It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On October 20, 2009, Kerik's bail was revoked after he allegedly disclosed information which was under seal.[47] He was remanded to the Westchester County Department of Corrections jail in Valhalla, New York, which has a section reserved for federal prisoners.[5] Kerik was referred to as "a toxic combination of self-minded focus and arrogance" by Judge Stephen Robinson on October 20, 2009.[48]
On November 5, 2009, Kerik pled guilty to tax fraud and lying to White House officials.[6] The prosecution and defense recommended that Judge Robinson sentence Mr. Kerik, who faced up to 30 years in prison on the most serious charge, to 27–33 months. The judge, who was not bound by the recommendation, set sentencing for February 18. On that date, Kerik was sentenced to 48 months in prison;[49] he was also ordered to pay restitution of nearly $188,000.[50]
Kerik is currently serving his sentence at a minimum security prison camp located at the Federal Correctional Institution, Cumberland in Maryland and is scheduled for release on October 15, 2013.[51]
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.
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.
Steel melts at between 1452-1540 C. but the guns didn't melt.
Right here is simple proof the police lied. Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction. If the weapons are police service firearms, then the evidence is pretty strong the police were responsible for that too.
The police lied.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
Steel melts at between 1452-1540 C. but the guns didn't melt.
Right here is simple proof the police lied. Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction. If the weapons are police service firearms, then the evidence is pretty strong the police were responsible for that too.
The police lied.
Or you. I am betting you.
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.
Originally posted by septic
Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction.
A quick evaluation of the images shows the concrete aggregate is still visible, which proves it did not turn to "lava".
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Originally posted by septic
Their guns encased in concrete are evidence someone dumped a couple firearms in the wet concrete of the WTC at the time of construction.
Yeah right. The WTC opened in 1973. And the initial phases of construction started in 1966, and that would be about the time the concrete was poured. So are those weapons from police officers in 1966-68?
So back in the late 60's, they were preparing for 9/11.
Now come on man, truthers have it bad enough without this kind of cheese.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MaxSteiner
You mean the part where he speculates that they were throwing handguns into the concrete in the 60's isn't an opinion?
Originally posted by samkent
Ever heard of baked Alaska? It's ice cream baked in an oven.
Besides a gun encased in some unknown hard substance that look similar to concrete I would call it concreted.
You are trying to split hairs to shore up your conspiracy theory.
But at least you admit to planes hitting the towers with that nice picture.
There's hope for you seeing the light.
Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by hooper
edit ===> Still it should be easy enough to determine the age of the gun from sight shouldn't it?
edit on 19-12-2011 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)
It is a conclusion based on the evidence.
Science shows that had the concrete turned to "lava", it would have needed to reach temperatures higher than that needed to melt the steel of the hand guns.
Do you dispute the evidence?
Originally posted by DISINFORMANT
But what are the odds that in the process of cleaning up what must have been countless tons of rubble both these firearms would be found and not tossed in a dump truck like so many other chunks of concrete..?edit on 12/19/2011 by DISINFORMANT because: (no reason given)