International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   Moderated: The NYPD and Molten Concrete (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252571)

yankee451 3rd February 2013 08:52 AM

The NYPD and Molten Concrete
 
Corruption in big-city police departments is legendary. Countless movies about dirty cops litter the video shelves; movies like Serpico, Internal Affairs, and the Godfather depict corruption everywhere. Everyone’s aware of Philadelphia PD corruption, of the LAPD and Rodney King, etc., etc. To a lesser known extent, but likely just as corrupt, come other big city departments, like the fire departments and social services, or the mayor’s offices. Influence peddling (read: graft, bribery) in local and national governments is commonplace, but we common folk prefer not to talk about it, or tell ourselves the good guys win in the end. It’s a happy fantasy.

We’ve all heard the stories about the brave FDNY and the rivers of molten steel. The fire department is presented as hero-victims of 9/11 ais therefore beyond suspicion and reproach, as is their claim of molten steel. Second only to the FDNY on the sympathy scale is the NYPD, but what many people don’t know is not only was steel in the sky turned molten by kerosene on 9/11, but according to the NYPD, it also melted concrete a thousand feet below and not only that but after it cooled, it solidified back into concrete, encasing firearms therein.

...

Edited by LashL:  Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text/articles from elsewhere. Instead cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

Starving for Truth 3rd February 2013 08:56 AM

There was molten lava, an underground tactical nuke was used.

yankee451 3rd February 2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving for Truth (Post 8966221)
There was molten lava, an underground tactical nuke was used.

Not according to the melting points of steel and sand.

applecorped 3rd February 2013 09:19 AM

A double dose of dumb threads.

The Big Dog 3rd February 2013 09:29 AM

Wow, a no planer who posts utterly unreadable nonsense.

Oh Portland, what is it with you and the no planers?

Scott Sommers 3rd February 2013 09:40 AM

There was nothing molten about the concrete. It was all turned to dust. Judy Wood proved this years ago, and it's only these last holdouts on the JREF that haven't accepted the reality of it all.

Spanx 3rd February 2013 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers (Post 8966377)
There was nothing molten about the concrete. It was all turned to dust. Judy Wood proved this years ago, and it's only these last holdouts on the JREF that haven't accepted the reality of it all.

Don't lie, Dusty said it was foam ;)

Sunstealer 3rd February 2013 09:49 AM

So it's a massive conspiracy by the NYPD or someone who has no clue writes something wrong on a placard for a museum.

Occam's Razor would suggest it's the latter. Er, yep definitely the latter.

/end thread.

Sunstealer 3rd February 2013 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanx (Post 8966385)
Don't lie, Dusty said it was foam ;)

/cough This was the first reply in the comments section of his 911 crash test FAQs

Quote:

Tracy Postert says:
August 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm

I’m an expert on what really happened to the World Trade Center, so I will put my name in as a supporter and I will advise on key details.
I'd love to see a Dusty verses De'ak thread. Stundilicious!

Spanx 3rd February 2013 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstealer (Post 8966409)
/cough This was the first reply in the comments section of his 911 crash test FAQs



I'd love to see a Dusty verses De'ak thread. Stundilicious!

That's the good thing about truther facts, there is plenty of room for everyone to be right.:)

yankee451 3rd February 2013 10:16 AM

So these intellectually stunted JREF denizens actually believe the concrete turned to lava and then back to concrete without melting the guns.

Fascinating.

BStrong 3rd February 2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966462)
So these intellectually stunted JREF denizens actually believe the concrete turned to lava and then back to concrete without melting the guns.

Fascinating.

Actually, I believe it has been established that the medium in question is dust from a variety of sources (concrete, sheetrock) mixed with water, and under pressure of combined debris formed into a solid.

The Big Dog 3rd February 2013 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966462)
So these intellectually stunted JREF denizens actually believe the concrete turned to lava and then back to concrete without melting the guns.

Fascinating.

Now now, sport, that sounds like a personal attack.

Look up simile.

yankee451 3rd February 2013 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 8966474)
Actually, I believe it has been established that the medium in question is dust from a variety of sources (concrete, sheetrock) mixed with water, and under pressure of combined debris formed into a solid.

And yet the police museum created an exhibit stating:

"Thermal imagery was used for mapping the hot spots caused by thousands of gallons of fuel buried beneath the rubble..."

"Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path"

TheRedWorm 3rd February 2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966462)
So these intellectually stunted JREF denizens actually believe the concrete turned to lava and then back to concrete without melting the guns.

Fascinating.


Do you actually think anyone here thinks that?

Fascinating.

yankee451 3rd February 2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstealer (Post 8966398)
So it's a massive conspiracy by the NYPD or someone who has no clue writes something wrong on a placard for a museum.

Occam's Razor would suggest it's the latter. Er, yep definitely the latter.

/end thread.

Sure - if I were to make such an "innocent" mistake, you'd be just as forgiving.

/snort

yankee451 3rd February 2013 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm (Post 8966517)
Do you actually think anyone here thinks that?

Fascinating.

No, because you're too smart for that.

So you agree then there's no way fires were so hot they melted concrete and there's no way "thermal hotspots were caused by thousands of gallons of fuel buried beneath the rubble".

beachnut 3rd February 2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966462)
So these intellectually stunted JREF denizens actually believe the concrete turned to lava and then back to concrete without melting the guns.

Fascinating.

The gun did not melt. The concrete was not melted.

You deny the moon landings, and you deny nukes exist. It is not a surprise you are full of political bias and can't figure out 911 given the answers and 11 years. You failed to make a point; you are spamming JREF with stuff that got you banned at crazy 911 truth sites. You are a 911 truther who can't find support from 911 truth. How ironic, your stuff is so stupid, 911 truth shuns you.

The only point you have made; you take random quotes, and form incoherent rant, frothing at the mouth, spewing nonsense, posting piles of BS with no purpose, no goal. Now you will project some, and repeat.

NoahFence 3rd February 2013 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving for Truth (Post 8966221)
There was molten lava, an underground tactical nuke was used.

If they'd used a regular nuke, instead of tactical, it would have eliminated all the evidence you folks keep finding. Those silly, silly NWOers screw up even the most basic forensic countermeasures.

They'll learn eventually.

yankee451 3rd February 2013 11:14 AM

It's a tough position to be in, I know.

So were the fires hot enough to melt concrete or not?

beachnut 3rd February 2013 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966691)
It's a tough position to be in, I know.

So were the fires hot enough to melt concrete or not?

You are ranting with no point. What is your point?

The fires in the WTC complex were not hot enough to melt steel. They were hot enough to melt anything with a melting point near 1,000 C.

There were special areas where the oxygen generators could have burnt, you would have to look up the heat and temperature of the oxygen generators to see what could happen. But you don't do research for understanding you google up lies and make them bigger and dumber lies.

This thread has no purpose, and you can't explain what the purpose was; so far the purpose seems to be exposing your complete illogical approach to 911 research, and your complete ignorance of science.

Ape of Good Hope 3rd February 2013 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966691)
It's a tough position to be in, I know.

So were the fires hot enough to melt concrete or not?


Here you go boss. Molten/meteorite/museum madness from days of yore:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post7569836

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...20#post7957120

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=106240

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=105273


(this forum does have a search function y'know ;) )

yankee451 3rd February 2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope (Post 8966752)

Mine is in my own words, but despite all these threads, you still can't address the evidence.

yankee451 3rd February 2013 11:35 AM

Anyone?

Were the fires hot enough to melt concrete or not?

LSSBB 3rd February 2013 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966780)
Anyone?

Were the fires hot enough to melt concrete or not?

Straw man. Prove the concrete was actually molten. You got some laboratory analysis on that for me? A sign on a chunk won't cut it, here.

NoahFence 3rd February 2013 11:39 AM

Well, he dun got us but good here.

Maybe he should ride off into the sunset....

beachnut 3rd February 2013 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966780)
Anyone?

Were the fires hot enough to melt concrete or not?

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel. The fires reached 1,000 C. Can't you do the math and material science; and answer your own goal-free question?

Can you state your goal with this thread besides the fact you ask stupid questions?

Why not declare victory before you realize you have 11 years of failure in the box.

Ape of Good Hope 3rd February 2013 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966777)
Mine is in my own words, but despite all these threads, you still can't address the evidence.

That's because you haven't presented any evidence :D

yankee451 3rd February 2013 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSSBB (Post 8966795)
Straw man. Prove the concrete was actually molten. You got some laboratory analysis on that for me? A sign on a chunk won't cut it, here.

I didn't put up a stinking museum exhibit, the police did that - you'd think THEIR lab analysis would be enough for you.

So were they wrong about the molten concrete or not?

beachnut 3rd February 2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966891)
I didn't put up a stinking museum exhibit, the police did that - you'd think THEIR lab analysis would be enough for you.

So were they wrong about the molten concrete or not?

The museum does not change 911. 19 terrorists, real people, murdered thousands. You know the stuff you ignore, so you can focus on nonsense from a museum.

Yes, it looks like a gun was smashed into concrete in the WTC collapse. With the energy of over 260 tons of TNT released during the collapse, it is not a surprise they have what looks like melted concrete around a gun. But is really a bunch of WTC debris crushed with the energy of tons of TNT with a gun.

You don't do physics, so you can't comprehend how an event with more energy expended than a small nuke can have things that look funny.

Wait, you don't believe nukes exist, and we never landed on the moon. Is there a conspiracy theory you don't try to make dumber?

You mentioned the 100,000 tons of steel. Now you see what that does when it collapses on light weight concrete floors and crushes the debris into a new rock with a gun. There was more than enough heat and energy on 911 to make what looks like a meteorite with a gun in it.

What is your point? Did the concrete melt, I doubt it, do I care if the museum got it wrong? No, because it becomes a test to expose fraud, people like you who make a big deal about things they can't grasp, so they make up lies and disrespect the dead. You got this act down to a science.

yankee451 3rd February 2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahFence (Post 8966800)
Well, he dun got us but good here.

Maybe he should ride off into the sunset....

Like taking candy from babies.

Ape of Good Hope 3rd February 2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966927)
Like taking candy from babies.


Don't you mean "Like taking candy from Randi"?

That scans better :)

Wolrab 3rd February 2013 12:31 PM

yankee451, I'd believe you, but there's no link to a you-tube video, the only truther evidence that is unassailable (emphasis on ass).

George 152 3rd February 2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahFence (Post 8966674)
If they'd used a regular nuke, instead of tactical, it would have eliminated all the evidence you folks keep finding. Those silly, silly NWOers screw up even the most basic forensic countermeasures.

They'll learn eventually.

If 'they' had used a nuke there would have been nothing but a large radioactive bomb site

dafydd 3rd February 2013 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966927)
Like taking candy from babies.

Yes, exposing truther lies is very easy.

beachnut 3rd February 2013 01:05 PM

The OP, without a photo that takes the text out to europe...
 
Warning: the BS below might be worse than waterboarding...

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Corruption in big-city police departments is legendary.

And has nothing to do with 911.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Countless movies about dirty cops litter the video shelves; movies like Serpico, Internal Affairs, and the Godfather depict corruption everywhere.

And has nothing to do with 911.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Everyone’s aware of Philadelphia PD corruption, of the LAPD and Rodney King, etc., etc.

And has nothing to do with 911. Rodney King? lol, is he your hero too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
To a lesser known extent, but likely just as corrupt, come other big city departments, like the fire departments and social services, or the mayor’s offices. Influence peddling (read: graft, bribery) in local and national governments is commonplace, but we common folk prefer not to talk about it, or tell ourselves the good guys win in the end. It’s a happy fantasy.

And has nothing to do with 911.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
We’ve all heard the stories about the brave FDNY and the rivers of molten steel.

No, there were no rivers of melted steel. But the FDNY was brave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
The fire department is presented as hero-victims of 9/11 ais therefore beyond suspicion and reproach, as is their claim of molten steel. Second only to the FDNY on the sympathy scale is the NYPD, but what many people don’t know is not only was steel in the sky turned molten by kerosene on 9/11, but according to the NYPD, it also melted concrete a thousand feet below and not only that but after it cooled, it solidified back into concrete, encasing firearms therein.

They were heroes. Wait till they read this.
There was not melted steel.
I have not seen on fireman say there was melted concrete.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Melted concrete; why would they say that? Are they trying to give the impression that if the fires were so intense they could melt concrete then there’s no doubt they would melt steel? Since I look at everything as possible propaganda, that’s the Pachyderm-sized take-home lesson I have sitting in my living room, but I’m a cynic so let’s examine this claim to first see if it’s even possible.

To fool gullible people like you?
The fires were intense enough for people to jump instead of burn to death. Is that hot enough, is that intense enough. Are you going to make fun of the people who jumped? No wonder you were banned at crazy 911 truth forums, you are unique. Your claims are stupid.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Fact:

And has nothing to do with 911.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is the godfather to Kerik’s children:
Fact:

And has nothing to do with 911.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Much of the photographic "evidence" of jet parts was supplied by Bernie Kerik's police department; photographs such as this, showing a wheel wedged in an exterior panel are offered as proof of the power of the alleged impact:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...lumn-right.jpg

Yes, it proves an aircraft hit the WTC. Debunks the idiotic lie of no plane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
And this one of the alleged engine nestled near a street sign.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...6310312271.jpg

Yes, it is a 767 engine. Debunks the no-plane lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
So without the NYPD, we would have very few photographs of plane parts, and without the FDNY and FEMA we’d have very few stories of “rivers of molten steel”, but here the New York Police Museum gets into the game and offers this display of firearms encased in concrete that became so hot it turned to "lava" and then re-solidified, encasing handguns stored in an evidence room in the Customs office in WTC6.

Wrong, we have multiple sources for the aircraft parts, and we have multiple RADAR sites proving 11 and 175 did the impacts. Makes your failed insane claims, nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
The only problem is, concrete doesn’t melt. My personal experience with heating concrete tells me that it pops and breaks up as it heats. Because concrete is not "stone" but a mixture of sand and gravel bonded with cement and water, the melting temperatures of the components of concrete must be considered.

Concrete can't melt? lol
And has nothing to do with 911.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Once the water and CO2 are boiled away (breaking up the concrete), the remaining components of sand and gravel would need to melt before the concrete would be considered "lava". Google searches for the melting point of sand vary, but in general, silicon dioxide (sand) needs to reach at least 1510-1710 C before melting.

And has nothing to do with 911.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
A quick evaluation of the images shows the concrete aggregate is still visible, which proves it did not turn to "lava". This appears to be simply waterlogged (from firehoses), concrete and gypsum dust mixed with construction slag and then compressed under the building debris, but one thing’s for sure, it ain’t melted and then solidified concrete; you see steel melts at between 1452-1540 C. but the guns didn't melt. Had the concrete turned to lava, the guns would have been turned to liquid first, or are we to believe the guns "re-solidified" as well?

So? You just solved the problem. The collapse of the WTC made concrete lump together under the tremendous weight of collapse, and energy greater as big as a small nuke. Like the nukes you say never existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966213)
Right here is simple proof the police lied, and it wasn't just a little lie; they built a museum exhibit to indoctrinate school children. If they lied about this, what else did they lie about? Bernie Kerik will be out of the slam next year, perhaps we should ask him.
Yank

No you don't have proof of anything; we have foaming at the mouth rant about silly topics which don't prove anything, but you have a fantasy you can't define with math and physics.

Did you use math to prove nukes don't exist? Why are you anti-science?

fuelair 3rd February 2013 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahFence (Post 8966674)
If they'd used a regular nuke, instead of tactical, it would have eliminated all the evidence you folks keep finding. Those silly, silly NWOers screw up even the most basic forensic countermeasures.

They'll learn eventually.

No, no they won't - they will die still chewing over the crap they defecated.

tsig 3rd February 2013 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966927)
Like taking candy from babies.

You steal from babies?

LSSBB 3rd February 2013 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 8966891)
I didn't put up a stinking museum exhibit, the police did that - you'd think THEIR lab analysis would be enough for you.

So were they wrong about the molten concrete or not?

Ok, so show me their lab analysis that it was molten concrete.

tsig 3rd February 2013 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George152 (Post 8967017)
If 'they' had used a nuke there would have been nothing but a large radioactive bomb site

It was a nano thermite nuc. No loud explosions, no blinding light, no radioactivity, just pure power the push the tops down at faster than free fall speed, throw 60 ton I beams around like toothpicks, crush concrete into dust and then burn for three months against all the water in the river.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.