Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

[jaydeehess]

Still don't know how that steel managed to remain untouched by the heat that was sufficient to 'melt' the concrete. The 'molten' concrete would contain a lot of heat at sufficient temperature to melt steel. Perhaps if the steel was introduced just as the concrete was lowering down to its solidifying temperature and the steel was precooled in a freezer just before being introduced to the concrete mass.......

Obviously concrete does not melt in the furnaces that produce steel so the concrete melting temp must be higher than that of steel, therefore the concrete can supply a lot of heat to the steel.

 

[GlennB]

I'm going to retract comments I made upthread about the melting of concrete. Those comments were made based on faulty 'general knowledge', knowledge that was reinforced by an article or two I'd googled that were subsequently posted here explicitly.

This big fat academic study on the performance of concrete at high temperatures does confirm that concrete will melt at temperatures well below 'several thousand degrees', even allowing for the °F to °C issue :

"The rate of decomposition and the temperature at which it occurs are
not only dependent on temperature and pressure, but also by the content of SiO2 present in the limestone. Above 1200°C and up to 1300°C, some components of the concrete begin to melt. Above 1300°C to 1400°C concrete exists in the form of a melt. Apparently liquifaction of the concrete commences with melting of the hardened cement paste followed by melting of the aggregates. The melting points of aggregates vary greatly. At 1060°C basalt is at the lower limit of all types of rock, with quartzite not melting below 1700°C (Ref. 5)."

That thermite was not present at WTC and that, even if it had been, it wouldn't begin to explain the 'meteorite' or 'gun in concrete' phenomena remains the case though.

An amount of (theoretical) thermite sufficient to reduce enough concrete to lava sufficient to allow it to flow to a point where the gun was itself was not melted by an ambient temperature that might melt the gun would have to be vast. And any such claim would need to be supported by remarkable evidence. In addition the resolidifed once-molten concrete would bear clear marks of resolidification, marks totally absent from the meteorite to say the least (the gun photos are unclear).

Meanwhile Sunstealer's first Youtube video upthread needs explaining by C7 or anybody else; the one showing a pretty thin cinder block happily resisting the lengthy attention of a thermite blaze without melting or even cracking or spalling. Beachnut's comment on this issue is very pertinent - what's the coefficient? How much thermite producing how much heat being transferred to what mass of concrete such that the concrete might melt?

I post this with a heavy heart, as I know it's likely to encourage Truther nuttiness. But facts are facts and have to be acknowledged. It certainly seems that concrete can melt at temperatures at about (including lower than) the melting point of steel.

 

[beachnut]

... 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.

Prove it. Are you saying no parts of Portland cement melt? Did you miss the eutectic plot?

The museum made a mistake. You have a fantasy.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm going to retract comments I made upthread about the melting of concrete. Those comments were made based on faulty 'general knowledge', knowledge that was reinforced by an article or two I'd googled that were subsequently posted here explicitly.

This big fat academic study on the performance of concrete at high temperatures does confirm that concrete will melt at temperatures well below 'several thousand degrees', even allowing for the °F to °C issue :

"The rate of decomposition and the temperature at which it occurs are
not only dependent on temperature and pressure, but also by the content of SiO2 present in the limestone. Above 1200°C and up to 1300°C, some components of the concrete begin to melt. Above 1300°C to 1400°C concrete exists in the form of a melt. Apparently liquifaction of the concrete commences with melting of the hardened cement paste followed by melting of the aggregates. The melting points of aggregates vary greatly. At 1060°C basalt is at the lower limit of all types of rock, with quartzite not melting below 1700°C (Ref. 5)."

That thermite was not present at WTC and that, even if it had been, it wouldn't begin to explain the 'meteorite' or 'gun in concrete' phenomena remains the case though.

An amount of (theoretical) thermite sufficient to reduce enough concrete to lava sufficient to allow it to flow to a point where the gun was itself was not melted by an ambient temperature that might melt the gun would have to be vast. And any such claim would need to be supported by remarkable evidence. In addition the resolidifed once-molten concrete would bear clear marks of resolidification, marks totally absent from the meteorite to say the least (the gun photos are unclear).

Meanwhile Sunstealer's first Youtube video upthread needs explaining by C7 or anybody else; the one showing a pretty thin cinder block happily resisting the lengthy attention of a thermite blaze without melting or even cracking or spalling. Beachnut's comment on this issue is very pertinent - what's the coefficient? How much thermite producing how much heat being transferred to what mass of concrete such that the concrete might melt?

I post this with a heavy heart, as I know it's likely to encourage Truther nuttiness. But facts are facts and have to be acknowledged. It certainly seems that concrete can melt at temperatures at about (including lower than) the melting point of steel.

Ok perhaps I am victim of my own personal incredulity. Still, I'd like to see a demonstration of;
- melted concrete
- concrete being melted by thermite
- molten concrete and solid steel existing side by each.

 

[Kid Eager]

Ok perhaps I am victim of my own personal incredulity. Still, I'd like to see a demonstration of;
- melted concrete
- concrete being melted by thermite
- molten concrete and solid steel existing side by each.

You forgot the bit "without any iron from the thermite attaching itself to the resulting molten blob....

 

[yankee451]

You still basing the melted concrete on a caption at an exhibit?

You still claiming a museum exhibit put forth by the police department, used to indoctrinate school children, isn't significant?

Add to that the stories of molten steel from the FDNY and the "hot spots" from NASA and the USGS, and it would take a supreme leap of faith to buy anything the authorities are selling. But you're all about leaping, aren't you?

 

[beachnut]

HOT SPOTs from NASA and USGS were ordinary debris fires... due to murderers

You still claiming a museum exhibit put forth by the police department, used to indoctrinate school children, isn't significant?

What did the museum say?

Indoctrination? LOL, anyone can look at the exhibit and see it was not melted concrete, no one cares; you can't get it corrected? Have you tried?

You are going to a big demo of how planes can't break the thin steel shell of the WTC, and you can't correct a museum error? Action?

Add to that the stories of molten steel from the FDNY and the "hot spots" from NASA and the USGS, and it would take a supreme leap of faith to buy anything the authorities are selling. But you're all about leaping, aren't you?

The HOT spots from NASA were not hot enough to melt steel or concrete, so NASA agree with your no melted steel, no melted concrete, but they laugh at the failed missile fantasy.

You lie about missiles, the melted concrete is a simple mistake. You rant against police failed to make a point but you like fiction.

 

[yankee451]

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/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.

My experience with heating concrete is that it bursts into pieces - it breaks into its components before it becomes hot enough to melt, and that the "clinker" that is left when it cools down will unmistakenly not be concrete. Pumice is what comes to mind.

The police museum exhibit was built to spread the lie that not only did the concrete melt, but after it cooled, it turned back into concrete. So in addition to the fairy tale that fires fueled by office materials and human beings became so intense they melted the concrete in their path (without a blast furnace, figure THAT one out), the lava cooled back into concrete without melting the guns that were encased therein!

And now you come trotting out with the tired old thermite argument - surely the NY police museum exhibit that indoctrinated school children and adults alike into believing ridiculous imopossibilities wasn't wrong after all...no...the only thing that can melt both concrete and steel is thermite, so this is proof that not only were the police reports of molten concrete true, so were the FDNY reports of rivers of molten steel. The "hot spot" images, and the fires raging for months after the collapse are all true. The authorities are absolved. Huzza!

Snort.

 

[beachnut]

Missile fantasy conspiracy theorist calls Thermite fantasy wrong...

... And now you come trotting out with the tired old thermite argument - ... Snort.

His thermite claims are orders of magnitude more possible than your invisible missiles not in production, based on 3800 mph micro balls leaving craters.

http://yankee451.com/2013/03/27/missile-impact-images/
Nonsense, and more nonsense...
http://yankee451.com/2012/07/15/963/

 

[GlennB]

Ok perhaps I am victim of my own personal incredulity. Still, I'd like to see a demonstration of;
- melted concrete
- concrete being melted by thermite
- molten concrete and solid steel existing side by each.

Quite so. But Truther science allows absolutes - X burns at a certain temperature which is higher than the melting point of Y. Therefore that pile of Y will melt in the presence of burning X.

C7 needs to explain why the cinder block didn't melt in Sunstealer's first video, just for starters. Or why a 2000 °C spark won't melt a car.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm going to retract comments I made upthread about the melting of concrete. Those comments were made based on faulty 'general knowledge', knowledge that was reinforced by an article or two I'd googled that were subsequently posted here explicitly.

This big fat academic study on the performance of concrete at high temperatures does confirm that concrete will melt at temperatures well below 'several thousand degrees', even allowing for the °F to °C issue :

"The rate of decomposition and the temperature at which it occurs are
not only dependent on temperature and pressure, but also by the content of SiO2 present in the limestone. Above 1200°C and up to 1300°C, some components of the concrete begin to melt. Above 1300°C to 1400°C concrete exists in the form of a melt. Apparently liquifaction of the concrete commences with melting of the hardened cement paste followed by melting of the aggregates. The melting points of aggregates vary greatly. At 1060°C basalt is at the lower limit of all types of rock, with quartzite not melting below 1700°C (Ref. 5)."

That thermite was not present at WTC and that, even if it had been, it wouldn't begin to explain the 'meteorite' or 'gun in concrete' phenomena remains the case though.

An amount of (theoretical) thermite sufficient to reduce enough concrete to lava sufficient to allow it to flow to a point where the gun was itself was not melted by an ambient temperature that might melt the gun would have to be vast. And any such claim would need to be supported by remarkable evidence. In addition the resolidifed once-molten concrete would bear clear marks of resolidification, marks totally absent from the meteorite to say the least (the gun photos are unclear).

Meanwhile Sunstealer's first Youtube video upthread needs explaining by C7 or anybody else; the one showing a pretty thin cinder block happily resisting the lengthy attention of a thermite blaze without melting or even cracking or spalling. Beachnut's comment on this issue is very pertinent - what's the coefficient? How much thermite producing how much heat being transferred to what mass of concrete such that the concrete might melt?

I post this with a heavy heart, as I know it's likely to encourage Truther nuttiness. But facts are facts and have to be acknowledged. It certainly seems that concrete can melt at temperatures at about (including lower than) the melting point of steel.

Thank you for the info and for your honesty/integrity to accept and post info you don't particularly care for.

This "truther nuttiness" is from the NYPD Museum and there is really no reason to doubt that their assessment is correct.

It is possible that concrete landed on top of a large glob of molten iron from a thermite reaction. It takes a while to heat concrete because it conducts the heat and releases it on the sides not in contact with the molten iron. When the concrete melts it flows away from the heat source and rapidly begins to cool. It flows around a gun that is far enough away from the molten iron that it is well below its melting point. The gun cools the molten concrete as the molten concrete heats the gun. Much of the gun melts but the barrel, which is outside the molten concrete is dispersing heat and the molten concrete drops below the melting point of the gun before the barrel melts.

Why didn't the cinder block melt?
Not enough thermite - the cinder block and the iron plate conducted the heat away. Note that the iron plate under the block did not melt so it did not reach 2800^oF

How much thermite would it take? The "experimenters" did not bother to find out. They went to all that trouble but didn't try it again with more thermite. Looks like they set out to prove that concrete doesn't melt but we now know that it does.

 

[Spanx]

C7, whatever you do,

Don't provide a link for thermite melting concrete.

Just enhance our knowledge with your truther wisdom. We enjoy laughing.

Lol and ae911truth has done all of the research except they didn't check if thermite melts concrete oops, what else did they forget.

 

[Christopher7]

C7, whatever you do,

Don't provide a link for thermite melting concrete.

Just enhance our knowledge with your truther wisdom. We enjoy laughing.

You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't male it think.

Why do you need a link for thermite melting concrete?
If you know these facts there is no need for a specific reference.
1) The thermite reaction produces molten iron at ~2482 ^oC
2) Above 1300°C to 1400°C concrete exists in the form of a melt.

 

[beachnut]

You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't male it think.

Why do you need a link for thermite melting concrete?
If you know these facts there is no need for a specific reference.
1) The thermite reaction produces molten iron at ~2482 ^oC
2) Above 1300°C to 1400°C concrete exists in the form of a melt.

Source. Multiple would be good.

There was no melted steel on 911, and no melted concrete. No thermite.

10 terrorists crashed two planes into the WTC... The rest is history - the thermite scam was made up by Jones in 2005 based on his fantasy. He lied. Prove otherwise is a sure Pulitzer Prize; sort of like Breaking Watergate. Guess how fast Watergate was exposed, and how few were involved. Your fantasy conspiracy theory on 911 would need thousands - Watergate, a few. Why can't 911 truth, or you break 911? Because you have a fantasy.

The museum made a mistake, Yankee451 thinks it is to support some inside job, you think it really is melted concreted from thermite, yet zero thermite was found, no iron was found fused to anything on 911.

11 years and the only product 911 truth is, typing practice ... not good fiction, a failed movement of nonsense.

 

[Sunstealer]

I love the way C7 and Yankee contradict one another.

 

[twinstead]

I love the way C7 and Yankee contradict one another.

When multiple people just make stuff up, that's just bound to happen

 

[Andy_Ross]

So C7, How much Thermite does it take to melt a pound of concrete?

 

[jaydeehess]

It is possible that concrete landed on top of a large glob of molten iron from a thermite reaction. .

There has never been any evidence shown to indicate the presence of a large 'glob' molten iron, nor has there ever been any evidence shown that indicates the presence of enormous quantities of iron based thermite.

NOR has anyone demonstrated the amount of thermite required to produce a large chunk of molten concrete.

 

[GlennB]

There were no such globs, but just for the sake of theory ...

It is possible that concrete landed on top of a large glob of molten iron from a thermite reaction. It takes a while to heat concrete because it conducts the heat and releases it on the sides not in contact with the molten iron.

It also cools the molten iron on contact.. Does the iron stay molten?

When the concrete melts it flows away from the heat source and rapidly begins to cool.

Why would it flow away? The molten iron didn't flow away. It's there in a great glob to accept the concrete. Or was it in a 'receptacle' that was full to the brim so only the concrete lava would flow away?

(Actually this raises the point of what might manage to contain the molten iron in the first place, but I don't want to confuse you.)

It flows around a gun that is far enough away from the molten iron that it is well below its melting point. The gun cools the molten concrete as the molten concrete heats the gun.

What about all the other stuff along the way? More concrete, dust, metal ....

Much of the gun melts but the barrel, which is outside the molten concrete is dispersing heat and the molten concrete drops below the melting point of the gun before the barrel melts.

Just so? Perfect timing!

What a load of bilge.

 

[Animal]

What a load of bilge.

It is a load of "making stuff up" to keep the religion alive.