The NYPD lied.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

It's probably a simple error, attributable to the fact that the placard is in a police museum, and not a science museum. Perfectly correct scientific explanations of each artifact is not even the purpose of this exhibit.

What you're doing is nothing more than quotemining a technically incorrect statement from a non-technical source, attributing evil motives where simple error is more likely, and then filling in the gaps with nonsense that doesn't even add up to a conspiracy theory.

Its freaking evidence from the crime of the century with a blatant BS lie attached to it. Who the hell makes a "simple error" like that? Who benefits from such a harmless error? The same people who told us we needed to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Pakistan, that's who.

reply to post by septic


Ok ok, so what sinister ploy is being done here septic? What horrible, terrible, disgusting thing is being done by this piece of conglomerate mess with guns caked in a cement-like structure being shown in a museum on 9/11?? You are so up in arms over a piece of history which was recovered from the rubble of the WTCs, and I am not understanding why.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Hot enough to melt concrete. Rivers of molten steel, weeks after 911. More old wives' tales distributed to support the "hot fires melting steel" story.

And exactly what could create molten rivers of steel and molten concrete, WEEKS after 9/11? Dont you know how thermite works?

Are you utterly incapable of picking up on sarcasm?

We've got people saying "oh its just a museum, its probably wrong" which Im finding a little strange to be honest, not sure how they work in the US but in the UK they tend to have factual statements beside exhibits.

What Septic has artfully done (but which you are to obtuse to pick up on), is show that at least SOME of the official narrative of 9/11 is inaccurate. People coming up with theories of what it MIGHT be, is EXACTLY the same as what the "truthers" you hold in such disdain do
(Just though I'd point that out to you lol)

reply to post by GenRadek

Ok ok, so what sinister ploy is being done here septic? What horrible, terrible, disgusting thing is being done by this piece of conglomerate mess with guns caked in a cement-like structure being shown in a museum on 9/11?? You are so up in arms over a piece of history which was recovered from the rubble of the WTCs, and I am not understanding why.

It is just one more example of the myriad blatant lies used to confuse the gullible on 911. The NYPD were obviously not concerned with truth that day, so what else can we assume they lied about?

You seem to be under the impression police corruption had no place on 911 and an outrageous lie like concrete turning to lava and then back to concrete is nothing to be concerned about.

Sleep...sleeeeep....

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

Congratulations septic. You have proven a museum placard to be inaccurate. I suggest you report this to the museum.

I appreciate your need to underplay the significance of the "inaccurate placard", so I'll make it plain.

If they'd lie about 911, what wouldn't the New York Police Department lie about? These guns are not evidence that the fires were hot enough to melt concrete, yet the claim still stands. The claims of molten steel, and and the rest should all be taken with the same grain of salt.

It's a police museum exhibit. It's not a science museum, nor was it used in any propaganda or evidence in 'the official story. It's probably just an unintentional error made by whomever assembled the exhibit, based on their own limited understanding. Even if your conjecture that guns were dumped in the concrete of WTC during construction is correct, that doesn't tie the guns to the NYPD. Furthermore Even if these were proven to be NYPD service weapons used in some crime and then dumped in the concrete, (and you're far away from proving this), that would tell us nothing about 9/11.

It's the NYPD that are exhibiting those guns in that particular museum section related to their own officers that perished on 9/11, not general 9/11. IOW, they are associating those guns to to 9/11, but also in a wrong fashion. The exhibit is also part of a crime scene, and should have been scientifically scrutinized somewhere along the line. That means forensics. I agree that it is not direct propaganda, I disagree that it is not evidence, it surely is.

Well that killed a few hours

(Just thought though, surely this is quite old, I mean those guns must have been on display a good few years and I can't imagine this si the first place this has been discussed, surely they've changed the sign by now?)

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by septic

Who the hell would look at it and think "melted concrete re solidified" and then create an exhibit in a museum to that effect? Honest people or lying propagandists?

Any person who was unaware of the near impossibility of that scenario, and more concerned with the historical significance of the recovered items than the scientific explanation for their condition. A person like a curator or exhibit designer at a museum dedicated to the history of the NYPD.

Get a load of this, "near impossibility" of that scenario? How about the absolute impossibility the concrete melted? It is pretty important evidence to leave with a museum curator with bad eyesight, doncha think?

reply to post by ANOK


The only way you could not believe me, is if you never did it in high school science...
Somewhat worrying.

Pretty much anyone who has ever read the anarchist cookbook will have made it, its the easiest thing in there.
Starting the reaction is difficult, very difficult to end once it has started (Melted through a paving slab when I did it and there wasn't all that much of it...)
Given that the entire building was wrapped around an ancient metal frame I'm somewhat inclined to believe that it is possible

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Well that killed a few hours

(surely they've changed the sign by now?)

In a sane world where kerosene doesn't melt steel and concrete, one would certainly hope.

Well from an initial look at the pics I can barely see the outline of a gun let alone if it is "Police issue". The only way they would be able to know if it was "their" weapons would be from serial numbers. And I don't think anybody's gonna find any serial numbers on those weapons. Anywho, There is no way the concrete "melted" around the guns because as stated before the guns would melt far sooner than concrete would, let alone there being no source hot enough to even melt concrete.

Originally posted by septic
It is pretty important evidence to leave with a museum curator with bad eyesight, doncha think?

No. I don't think it's very important at all. In fact, it's totally insignificant. It tells us nothing about the crime, the collapses, or anything else relevant to 9/11.

But even if it is somehow important, keeping it in a museum is a pretty good way to preserve evidence, so there's really no reason for anybody to object to its' being in the museum.

So, let me get this straight: These are pieces of evidence from the crime of the century, deemed important enough to be in a museum. An NYPD museum. I think one of the largest police departments in the world has a couple of forensic scientists around somewhere, and they would have maybe at least taken a glance at these items once or twice.

Then they make a display for it, and say, "What the heck, let's just make up whatever here." That's the explanation here? Come on.

Everyone also seems to be just assuming that a small kerosene fire, followed by amazing "pancaking" of the whole building, somehow produced prodigious amounts of heat. I went through NY harbor on a boat on Oct 13th of that year. There were Navy, Coast Guard, cop boats, etc. everywhere, and the site was still smoking big time. Over a month later. Now, WHERE was all this heat supposed to have come from? I don't seem to recall any other plane crashes burning for months on end. Last time I burned some kerosene it didn't last for months, either. And in tons of other controlled demolitions all over the world, never were huge amounts of heat produced by the collapse. So, um, what kept these fires burning so long?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Well that killed a few hours

(surely they've changed the sign by now?)

In a sane world where kerosene doesn't melt steel and concrete, one would certainly hope.

But who exactly says such things that kerosene melted steel and concrete on 9/11?

I'll give you a hint. They claim to be looking for the truth, and telling the truth, but in reality, they are far from the truth. Also, they have the word "truth" in their movement's name. Give up?

reply to post by samkent


baked alaska is NOT baked in an oven

buy a cookbook

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Well that killed a few hours

(surely they've changed the sign by now?)

In a sane world where kerosene doesn't melt steel and concrete, one would certainly hope.

But who exactly says such things that kerosene melted steel and concrete on 9/11?

I'll give you a hint. They claim to be looking for the truth, and telling the truth, but in reality, they are far from the truth. Also, they have the word "truth" in their movement's name. Give up?

edit on 12/19/2011 by GenRadek because: spell

What exactly is your point? Are you saying the office furniture is what caused the concrete in WTC6 to melt, or are you saying the claims of kerosene running down elevator shafts and blowing out the elevator doors aren't factual? What do you think caused the steel of the towers to collapse on themselves if it wasn't the kerosene?

Originally posted by GenRadek
the "official story" (what ever THAT is)

Official in this context means pertaining to a public body, that body being government. It can be argued that if the label for this exhibit was composed by a government employee the claims made on that label are a part of the official story. Claims made by others are not part of the official story unless these claims have been endorsed by some branch of government.

wow the OS'ers really failed on this one! how embarassing.

total fail, as a neutral party to most of the 9/11 issues; i can safely say the guys on the first few pages trying to deflect the questions and flat out ignore the evidence they demanded have proven themselves to be morons to the highest degree. way to go!

reply to post by hooper


Who starred this post? If this isn't a person in denial of fact i'm not sure what is.

All I gotta say is

reply to post by septic


(whacko debunker mode on)

naaah, you got it all wrong. nobody saw anything, those towers didn't explode they merely
"collapsed", us gvt neither knew nor saw anything and they "knew" there were no bombs
in those buildings, so there's that. and you, sir, are helping sie terrorists with your conspiracies.
and they hate us for our freedumbs!

(whacko debunker mode off)

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by hooper

 

No, that is whats known as a possibility.
You, claiming it must all be lies is an opinion.

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)

You are still missing the point. If someone said the concrete was lava then you would not see the gun. The melting point for the gun is lower than that of concrete. So, if someone said the concrete melted but the gun embedded in it did not then it is fact that the person is lying who said the heat that melted the concrete did not melt the gun too.