Flowing concrete, melted by thermite? Was it the ceiling tiles?

the temperature of the concrete was reduced to less that the melting point of the steel in the gun before the gun was completely melted.

What a fantasy? Yankee451 is the other-side of this fantasy. Where are your numbers?

Your fantasy, thermite melted concrete. It can't melt a pot, how does it melt concrete?

A gun melts at 1416C, and the concrete melts at 1750C. The gun does not melt as much as the concrete? What are the coeficients, or will you skip science and keep a silly fantasy?

Not sure how Yankee451 got this one right, and he has the silly 3800 mph missile crater theory... and rants about police, as seen in the OP (aka his web page)...

 

[Kid Eager]

Pure denial. There is an abundance of evidence of molten steel/iron and two official sources for molten concrete. The problem is;

You can't handle the truth.

Pure absence of evidence of molten iron. Take another look at the concrete block allegedly melted by thermite as per your claim. Where's the melted iron that you claim melted the block? Was the block coated in Teflon??????

Not even a nice try - you invalidate your own assertion.

 

[Spanx]

The thermite reaction produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F. There is an abundance of evidence that there was molten steel and two cases of molten concrete. There is no reason to doubt the NYPD or Voorsanger. Both no doubt got their information from a qualified person. Thermite is the only known possibility to explain the molten steel and concrete.

A steel gun would not melt instantly, it takes time to heat the steel. As the heat was transferred from the flowing molten concrete to the steel gun, the temperature of the concrete was reduced to less that the melting point of the steel in the gun before the gun was completely melted.

You have ignored my question twice now.

If your going to make claims you need to provide evidence.

Thermite was around before 911, so you should be able to provide a link to thermite melting concrete.

Lol, I have just seen your thermal lance link above. Are you saying a thermal lance was used on 911.

 

[Christopher7]

Pure absence of evidence of molten iron. Take another look at the concrete block allegedly melted by thermite as per your claim. Where's the melted iron that you claim melted the block? Was the block coated in Teflon??????

Not even a nice try - you invalidate your own assertion.

You are just looking for a reason to deny the facts. The concrete melted and the only known explanation is thermite.

You cant tell what the composition is by looking at the photo and we don't know what the conditions were other that the temperature was enough to melt the concrete.

 

[beachnut]

You are just looking for a reason to deny the facts. The concrete melted and the only known explanation is thermite.

You cant tell what the composition is by looking at the photo and we don't know what the conditions were other that the temperature was enough to melt the concrete.

Nope, the temperature would have melted the gun first. You lost this round because you failed to look up the melting point of everything involved. Why not present some science instead of words? I already debunked your claim. So did Yankee451, and he thinks missiles did 911. Are you supporting Yankee451? Do you know what the real topic is?

http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/ This is the topic; have you commented on the topic? Do you see the irony yet? Anything?

 

[Christopher7]

You have ignored my question twice now.

If your going to make claims you need to provide evidence.

Thermite was around before 911, so you should be able to provide a link to thermite melting concrete.

I do not know of one but there is no need to cite a case of thermite melting concrete. The fact that thermite produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F is enough to establish that it could melt concrete. There is no other known possibility. This is self evident to anyone not looking for a reason to deny the obvious.

I have just seen your thermal lance link above. Are you saying a thermal lance was used on 911

No

 

[beachnut]

No iron from thermite found at the WTC. Concrete melts after the gun. oops

I do not know of one but there is no need to cite a case of thermite melting concrete. The fact that thermite produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F is enough to establish that it could melt concrete. There is no other known possibility. This is self evident to anyone not looking for a reason to deny the obvious.

No

Wait, which as the higher melting point, the gun or the concrete? How much thermite will melt how much concrete? Where is the iron from the thermite? Is the gun plastic?

How does it melt concrete? Show the math. You can't? Why not?

Is thermite off topic? Yes, kind of.
http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/

This is the topic, not thermite. Notice how the topic is about how the police faked stuff? Did you read the OP? The web page?

 

[Christopher7]

Nope, the temperature would have melted the gun first.

A steel gun would not melt instantly, it takes time to heat the steel. As the heat was transferred from the flowing molten concrete to the steel gun, the temperature of the concrete was reduced to less that the melting point of the steel in the gun before the gun was completely melted.

http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/

This is the topic; have you commented on the topic? Do you see the irony yet? Anything?

The topic is the molten concrete. yankee says the police commissioner lied, therefore, the NYPD Museum is lying -
I say his logic is flawed.

ETA: He also says that concrete doesn't melt - which is wrong.

 

[Spanx]

I do not know of one but there is no need to cite a case of thermite melting concrete. The fact that thermite produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F is enough to establish that it could melt concrete. There is no other known possibility. This is self evident to anyone not looking for a reason to deny the obvious.

No

There is a good reason for not finding information about thermite melting concrete. If it was common for thermite to melt concrete you can bet your life 911 "truth" would have it spammed all over the net.

You claim to preach the truth but it is obvious you have no such intentions. You are lazy and only ever look at the first page you google because it fits in with your interpretation of the truth. You claim to be an expert yet you have done no research.

I am happy for you to prove me wrong if you find a link to thermite melting concrete that is not 911 related. I am no expert but I am willing to learn. I am not prepared to take your word for it just because you want me to.

 

[Christopher7]

There is a good reason for not finding information about thermite melting concrete. If it was common for thermite to melt concrete you can bet your life 911 "truth" would have it spammed all over the net.

It is not necessary to cite a case. Your asking for one is just a denial technique.

You claim to preach the truth but it is obvious you have no such intentions. You are lazy and only ever look at the first page you google because it fits in with your interpretation of the truth.

Wrong

You claim to be an expert

No

yet you have done no research.

On the contrary, I have done a great deal of research.

I am happy for you to prove me wrong if you find a link to thermite melting concrete that is not 911 related.

You ask for what you know does not exist so you can deny the known facts.

I am no expert

True

but I am willing to learn.

Not true

I am not prepared to take your word for it just because you want me to.

Don't take my word for it. Do the research - find out what the temperature of reacted thermite is. Then find out what temperature steel and concrete melt at.

Thermite is the only known explanation for the melted steel/iron and melted concrete.