Molten Concrete Flowed Like Lava Under Ground Zero

Molten Concrete Flowed Like Lava Under Ground Zero

These photos are from a current New York Police Museum display of recovered firearms that had been stored by the US Customs House inside WTC6, prior to and during 9/11.

As the actual display sign indicates, the entire hand gun on the left, and two pistol barrels on the right are completely embedded in a mass of solidified concrete, melted by the intense fire and liquefied so that it flowed “like lava”.

What they have neglected to consider is Jet fuel and office contents can produce a maximum burn temperature of 1,800 degrees, over 1,000 degrees cooler than the sustained 3,000+ degree burn temperatures required to liquefy construction grade concrete.

Therefore, this becomes one more of the countless items of absolute evidence that the fires were far hotter, and burned far longer than jet fuel could possibly produce. Once again, the laws of physics must be suspended for the official government cover-up story to be believed.

View Enlarged Image:

molten_concrete_03.jpg127.02 KB
molten_concrete_01.jpg57.78 KB


Again, shouldn't this be front page news!? Physical evidence showing the official story is bogus yet again but gets relegated here. Why?

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

I posted a reference at

I posted a reference to this blog post at
Dr. Greening was good enough to reply. See his comments here:

Greening is a false critic of NIST

>>Dr. Greening was good enough to reply.

FYI for readers, this is the Dr. Greening who is a co-author with Bazant to refute demolition, even as he is superficially critical of NIST to appear "neutral".

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008), in press.
Refutation of controlled demolition theory. Discusses matching of video record with progressive collapse equations, "free-fall" claims, concrete crushing (and how much TNT equivalent would be needed to do that crushing), air pressure & ejection of air, spread of dust cloud.

Greening can often be found on JREF forums to try to refute demolition claims so I'm not sure what's so "good enough" in terms of his reply.

Nice Catch

If it walks like a debunker, and quacks like a debunker... shoot it!

It's great to see that these clever professional debunkers are not fooling the Truth movement any longer.

What do you mean "superficially" critical??

Greening doesn't lean towards the CD hypothesis of WTC 1 & 2. Should he lie about his convictions, so as not to have people like you call him a "debunker"?

Personally, I'm not at all convinced by the Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson paper, but don't see it as particularly awful, either, compared to other attempts. IMO, the dirty secret of all of the collapse papers is that they can't come anywhere near the complexity needed, the amount of complexity needed is unknown, none has been tested, and perhaps none can be tested in the forseeable future (perhaps not even in principle, short of building lots of WTC towers and flying planes into them). I will guess that the most reasonable guess we can make analytically would draw from the literature on avalanche dynamics, and it's interesting to note that the only person to have done so, Charles M. Beck, found the NIST analyses dubious (including WTC 1 & 2). See

As you know, Greening has criticized Professor Jones' claims about microspheres, and suggested ways to determine whether they are from the fly ash component of the concrete floors, or not. Were those criticisms and suggestions "superficial", or were they serious, scientific criticisms and suggestions? Try not to be superficial in your answer, OK? Nobody cares your suspicions about hidden agendas on Greening's part, at the expense of rational answers - at least, not if they're scientifically serious.

Finally, Greening was kicked out of JREF some months ago, where he posted as Apollo20. He was the target of some rather vicious "debunkers", who were about as rational as some CD true believers that I can think of.

Greening was also published in the Journal for 911 Studies


Should his article be stricken from the journal, as Victronix has determined that he is "superficially critical"?

Do tell.

The meteorite

There is this much bigger chunk of metal and concrete named "meteorite":

Debunkers have said it's not molten concrete, referring to paper in the chunk. (Scroll down the page.) I'm not sure, but to me it looks like the paper is *on* the "meteorite", as if it had landed on it after it had cooled down somewhat.

Hey, let's go to the bottom of this, ok?

NYC Police have verified this artifact

The NYPD have put these artifacts on display in their museum.

It would be a logical assumption that these chunks of solidified construction concrete encasing guns have been examined by many of the department's personnel, including forensic experts.

And yet, the exhibit with the description "fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path" still stands.

I would be amazed by the lack of concern about the obvious and inescapable implications, except I have come to realize that the world simply doesn't give a damn about who attacked us on 9/11.

It makes me sick.

Molten concrete

and carbonized paper.

"while this was born of intense heat...This formation is really 4 stories of the WTC,
compressed, compacted, (inaudible) exposed to temperatures as high as the inner earth.
"On it you can see the type face of a printer paper which was exposed to so much heat it

Would it be too much...

... for some scientist members of the movement to actually visit the museum, talk to the curators (?), try to get permission to analyze samples, etc?

Color Corrected Hi-Res Images Available