Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Melted Concrete from the WTC 6

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 10:12 PM
Original message
Melted Concrete from the WTC 6
At the "9.11 Remembered" New York City Police Museum exhibit there is this interesting display of guns encased in concrete.





The label in the case above says:

"Gun Encased in Concrete and Gun-Casing Remains
The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."


There are more close ups at this other site but(warning)the pictures are large.
http://governmentterror.com/#
(scroll down to "World Trade Center 'Meteorites'" and click)

According to one source the melting point of concrete varies between 1800-2500 degrees C. (3272-4532 degrees F.)
http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm

The next set of pictures on the http://governmentterror.com/# site is also interesting. Here is a close up of a "meteorite." Paper bits are readable but seem to be embedded in the mass.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. at what temperature does concrete melt?
several thousand degrees
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. several thousand degrees
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 10:33 PM by seemslikeadream
It really decomposes rather than melting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. my theory, which is only mine, only mine, is:
that there was nuke. Why wouldn't they tell us if UBL had a nuke in there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well if he did they might have to explain where he got it from
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 10:45 PM by seemslikeadream
AMERICAN JUDAS - DICK CHENEY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. No unexploded uranium = no nuke....
a nuke is a very inefficient explosion, with only a small portion of the uranium "fuel" being converted into the explosive energy. The rest of the uranium is scattered all over hells half acres.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. underground?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Very suspicious, indeed. That's why it's publicly displayed, of course.
:eyes:

Because, if it was secretive and conspiratorial, of course, the first thing "they" would do is preserve the evidence of the conspiracy, create public displays about it, invite the general public to come and look at it, and publish it all over the Internet, of course.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Exactly. "They" are omniscient, omnipresent and infallible when trying
to "debunk" a tiny piece of evidence left in plain sight, yet far more incompetent than 19 hijackers with box cutters when attempting to debunk their ability to pull off 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. 1st of all
despite what the caption reads I SERIOUSLY doubt the concrete melted. More likley is a mixture of concrete and gypsum dust and the fire baked the gun into it.

2nd the "meteorites" were most likley formed not by fire by by intense pressure generated during the collapse. They look very much like a metamorphic rock known as "plumb pudding". The difference is these were formed in a matter of seconds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. That is very weird.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. As if baked in a kiln
'cuz thats pretty much what it was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. What kiln temperature must be reached to make concete flow like lava? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. What makes you think
the "concrete flowed like lava"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. How is it you know better than the people who own the evidence
on display? Some of these pieces seem to have air bubbles on their surfaces like some specimens of lava.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Simple conjecture
It is highly implausable that the temperatures in the pile was hot enought to "melt" concrete into lava, otherwise it would have been obvious to everyone on the site. Such temperatures would have made ANY type of work at GZ impossible without proximity suits.

It was, however, certainly hot enough to act like a kiln in regards to the dust in the pile.

Baked not melted. They got it wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The people who made this display were the people who worked
at the site. They made thermal imagery maps of Ground Zero so they could work the area. So with "simple conjecture" you nullify this evidence. You must know that sounds pretty arrogant. Perhaps you could answer the question above concerning temperatures that you think it took to form these specimens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Point?

The people who made this display were the people who worked at the site

They made thermal imagery maps of Ground Zero so they could work the area.


And?

You really think there was concrete lava at ground zero?

Concrete is a very complicated mixture of different metal oxides,
hydroxides, and silicates (many of which form extensive,
interpenetrating networks), mixed with a filler material such as
gravel or rock. It does not maintain its chemical identity when
heated. If concrete is heated to a high enough temperature, the
hydroxides decompose to form oxides and water; the water is quickly
lost as the vapor. The remaining metal oxides are quite refractory;
they remain solid at very high temperatures. The rock components of
concrete will decompose or melt at differing temperatures depending
on their mineral composition.

So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose
rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it
cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete..


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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. My point? You are the one who seemed to imply that workers
at Ground Zero didn't know about high temperatures at the site. You said, "It is highly implausible that the temperatures in the pile was hot enough to "melt" concrete into lava, otherwise it would have been obvious to everyone on the site...." I said they mapped thermal hot spots at Ground Zero so workers would know where the hot spots were. I'm sorry if this point was hard to understand.

I checked out your link. You quoted the second reply to a question from a student. The first reply to the question from your link, which you didn't choose to emphasize, was this:

Alex,

Concrete does not melt, at least not in the way you may be
thinking. Concrete is composed largely of gravel an sand,
with Portland cement that holds the sand and gravel together
into a solid mass. 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. After
all, gravel and sand are just rock, as is molten lava.
The
Portland cement in concrete, is a mixture of various hydrates
and silicates of calcium, aluminum and other elements. It too
is a "rocky" material that will not melt at any practical
temperature, either.

Regards,

Robert Wilson


As to your question do I think "there was concrete lava at ground zero?"

Who cares what I think? The New York City Police Department have a 9.11 Remembered Museum exhibit that states that concrete melted, flowed and encased guns at 6 WTC. You believe that these people are simply wrong. That is your right. However, you have yet to inform me with what you believe to be the facts concerning temperatures that "baked" the concrete onto the guns.

This exhibit presented evidence of high temperatures occuring during/after the destruction at the World Trade Center. That is why I posted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-04-08 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Last Post on this
Edited on Wed Jun-04-08 07:18 AM by vincent_vega_lives
as it is getting rather pointless.

You are the one who seemed to imply that workers Posted by tetedur at Ground Zero didn't know about high temperatures at the site.


Hardly. But then I guess "high" temperatures is a relative term. I said it was unlikely the temperatures were high enough to turn concrete into lava.

I said they mapped thermal hot spots at Ground Zero so workers would know where the hot spots were. I'm sorry if this point was hard to understand.


I'm sure they did. The question is were the hot spots hot enough to turn concrete into lava?

I read it. Again it is a question of temperature.

A temperature of several thousand degrees is needed, and the result will be much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos. After all, gravel and sand are just rock, as is molten lava.


Were the hot spots hot enough to cause solid concrete to flow like lava and encase said guns. I am saying that most likely what encased the guns was dust that comprised of concrete, gypsum and a multitude of other debris from the building that fused together under the high temperatures in the kiln like environment of the pile.

It is simply my opinion, no reason to take it as a personal attack. Here are the mapped hot spots.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.ht...

Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.


Estimates in the pile range upwards to 1400 F. Far short of the temps needed to turn concrete into lava.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I don't. But how did the concrete encase the guns otherwise? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSCFAN Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Guns in Concrete
It's New York. Most likely some criminals tossed a gun in during the pour to get rid of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. You could have a point there...
I hadn't thought of that angle yet...

Welcome to DU...

Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-04-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. A gun? Three are on display. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 17th 2020, 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC