• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel

AndrewBurley said:
Could that not then be applied to any witness testimony?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Eyewitness testimony alone is not reliable. What is needed is corroboration. Can you SHOW me the molten and resolidified steel he's talking about? Can it be analyzed to determine whether it really is steel or not?

Also, and more importantly, what conclusions do you think you can draw from the existence of molten steel?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Absolutely. Eyewitness testimony alone is not reliable. What is needed is corroboration. Can you SHOW me the molten and resolidified steel he's talking about? Can it be analyzed to determine whether it really is steel or not?

Also, and more importantly, what conclusions do you think you can draw from the existence of molten steel?
Click to expand...

When debunkers bring up the obligatory firfighters quotes which suggest that wtc 7 was leaning, for example, am I entited to reject that without seeing the corroborating evidence? Surely their testimony alone is not reliable.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Oystein said:
AndrewBurley said:
Oystein said:
Marokkaan said:
What about this? Is he lying?:D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI
Click to expand...
No. Mistaken.
Question: Since "molten steel" is a liquid, where would you expect to find it in a pile of jumbled solid debris? After you have found the answer, please find out when Riggs said these words. After you have found the answer, please consider what the debris pile looked like at the time, and try to reconcile that with the first answer.

Question: How do these debris removers "dig out" molten steel?
If you ponder that question for a minute, you'll find that something is not quite right in Riggs' statement.
Click to expand...
He may have meant previously molten steel. That is, steel that had formed a liquid pool but then cooled and solidified again.
Click to expand...
So you think it's possible that what this eye witness says there is not precisely, accurately true? :eek:

Hm - what a novel concept! :D
Click to expand...
So you think he was lying?
Click to expand...

Quoted full context from OP onwards.

Going round and round in circles, those Truthers. :(
 
AndrewBurley said:
When debunkers bring up the obligatory firfighters quotes which suggest that wtc 7 was leaning, for example, am I entited to reject that without seeing the corroborating evidence? Surely their testimony alone is not reliable.
Click to expand...

Not reject, be skeptical about. However since they were proved to be right and the building did collapse then we have little reason to think they were mistaken.
 
AndrewBurley said:
When debunkers bring up the obligatory firfighters quotes which suggest that wtc 7 was leaning, for example, am I entited to reject that without seeing the corroborating evidence? Surely their testimony alone is not reliable.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why they put a transit on the building to measure the leaning. It looks like you haven't researched this very much.

eta - Looks like the firehouse magazine link is dead.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html - search for the term 'transit'
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
And what was the result? How much was the building leaning and where can I see this recorded?
Click to expand...

How can you understand a transit and its use if you can't even grasp the concept of 'corroboration'?

Slow down - one thing at a time.

Do you now understand why eyewitness testimony is coupled with corroboration to form a conclusion?
 
NoahFence said:
How can you understand a transit and its use if you can't even grasp the concept of 'corroboration'?

Slow down - one thing at a time.

Do you now understand why eyewitness testimony is coupled with corroboration to form a conclusion?
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that. Where is the corroboration that wtc 7 was leaning?
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
And what was the result? How much was the building leaning and where can I see this recorded?
Click to expand...

Not everything that exists is on the internet for your personal inspection. The real world doesn't give a **** whether conspiracy kooks see this information or not, as they are irrelevant.

Please try to stay on topic and explain what implement would be used to remove "molten steel" from a pile of debris.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Firehouse Magazine, Apr. 2002, p. 97, quote of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden.
Click to expand...

That is just another witness. Other people claimed to see molten steel which would corroborate our debris specialist. Have you any actual evidence, other than quotes, that wtc7 was leaning?
 
carlitos said:
Not everything that exists is on the internet for your personal inspection. The real world doesn't give a **** whether conspiracy kooks see this information or not, as they are irrelevant.

Please try to stay on topic and explain what implement would be used to remove "molten steel" from a pile of debris.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted.
 
AndrewBurley said:
That is just another witness. Other people claimed to see molten steel which would corroborate our debris specialist. Have you any actual evidence, other than quotes, that wtc7 was leaning?
Click to expand...

This was not "just another witness". This was one of the people who had taken the measurement with the transit. Read the original account.
 
AndrewBurley said:
That is just another witness. Other people claimed to see molten steel which would corroborate our debris specialist. Have you any actual evidence, other than quotes, that wtc7 was leaning?
Click to expand...

large_WTC7XX.jpg


Any other questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom