Molten Steel

[Thunder]

The molten steel is well documented by multiple witness accounts.

ive always wondered how someone can see an orange hot mass...and tell its steel.

x-ray vision? psychic ability?

foreknowledge?

 

[Christopher7]

When we left off we had some molten steel from a melted steel beam.

"it was molten steel that was being dug up."

Richard Riggs is a Debris Removal Specialist. He is qualified to recognize melting beams and molten metal. Does he have to say "I saw girders melting" like Abolhassan Astansh did?
No!
The man is a professional and this is not the hard call you try to make it out to be.

There is not doubt in his mind that the molten metal in the pile is the remains of melted steel beams.

Your question is absurd. You are desperately trying to come up with a reason to deny what he clearly said.


There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

He said that in November 2001, and it was hearsay, he never saw liquid steel. Busted with another hearsay source.

Who are you talking about?

Richard Riggs is a debris removal specialist. He said there were melted beams and molten steel.

Abolhassan Astansh is a professor of structural engineering. He said he saw melted girders at the WTC.

To hand wave these statements is just denial.

There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

 

[bje]

Who are you talking about?

Richard Riggs is a debris removal specialist. He said there were melted beams and molten steel.

Abolhassan Astansh is a professor of structural engineering. He said he saw melted girders at the WTC.

To hand wave these statements is just denial.

There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Debunked. Stop repeating nonsense.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Who are you talking about?

Richard Riggs is a debris removal specialist. He said there were melted beams and molten steel.

Abolhassan Astansh is a professor of structural engineering. He said he saw melted girders at the WTC.

To hand wave these statements is just denial.

There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

And again you must be disappointed that some of the very professionals you appeal to have yet to come to the same conclusion as you. Despite their professional status. Of course when this is revealed you hand wave it off as a matter of professionals being afraid of people calling them names... Repetition with no consideration for context... ROCKS

 

[Christopher7]

ive always wondered how someone can see an orange hot mass...and tell its steel.

x-ray vision? psychic ability?

foreknowledge?

Maybe you are dumber than a brick but the professionals who reported molten steel are not.

When a debris removal specialist sees melted beams/girders and molten steel he can conclude that the molten metal is steel.

When someone sees steel beams dripping they can conclude it is molten steel.

When someone says there are photos and videos of the molten steel being dipped out, that person is confident that there was molten steel.

To deny all this is just denial.

Do you also deny that there was molten metal of any kind?

 

[Christopher7]

Who are you talking about?

Richard Riggs is a debris removal specialist. He said there were melted beams and molten steel.

Abolhassan Astansh is a professor of structural engineering. He said he saw melted girders at the WTC.

To hand wave these statements is just denial.

There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Debunked. Stop repeating nonsense.

Stop hand waving and state your objection.

 

[Mercutio]

Who are you talking about?

Richard Riggs is a debris removal specialist. He said there were melted beams and molten steel.

Abolhassan Astansh is a professor of structural engineering. He said he saw melted girders at the WTC.

To hand wave these statements is just denial.

There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

Oddly enough, my last post did not deny these people's words. It showed how you were using them to lie. You are still doing that.

Do they know how you are using their words? Have you had the balls to contact them? If you have, then they must have told you they disagree, or you'd be shouting their current words with a bullhorn. So either you are too cowardly to contact them, or you are knowingly misrepresenting them. Or perhaps you are both a liar and a coward.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to put me in my place? If you honestly believe they mean what you think they do, all it would take is contacting them. The burden of proof is on you, C7, and you are sitting on a whole awful lot of nothing.

 

[Bluesky]

It was a good question from Dave Rogers
The question was:

What you seem unable to understand, Chris, is that the above line of argument invalidates the thermite hypothesis. Let me try, yet again, to explain why and how.

Case 1: No molten steel. If there was no molten steel, then there is no reason to believe thermite was present. Case closed.

Case 2: Anecdotal reports of molten steel weeks after the collapse are correct. If there was molten steel weeks after the collapses, then there was a heat source in the rubble pile capable of maintaining the required temperatures. If it was capable of maintaining the required temperatures, then in the timescal in question it was capable of creating them. This heat source cannot have been thermite, as its reaction cannot be slowed sufficiently to maintain heat emission for weeks. Therefore there is no reason to believe thermite was present. Case closed.

Therefore, your own evidence, if accepted, disproves your argument. The only thing left unknown is how many times this has been pointed out to you. So let me phrase it as a question. What kept the steel hot for weeks? If you don't know, how do you know it didn't melt the steel too?

Dave

And the reply was:

No it doesn't.

You are subject shifting and chanting Gravy's mantra:

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

I can't figure it out so it just can't be.

So why are we wasting our time trying to discuss an issue when we know that the response to every question is " there was molten steel in the pile, and it was molten because of thermite and stop denying it or I will use my bold lettering" We must be as stupid as he is!

We would all be much wiser if we all stopped asking Christopher7 questions and stopped responding to him, however ridiculous he is. The demolition theory will never die, but it will be ignored by the vast majority.

I don't think we are going to change his mind... do you?

 

[Mercutio]

Maybe you are dumber than a brick but the professionals who reported molten steel are not.

When a debris removal specialist sees melted beams/girders and molten steel he can conclude that the molten metal is steel.

When someone sees steel beams dripping they can conclude it is molten steel.

When someone says there are photos and videos of the molten steel being dipped out, that person is confident that there was molten steel.

To deny all this is just denial.

Do you also deny that there was molten metal of any kind?

To "deny" this, we need someone to actively assert it first. So far, we only have secondhand hearsay accounts. Get on the horn, C7, and bring us these people's current statements! You can put this to rest in a day or so, if you only had the courage of your convictions.

Smart money says you don't.

 

[Christopher7]

And again you must be disappointed that some of the very professionals you appeal to have yet to come to the same conclusion as you.

Mark Loizeaux came to the conclusion that there was molten steel in the debris pile.

He uses reverse logic to conclude that it was not a CD but he has not changed his position on the molten steel.

BBC did not ask him about the collapse of building 7 because he would have to say it fell in a manner consistent with a CD.

Despite their professional status. Of course when this is revealed you hand wave it off as a matter of professionals being afraid of people calling them names... Repetition with no consideration for context... ROCKS

Get serious. If Mark Loizeaux were to say the collapses were CD's he would be assailed by the press and all govt. contracts would end.

 

[Christopher7]

When a debris removal specialist sees melted beams/girders and molten steel he can conclude that the molten metal is steel.

When someone sees steel beams dripping they can conclude it is molten steel.

When someone says there are photos and videos of the molten steel being dipped out, that person is confident that there was molten steel.

To deny all this is just denial.

Do you also deny that there was molten metal of any kind?

To "deny" this, we need someone to actively assert it first. So far, we only have secondhand hearsay accounts. Get on the horn, C7, and bring us these people's current statements! You can put this to rest in a day or so,

The statements by Richard Riggs and Abolhassan Astansh are NOT second hand.

Their statements stand as is and it is not necessary to call them for conformation. That is just a standard denial tactic to hand wave these unequivocal statements.

 

[beachnut]

The statements by Richard Riggs and ...

Is pure hearsay, made November 2001. Hearsay. Not evidence; go fish

 

[Christopher7]

Is pure hearsay, made November 2001. Hearsay.

Wrong. It is a statement of fact made by a professional a year or so later in a History Channel special.

 

[beachnut]

Wrong. It is a statement of fact made by a professional a year or so later in a History Channel special.

It is hearsay, he did not produce the liquid steel. He said this November 2001. He did not see it first hand; you lost this one, but feel free to produce some evidence as soon as you find it. Sorry, for bursting your delusion, but he was not a witness to melted steel, he said something in an interview, sort of like the bigfoot history stuff, and UFO history channel stuff. Just some expert spewing talk backed by nothing.


He made the statement in Nov 2001; I do not care when the History channel did the special, his statement was made in Nov 2001. Hearsay; he did not say he saw liquid steel, he did not say he has evidence of melted steel.

You got talk. You are very gullible

 

[bje]

 

[Christopher7]

He did not see it first hand;

You don't know that. He made an unequivocal statement that there were melted beams and molten metal at the WTC.
You are unable to accept this so you claim it was hearsay.

you lost this one, but feel free to produce some evidence as soon as you find it.

You refuse to accept any statements that confirm molten steel in the debris pile because you can't deal with the consequences.

You are simply in denial.

Sorry, for bursting your delusion, but he was not a witness to melted steel, he said something in an interview, sort of like the bigfoot history stuff, and UFO history channel stuff. Just some expert spewing talk backed by nothing.
Good for me, I watched the History channel and can spot hearsay!

Now you are saying he was talking through his hat. That's pure denial.

He made the statement in Nov 2001; I do not care when the History channel did the special, his statement was made in Nov 2001. Hearsay;

Source? What does it matter? Your hand waving is effectively calling him a liar or an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.

he did not say he saw liquid steel,

So what? His statement was clear and unequivocal.

he did not say he has evidence of melted steel.

He said there WERE melted beams and there WAS molten steel. You are just trying to double step around that by playing with semantics.

Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS!

What is your denial excuse for that?

 

[beachnut]

You don't know that. He made an unequivocal statement that there were melted beams and molten metal at the WTC.
You are unable to accept this so you claim it was hearsay.

You refuse to accept any statements that confirm molten steel in the debris pile because you can't deal with the consequences.

You are simply in denial.

Now you are saying he was talking through his hat. That's pure denial.

Source? What does it matter? Your hand waving is effectively calling him a liar or an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So what? His statement was clear and unequivocal.

He said there WERE melted beams and there WAS molten steel. You are just trying to double step around that by playing with semantics.

Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS!

What is your denial excuse for that?

You got hearsay, you are gullible, and you have no evidence to support the hearsay statements you found. The history channel expert was talking and did not see it, did not take pictures, and did not show the melted steel. Just like the history channel bigfoot and UFO experts, just some bs you can't prove. Do you know what proof is?

I guess you believe in UFOs and Bigfoot since the history channel has experts saying they exist. Got some evidence? No you don't





Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS - Got photos? Could he of seen Al Cladding?

Did anyone tell C7 about the thousands of Aluminum cladding that looks like columns that covered the WTC? The Aluminum would melt in fires, I can melt Aluminum in my fire at home, the coke can melts just like the Aluminum cladding that looks like columns, and these could be melted in ordinary fires because in aircraft accidents, the plane melts because it is made of Aluminum. Just a not on why some people may of heard of columns that melted, they may have been the Aluminum cladding.

See the Aluminum cladding flying all over the place?

Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS ; got a source for this hearsay?

 

[Christopher7]

You got hearsay

You keep making that stupid claim.
Did you read this?

Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS!

The history channel expert was talking and did not see it,

You pulled that out of your . . . .

Just like the history channel bigfoot and UFO experts, just some bs you can't prove.
I guess you believe in UFOs and Bigfoot since the history channel has experts saying they exist. Got some evidence? No you don't

How dare you compare a documentary on the Trade Towers to a program about Bigfoot. You are calling Richard Riggs a liar.

 

[beachnut]

You keep making that stupid claim.
Did you read this?



You pulled that out of your . . . .

How dare you compare a documentary on the Trade Towers to a program about Bigfoot. You are calling Richard Riggs a liar.

Your claim of thermite is stupid.
You have hearsay until you get proof. He was talking, no one confirms his story, he is not telling a lie, he is just talking like you with no proof. Called hearsay. You are cherry picking something someone said in November 2001. Just like bigfoot experts, and UFO experts, your history channel expert is talking off the cuff, just talking about the WTC and does not qualify his statements. Hearsay. Go call him and see if he has some cooled down liquid river of steel. Good luck.

This is your melted steel; lol

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

Stupid report as this is the photo of the melted steel Dr A A-A is looking at. LOL
Funny, he is looking at burnt steel, not melted steel; the reporter is making up the melted part! HEARSAY. !!!


You got hearsay to support your delusions. I live near Berkley, you want me to go ask the Dr about the WTC steel and shut down your delusion for you? But it is your delusion, I think you live as close as I do, get in your car and go visit the Dr. Good luck.

 

[Christopher7]

Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS - Got photos?

Denial! You ask for what you know does not exist.

You refuse to accept that he is telling the truth. You are effectively calling him a liar too.

Could he of seen Al Cladding?

No. He is quite capable of recognizing a steel girder when he sees one.
"Abolhassan Astaneh should know. He's a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11."

He said: "[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]"

Did anyone tell C7 about the thousands of Aluminum cladding that looks like columns that covered the WTC? The Aluminum would melt in fires,

The cladding does NOT look like steel girders.

You are trying to say Abolhassan Astaneh can't tell the difference between a steel girder and aluminum cladding.
You are being silly. Give it up.