IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th April 2013, 03:18 AM   #681
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 03:39 AM   #682
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 04:03 AM   #683
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 04:38 AM   #684
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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/askasc.../mats05054.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concret...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!
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 10:13 AM   #685
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 08:26 PM   #686
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
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.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 08:35 PM   #687
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 08:56 PM   #688
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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)
http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm

Quote:
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.
Originally Posted by C7
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.

Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 08:59 PM   #689
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 09:08 PM   #690
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by C7
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.
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
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.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 09:39 PM   #691
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
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?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The thermite reaction
No thermite was used on 911. Why bring up a 911 truth fantasy?


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
produces molten iron at 4500 degrees F.
So? It was not used at the WTC, and no molten iron was found on 911.


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Both no doubt got their information from a qualified person.
Name the person. lol


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thermite is the only known possibility to explain the molten steel and concrete.
Now the termite melted concrete, but left no iron. good one.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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)...

Last edited by beachnut; 8th April 2013 at 09:52 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 10:31 PM   #692
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 10:33 PM   #693
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.

Last edited by Spanx; 8th April 2013 at 10:56 PM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 12:05 AM   #694
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
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.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 12:10 AM   #695
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 12:16 AM   #696
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
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.

Quote:
I have just seen your thermal lance link above. Are you saying a thermal lance was used on 911
No
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 12:20 AM   #697
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
No iron from thermite found at the WTC. Concrete melts after the gun. oops

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 12:23 AM   #698
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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.

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

Last edited by Christopher7; 9th April 2013 at 12:26 AM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 12:43 AM   #699
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 01:10 AM   #700
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
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.

Quote:
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
Quote:
You claim to be an expert
No
Quote:
yet you have done no research.
On the contrary, I have done a great deal of research.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
I am no expert
True
Quote:
but I am willing to learn.
Not true

Quote:
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.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 01:18 AM   #701
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
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.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 01:31 AM   #702
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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 -
I say his logic is flawed.

ETA: He also says that concrete doesn't melt - which is wrong.
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?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 03:02 AM   #703
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

You ask for what you know does not exist so you can deny the known facts.
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 by GlennB; 9th April 2013 at 03:03 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 04:46 AM   #704
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Thermite v concrete and brick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9oM1yCaqPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LUXFI60bLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvgbIoF24t0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EWaJCva1ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MEKpCmzAnw

Where's the molten concrete C7? None of those videos show thermite melting concrete or brick.

The problem you have is you automatically equate the temperature thermite can produce with it's ability to melt something else with a lower melting point.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 05:20 AM   #705
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.
Wow........you have moved well past the fantasy range now.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 05:42 AM   #706
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
so it takes time to heat steel, but concrete can melt instantly?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 05:48 AM   #707
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
so it takes time to heat steel, but concrete can melt instantly?
Absolutely, according to the Bumper Grimoire of Frootcake Fizzics. It's on page 47.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 05:52 AM   #708
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
so it takes time to heat steel, but concrete can melt instantly?
Remember, this is Chris "MSPaintFire" Sarns. We've already demonstrated that fire science isn't his forte.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 05:52 AM   #709
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
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.
yep I called it.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 02:44 PM   #710
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
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?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 03:04 PM   #711
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
That would be worth a Stundie if I could be bothered.
Allow me.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=79

Last edited by Dog Town; 9th April 2013 at 03:05 PM.
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 06:15 PM   #712
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
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!
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 06:21 PM   #713
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
crack, spall, sputter
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 10:46 PM   #714
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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.
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
http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm

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/po...ement_msds.pdf

Melting point of limestone
Melting Point: 1517 to 2442 °F (Decomposes)
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/25038
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 11:11 PM   #715
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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
http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm

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/po...ement_msds.pdf

Melting point of limestone
Melting Point: 1517 to 2442 °F (Decomposes)
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/25038
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?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2013, 11:31 PM   #716
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Ok Chris,

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

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mats05054.htm

Is this something I should believe ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 01:06 AM   #717
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Ok Chris,

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

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mats05054.htm

Is this something I should believe ?
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.

"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."
*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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 02:27 AM   #718
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
How many pounds of Thermite does it take to melt one pound of Concrete?
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 05:48 AM   #719
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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.

"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."
*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.
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 by Spanx; 10th April 2013 at 05:51 AM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 05:51 AM   #720
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
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."
We all know that Museums NEVER make mistakes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...s_n_94865.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/teen-...ection=1206833

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/26/ny...t-at-last.html
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.