this supports the CD of thousands of degrees. (whatever that is supposed to mean)

Really?

...here are better pictures.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Molten_Material_Images

Was any testing ever done to verify that claim, or was it just someone's guess? It looks like it could just be crushed concrete and dust that's re-accreted, possibly by getting soaked with water or maybe by being sintered at high temperatures (but less than the melting point), or both. We wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions without ruling those out, would we?

...doesn't recombine with water but sintering could explain what these photos show, especially the pic that seems to show concrete having 'sintered' around the slide of a 9mm pistol - the melting point of sand is higher than steel and sintering takes place at temperatures just below a substance's melting point - at which point the gun melted away. So we're talking about something 2-3,000 degrees F.

Crushed concrete doesn't react with water to make new concrete, but it can become loosely stuck together when soaked and dried, and there isn't any way to tell from that one photo how solid that stuff is. Also, in addition to concrete, there should be a lot of drywall gypsum in the dust, which can make a chalk-like accretion. But gypsum also has much lower melting point than sand -- only 262-325 ° F -- so melted and/or sintered gypsum should be expected if it was exposed to fire. The point is, you are speculating about extreme temperatures without any real evidence of melting and without ruling out mundane explanations.

so they must be fairly solid. Don't know how you can plausibly contend they might be loosely packed togeter.

As to Gypsum, it's nearly 80% calcium sulphate which has a melting point of over 1400 celcius so your point is specious. You can't sinter something based upon only 20% material melting at low temps.

The big piece of concrete has the appearance of igneous rock. Everthing in these pics speaks to high temps.

... because you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

> The pieces were mounted..... so they must be fairly solid.

The pieces that are mounted are the alleged gun parts, which have a relatively thin coating of some substance that is completely unidentifiable in a photo. The "big piece of concrete (which) has the appearance of igneous rock" is not mounted, it's just sitting there, and again you can't tell from a photo what it is really made of, or how hard it is. It might not even be concrete. But if it is concrete, as I said, it appears to have been crushed and then re-accreted. That doesn't rule out that it was melted back together, but you haven't yet ruled out other possible explanations for what we see in that photo.

> As to Gypsum, it's nearly 80% calcium sulphate which has a melting point of over 1400 celcius so your point is specious. You can't sinter something based upon only 20% material melting at low temps.

Sintering happens at all temperatures, actually -- it just happens faster at higher temperatures -- so my point about sintering is certainly not specious, regardless of the presumed composition. Neither is my point about gypsum's melting point, if your "igneous rock" is only loosely bound together.

> Everthing in these pics speaks to high temps.

Well, there are certainly "high temps" involved in the "official story," too, but you're accepting the claim that the photo shows concrete that was melted and flowed like lava around steel guns. In a previous post, you said "the melting point of sand is higher than steel." So, your interpretation of the photo needs to include an explanation for why the concrete was melted but the guns only look a little bent.

....the guns (judging visually and by the display caption) are gone.

I don't see that in the photo or the caption. And how would you explain that, anyway? What exactly are you claiming we're seeing?

....to a higher resolution of one of the items - concrete hardened around the slide & barrel of a 9mm.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/DSC_7413.html

Because of the angles and profiles, one can determine that the gun could not have been removed from this, for lack of a better word, hardened slag. And the slide/barrel are no longer there. I don't know of another method to have achieved removal of the slide/barrel other than it melting away. High temps.

... molten concrete flowed around the gun, cooled enough to harden in the shape of the gun, but then the gun melted and... disappeared?

Well, this is the Creative Speculation board, but for starters, please explain to me how one can determine that "the slide/barrel are no longer there."

....do you see the guns parts in those pieces? I can't. Where the bottom of the gun barrel would be, there's nothing. Where the grip would begin (one can't just detach the grip from the barrel on a 9mm) there's nothing. Do you see anything of the gun left in there?

I have no idea what the caption means by "gun-casing remains" (which could have taken a beating in the collapse, whatever they are), but that looks like a pistol grip sticking out of your "igneous rock." Why didn't it melt?

Anyway, I think it's safe to say you're inferring more than this one photo will decently allow. This photo has been floating around the web for a couple of years now, but I can't find any followup to determine what that stuff really is. Until there is, it ain't no "smoking gun."

...is enclosed. So if it melted, there's no where for it to flow to, is there?

As to the other photos, the guns have melted away. What's the temperature needed to melt steel?

... and that certainly qualifies, but what I would expect to happen if molten concrete flowed like lava around steel guns would be unrecognizable lumps of steel, not a lump that's still shaped like a gun in one case, and in the other two cases, concrete cooled in the shape of the guns before the steel melted and disappeared.

Again, if there's just the one photo, we're not going to resolve anything at all. And again, it seems strange that there hasn't been any follow-up from "truthers" if they think the photo is important evidence.

.....at zero degrees Celsius, I can drip molten candle wax onto an ice cube and the ice cube will retain its shape pretty well and the wax will harden. As the temperature rises above zero, my ice cube disappears but the wax will retain its form. I would say the concrete heated somewhere else, cooled on the guns which were later themselves exposed to very high heat. The concrete has excreted its 'meltable' parts such as sand and really can't change its form anymore (think of oxidizing your cheese melt) so it retains the form of the guns.

Still, I wish we could get someone to test these objects.

....very solid, they wouldn't have survived intact in the rubble.

"The other reasons are human. For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived.""

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html

or is the only answer CD? And how does CD explain it?