Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

Christopher7 said:
It is not necessary to cite a case. Your asking for one is just a denial technique.

Wrong
No
On the contrary, I have done a great deal of research.

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

True
Not true

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.
Click to expand...

So now your telling me I know something doesn't exist, I guess that is your way of saying it doesn't exist.

It's a shame you had to go through the whole BS routine to get to the answer.

I ask a simple question and you mince around the table.:D
 
Christopher7 said:
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 topic is the molten concrete. yankee says the police commissioner lied, therefore, the NYPD Museum is lying - :rolleyes:
I say his logic is flawed.

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

The gun in the WTC debris is not in melted concrete. No temperatures hot enough on 911 to melt steel, or concrete. You have not produced evidence. You never will.

A gun would melt first, before the concrete. There is no iron found from thermite on 911, or after 911. Sorry, you have a fantasy, and have not produce the science of how your fantasy thermite can melt concrete, or steel.

Why is no steel damaged by thermite?
How much thermite is needed to melt a pound of concrete?
 
Christopher7 said:
You ask for what you know does not exist so you can deny the known facts.
Click to expand...

It's a known fact but no evidence exists to support it? That would be worth a Stundie if I could be bothered.

You have given up on even the pretense of rational discussion, it seems.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow........you have moved well past the fantasy range now. :rolleyes:
 
Sunstealer said:
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.
Click to expand...
yep I called it.
 
Heat flow in concrete is slower than it is in steel thus if an enviroment contains enough heat to supposedly melt both steel and concrete then the steel should deform and melt BEFORE the concrete.

As pointed out before however, concrete is a nonhomogeneous substance, an aggragate held together by chemical bonds

Furthermore an extrodinary claim has been made, that thermite can turn this bonded aggragate through a phase change to liquid and yet this process not only cannot be demonstrated by the claimant, the request for such demonstration has been utterly refused.

911t once again proving insincerity of their stated purpose? or just C7?
 
Before anyone tries melting some concrete, I'd advise a small test first. Put on a full safety mask and protective clothing, then heat a piece of concrete with an oxy-acetylene torch. You may just get a spectacular bang from the water in the concrete expanding to steam.

This is why ceramic kiln temperatures are raised slowly. "Sophomore dies in kiln explosion" is not an absurd fantasy. Keep in mind that heat transfer by air, as in a kiln, is much less efficient than by liquid, as with thermite. Now consider what would happen if you tried to melt concrete with thermite!
 
jaydeehess said:
Heat flow in concrete is slower than it is in steel thus if an enviroment contains enough heat to supposedly melt both steel and concrete then the steel should deform and melt BEFORE the concrete.

As pointed out before however, concrete is a nonhomogeneous substance, an aggragate held together by chemical bonds

Furthermore an extrodinary claim has been made, that thermite can turn this bonded aggragate through a phase change to liquid and yet this process not only cannot be demonstrated by the claimant, the request for such demonstration has been utterly refused.
Click to expand...
As always, the imagination of the denoir choir only works in one direction - thinking up scenarios that won't work.

Keeping in mind that the "claim" is made by the NYPD Museum.

"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around everything in it's path."

And considering that no one here has even seen the guns encased in concrete, nor is anyone here qualified to say the NYPD Museum is wrong. The "claim" (by someone who thinks concrete cannot melt), that the NYPD Museum is wrong - is Stundie worthy.

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

Melting point of silica sand
1600-1725 °C -- 2912-3137 °F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

Melting point of granite
1215-1260 °C. -- 2219-2300 °F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite

Portland cement (mostly limestone) does not melt
http://www.anchsand.com/Portals/3/portlandcement_msds.pdf

Melting point of limestone
Melting Point: 1517 to 2442 °F (Decomposes)
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/25038
 
Christopher7 said:
As always, the imagination of the denoir choir only works in one direction - thinking up scenarios that won't work.

Keeping in mind that the "claim" is made by the NYPD Museum.

"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around everything in it's path."

And considering that no one here has even seen the guns encased in concrete, nor is anyone here qualified to say the NYPD Museum is wrong. The "claim" (by someone who thinks concrete cannot melt), that the NYPD Museum is wrong - is Stundie worthy.

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

Melting point of silica sand
1600-1725 °C -- 2912-3137 °F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

Melting point of granite
1215-1260 °C. -- 2219-2300 °F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite

Portland cement (mostly limestone) does not melt
http://www.anchsand.com/Portals/3/portlandcement_msds.pdf

Melting point of limestone
Melting Point: 1517 to 2442 °F (Decomposes)
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/25038
Click to expand...

Concrete can't melt until chemical reactions take place - what are they and how much energy does it take?

You clearly show the gun will melt first.

Please list the energy required to melt concrete, and then state the amount per pound of melted concrete is required from thermite. How much thermite is required to melt a pound of 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 coefficients, or will you skip science and keep a silly fantasy?'


I am qualified to say the museum is wrong, and you can't prove otherwise, as you proved the gun would be gone, melted by the melted concrete, in fact, the gun would melt before the concrete. Darn, you don't do chemistry, or understand liquid and solid, and the energy required to change states.

Wait, you say cement can't melt... does it melt or not?

Guess what? You don't know how to read, or what MSDS is for. This is funny.

Does not melt? Or it does melt? Make up your mind.

You are googling your way to more woo. It is funny, Yankee451 is a 911 truther, and you are too. But you believe in melted concrete and steel, and Yankee451 does not. You both have fantasies about 911, but they don't match. What else can you make up about the melted mistake made by a museum; Yankee says evil police are spreading lies to support melted stuff and high temperatures, you say high temperatures are real.

What is next?
 
Spanx said:
Ok Chris,

You asked me to do some research and I came up with this

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm

Is this something I should believe ?
Click to expand...
Yes, it says that you can't melt concrete in your kitchen because it takes several thousand degrees. That's what the link I posted says.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The sand and gravel will melt, but you will not be doing it in your kitchen oven! A temperature of several thousand degrees* is needed, and the result will be much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos.[/FONT]"
*3200-4500oF

The NYPD Museum said "like lava"


The second guy is wrong. Portland cement will decompose rather than melt but concrete is mostly rock and sand that do melt so the result is molten rock and sand containing some decomposed cement.
 
Christopher7 said:
Yes, it says that you can't melt concrete in your kitchen because it takes several thousand degrees. That's what the link I posted says.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The sand and gravel will melt, but you will not be doing it in your kitchen oven! A temperature of several thousand degrees* is needed, and the result will be much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos.[/FONT]"
*3200-4500oF

The NYPD Museum said "like lava"


The second guy is wrong. Portland cement will decompose rather than melt but concrete is mostly rock and sand that do melt so the result is molten rock and sand containing some decomposed cement.
Click to expand...

So all that's needed now is, you doing some research and showing me a link for thermite melting concrete.

Don't worry I'm not going to argue the toss about the fact both people in the link say that concrete does not melt.

If thermite melting concrete is as common as you say, it shouldn't be hard to find.

The NYPD Museum said "like lava"
so can we work along the lines that the meteorite just fell out of the sky and is nothing to do with 911
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
As always, the imagination of the denoir choir only works in one direction - thinking up scenarios that won't work.

Keeping in mind that the "claim" is made by the NYPD Museum.

"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around everything in it's path."
Click to expand...

We all know that Museums NEVER make mistakes. :rolleyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/5th-grader-smarter-than-s_n_94865.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/teen...-exhibit-16281173?tab=9482931&section=1206833

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/26/nyregion/yale-brontosaurus-gets-head-on-right-at-last.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom