• 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:
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...

Whoawhoawhoa....

Your specialist also says that the office material explains the molten steel.

(yeah, I know folks but its hilarious to me that their little quote mine self served them.)
 
Dave Rogers said:
I would ask, what's new about it? We've had impossible accounts of diggers pulling molten steel beams out of the rubble pile for years now, and truthers still seem curiously unable to comprehend what's wrong with that picture.

Dave
Click to expand...

I wonder if they can pick up a molten ice cube?
 
AndrewBurley said:
That photograph is evidence wtc 7 collapsed. It is not evidence that it was leaning in the hours before it collapsed.
Click to expand...

One caused the other.

It most certainly IS evidence of it leaning. It's just not satisfactory to YOU and your kind.

Need I remind you that you and your kind are irrelevant?
 
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...

You can't determine an objects composition by sight alone. If I held up a liquid and asked you what it was comprised of, could you tell me? Would you be able to tell me I put salt and sugar in it my just looking at it?

No.

You fail to see the this little fact.

The fact is that a transit is BASED on a sight reading, nothing more. Can that debris specialist tell the difference by sight alone between molten aluminum and molten steel in a debris pile were the molten substance would have been contaminated by a myriad of things?
 
I just looked again and the topic was "Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel."

If someone really wanted to know about wtc7 leaning they could look at these.

If they want to honestly discuss this topic they could start with:

What special qualifications make a "debris removal specialist" able to identify different types of moltel metal by sight, how can a "debris removal specialist" remove molten steel from a debris pile (hello - obviously, you cant), and how, by eyesight alone, he could differentiate corroded steel from steel that had "melted" at some point.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Yes I understand that. Where is the corroboration that wtc 7 was leaning?
Click to expand...

Let's suppose that we can't produce data to corroborate the witness accounts that suggest a lean was visible in WTC7 prior to collapse. What then? There are no specific implications, because the generally accepted understanding of the collapse process in WTC7 doesn't require observable distortion of the external structure prior to collapse. We know that WTC7 was on fire, and this is known from witness statements corroborated by video and photographic evidence. We know that the collapse of WTC7 progressed in a way consistent with an initial multi-storey collapse of the core structure, followed by a progressive failure of the facade, from video evidence and subsequent analysis. So whether or not a significant lean was measured is irrelevant to the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed as a result of a fire-induced failure of the core structure that progressed to the point of global structural failure.

Now, getting back to the point I raised earlier, even if you were to obtain corroboration of witness accounts suggesting the presence of molten steel at Ground Zero, how would this affect our conclusions, given that molten steel weeks after the collapses cannot have been caused by explosions or a thermite reaction at or close to the time of collapse?

Dave
 
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...

It's consistent with the facts, and it involves experts commenting about something within their area of expertise. Also, the different accounts are consistent with each other. This doesn't provide complete corroboration, but it allows us to formulate a plausible theory about what happened.

Can the same be said about your eyewitness testimony?
 
Dave Rogers said:
I would ask, what's new about it? We've had impossible accounts of diggers pulling molten steel beams out of the rubble pile for years now, and truthers still seem curiously unable to comprehend what's wrong with that picture.

Dave
Click to expand...

One picture is worth a thousand words.
Globs of molten steel are seen dripping down from the underside of this
white hot material.
363814e6f737f5764a.jpg
 
aggle-rithm said:
It's consistent with the facts, and it involves experts commenting about something within their area of expertise. Also, the different accounts are consistent with each other. This doesn't provide complete corroboration, but it allows us to formulate a plausible theory about what happened.

Can the same be said about your eyewitness testimony?
Click to expand...

There are a few molten steel witnesses that all seem pretty sure they saw molten steel. Were they all mistaken?
 
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...

Another factor...it's easy to tell when a building is leaning. It's less easy to tell that an unknown glowing substance is steel and not some other material.

Also, as I've already mentioned, a leaning building can be tied causally to a subsequent event (building collapse), while molten steel cannot.
 
Fonebone said:
One picture is worth a thousand words.
Globs of molten steel are seen dripping down from the underside of this
white hot material.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814e6f737f5764a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

And this means...what?

Pretend we're all stupid. Walk us through it. Show the chain of logic that leads from this picture to "inside job".
 
AndrewBurley said:
Yes I understand that. Where is the corroboration that wtc 7 was leaning?
Click to expand...
It's in the fire fighters' oral histories and is discussed in another thresad here. Your attitude leaves me disinclinede to go look for the exact thread right now, but maybe some of the other grown-ups will take that time.

That it leaned at all, that it was empty and that two other buildings had collapsed already was pretty solid evidence that it was unsafe to enter.
 
Fonebone said:
One picture is worth a thousand words.
Globs of molten steel are seen dripping down from the underside of this
white hot material.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814e6f737f5764a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You really didn't just pull out that photo, did you?

Are you missing a :D??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom