The NYPD lied.

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.

Here is a test for you highly intelligent "debunkers," take a container out and buy some super high octain racing fuel (jet fuel). (make sure you have video or it didn't happen) Try to use the fuel in a test to melt the steel or concrete. It won't happen because the fuel will not burn hot enough in open atmospheric conditions.

reply to post by Turkenstein

Here is a test for you highly intelligent "debunkers," take a container out and buy some super high octain racing fuel (jet fuel). (make sure you have video or it didn't happen) Try to use the fuel in a test to melt the steel or concrete. It won't happen because the fuel will not burn hot enough in open atmospheric conditions.

You're kidding, right? And exactly what would this prove relative to description on a placard at a memorial? Nobody said jet fuel melted the concrete in the area of building #6. Except maybe you.

Unless I'm very much mistaken there is nothing whatsoever to substantiate the claimed provenance of these guns. I'm intrigued by the suggestion they might have come from the US Customs House in WTC6, because WTC6 didn't suffer any impacts or have a massive concrete 'liquidising' fire.
This leaves the original claim that they are police officers' guns : - as far as I can see there are only two means by which that could be determined, serial numbers or association with bodies. The numbers are unknown ( as indeed are the make and model) and the bodies would have been destroyed by the fire.
We only have the museum's word for it that they are guns at all. The story that comes with them is ridiculous - does nobody in that museum know concrete doesn't melt ? i would like to know more about the source of that description, because it's the first time I've heard of the US government scientifically analysing any of the debris in such detail at all. What attracted someone's attention to some lumps of concrete? Why these out of all the lumps of concrete ?
Perhaps the other exhibits in this museum would repay some critical inspection.

Just want to point out before i state what I am going to state that I am a beleiver in a cover up on 9/11 and think there is far far more to it than we are being or for that matter will ever be told.

Having said that, Anyone familiar with scotland and their 'fads', will be aware of a craze for deep frying chocolate bars(sad but true) now anyone that has tried one of these artery clogging delights will know they keep their form whilst being coated in lovely fat filled batter. The same COULD have happened with these guns IF there were at any point molten rock/aggregate/sand present. A molten material close to its point of solidifying CAN actually itself create a protective layer around a cooler object, especially if said object is also soaking wet when the molten material touches it.

In short, there are FAR too many variables in this for it to sway opinions either way on the 9/11 saga, Truthers will see the 'impossibility' of something with a higher melting point than steel being able to touch stell without liquifying it and 'osers' will only see the possibility of effectively reset gypsum/concrete/whatever.

reply to post by Bigfoot73

Unless I'm very much mistaken there is nothing whatsoever to substantiate the claimed provenance of these guns.

Unless I'm mistaken no one is claiming a specific provenance for the weapons. They were found at Ground Zero in the vicinity of building 6 where US Customs had an arsenal. That is all that is being suggested.

I'm intrigued by the suggestion they might have come from the US Customs House in WTC6, because WTC6 didn't suffer any impacts or have a massive concrete 'liquidising' fire.

Actually the towers fell on bldg. 6 and there were fires everywhere.

This leaves the original claim that they are police officers' guns : - as far as I can see there are only two means by which that could be determined, serial numbers or association with bodies. The numbers are unknown ( as indeed are the make and model) and the bodies would have been destroyed by the fire.

Who's claim?

We only have the museum's word for it that they are guns at all. The story that comes with them is ridiculous - does nobody in that museum know concrete doesn't melt ?

Nope, your criticism is ridiculous. The placard at the memorial is intended to explain to the general public what they are looking at - it is not a scientific treatise on the origins.

i would like to know more about the source of that description, because it's the first time I've heard of the US government scientifically analysing any of the debris in such detail at all.

Well, you still haven't heard it. Unless you're listening to those voices again.

What attracted someone's attention to some lumps of concrete? Why these out of all the lumps of concrete ?

Why?

Perhaps the other exhibits in this museum would repay some critical inspection.

Be my guest. You know where they're at, you know who runs the memorial and museum, there's even contact information on the website. Have fun.

reply to post by hooper


Pictures of the concretions and labels at the museum

www.archive.org...

www.archive.org...

www.archive.org...

Someone asked whether can prove if guns belonged to NYPD

Here is site dedicated to gun (appears to be S&W .38 Model 60) recovered from scene - was traced back to
NYPD officer Walter Weever. Appears to be either off duty gun or backup piece as NYPD uses 9 mm
semi auto as standard weapons.

www.guns.com...

www.archive.org...

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

Are you implying there weren't aircraft impacts to WTC 1 and 2?

In the 2nd picture. It looks as though the one on the right has a square shaped barrell. Which means semi-automatic handgun. No cop had a semi-auto on the job in the 60's or 70's. They carried S& W 38 cal revolvers.

And you really don't have to be a scientist to understand that concrete does not melt. 911 was a lie. We know that. I allways refer folks to the Pentagon. If you can look at that scenario, & say it was a plane, you need more help than any one can give you.

If you look at the Pentagon and say, That's just not right....... Then what the hell makes you think all the rest of that day was real terrorist's? No plane hit the building, no terrorist's took down the towers. Simply put it was a false flag operation that seems to have worked really really well.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
Simply put it was a false flag operation that seems to have worked really really well.

I disagree!

For it to have worked really really well it would have to have gone more or less as planned.
First event, fireball and instant detonation of tower. Within seconds a debris pile and a billowing cloud of dust. Imagine the shock factor. Photographers gather. Second event. Again instant detonation, debris pile, dust cloud. 30,000 dead. Barely a scrap of photographic or video evidence. Congress also hit. Martial Law. Massive recruiting tool or draft. Policeman of the World. No questions, people such as ourselves imprisoned or disappeared. Effortless transition to cashless society. Not a chance in hell of posing questions such as "How did these guns become encrusted and what are they encrusted with?"

That would have been working really really well.

This was the big one and they fluffed it.

reply to post by Kester


Are you totally sure about that?

I don't even think it was an inside job.

Osama said he would destroy the US in the same way the USSR was destroyed when it occupied Afghanistan.

The US is now under permanent martial law, its military spread so thin that it needs help to topple a country like Libya and the West is on the brink of financial meltdown, I'd say it all went according to plan...

Originally posted by Illustronic

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

Are you implying there weren't aircraft impacts to WTC 1 and 2?

Not implying; stating as fact.

Planes can't do that in the real world. No planes at Shanksville, no planes at the Pentagon, no planes at the WTC. It was wag the dog...a video version of the War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

reply to post by MaxSteiner


I think it could have been a whole lot worse.
The financial meltdown could be seen as an opportunity to go over to local exchange systems.
All the disturbances we're facing can be seen as opportunities.
The only thing I'm totally sure about is we're all going to die. And I'm not totally sure I'm totally sure about that.

Originally posted by psyop911
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)

heh...now where have I heard this before?

You are forgetting pressure. Pressure makes relative temperatures different than actual temperatures, and every substance reacts to pressures differently.

If you heat coal, you get fire. If you heat pressurized coal, you get a diamond.

Don't show me a picture of a melted chunk of concrete which was found under the rubble of the largest buildings to ever come down, and tell me that you know exactly what every piece of rubble is going to look like.

I don't think anyone is lying. I just think some people are just sadly misled.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Illustronic

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

Are you implying there weren't aircraft impacts to WTC 1 and 2?

Not implying; stating as fact.

Planes can't do that in the real world. No planes at Shanksville, no planes at the Pentagon, no planes at the WTC. It was wag the dog...a video version of the War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

Don't tell ME that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. I was on the George Washington Bridge that morning.

reply to post by Furbs

Don't tell ME that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. I was on the George Washington Bridge that morning.

Don't tell ME aluminum wings can slice structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter. Regardless what you think you saw, impossible is impossible, and if you think you saw a plane cut through a building like it wasn't there, you saw the same thing seen by all; a movie.

reply to post by Kester


Thats true I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment!
(I just sometimes fear that its only those who have already have an established power base who can anticipate and profit from these sorts of opportunities).

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Furbs

 

Don't tell ME that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. I was on the George Washington Bridge that morning.

Don't tell ME aluminum wings can slice structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter. Regardless what you think you saw, impossible is impossible, and if you think you saw a plane cut through a building like it wasn't there, you saw the same thing seen by all; a movie.

And yet.. it happened, because I saw a plane... as did everyone else on the bridge that I spoke to that day. So, between the hundreds of people I have talked to that were there.. and the ranters on the internet that weren't.. I'll totally trust what I experienced.. considering I know what a commercial aircraft looks like.

reply to post by septic


I think planes were part of the original plan then removed from the plan as being too risky. It was the very unconvincing results I got when I started looking for still photographs of the alleged second plane that alerted me to the 'Truth Movement' being a major part of the cover-up. In the original plan the planes were the detonators. I see the planes/no planes discussion as being unimportant, like discussing what kind of detonator was in the artillery shell that just wiped out your street. Thats why I almost never discuss the plane issue. It's part in a complete investigation but by no means essential. For a while I thought it may just have been possible that there were planes but we were only shown faked footage. That would have caused some confusion!

No planes? Jesus, this is about a gun and not the no plane theory. Seriously though, anyone who would propose no planes is

a. joking
b. ignorant to facts
c. does not have an IQ to understand said basic facts
d. Trolling

No one lied. You are trying to tie someone who lied to a major event in history. This would be like saying Maddoff is responsible for the housing crisis since he was an investor and people lost money.

So is it a b c or d?