• 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

carlitos said:
No, he claimed it was "molten steel." How could he know this?
Click to expand...

Because it is dripping off what look like beams. I suspect ou other molten steel witnesses also knew it was steel because it happened to be dripping off the ends of steel beams.
 
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...

You make a good point there: Firefighters merely eyeballing a building amid intense heat from various sources that blurs the air, amid billowing smoke, amid unprecedented stress, amid shaky ground (debris) that they may be standing on, that's surely a recipe for some degree of error of perception or interpretation.

The good thing is, we know from forefighters that they did not just eyeball the building, like your witnesses for "molten steel" merely eyeballed whatever glowing stuff they saw. No. The fire department employed an engineer and an instrument called "transit" to measure the movement of the building. So we know that their assessment ("building is bulging and not stable any longer") was based not simply on eyeballing, but on a valid scientific / engineering method to make that observation.

Now back to you: What valid scientific method had Mr. Riggs at his disposal to identify whatever he saw pulled from the rubble as "molten" "steel"? Was any metallurgical, physical or chemical analysis or instrument used?
 
Fonebone said:
One picture is worth a thousand words.
Click to expand...

And yet you felt it needed words to explain it, and you felt those words needed to include a lie.

Fonebone said:
Globs of molten steel are seen dripping down from the underside of this white hot material.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove that anything falling from this yellow-orange hot material are (a) liquid and (b) steel.

Dave
 
Oystein said:
You make a good point there: Firefighters merely eyeballing a building amid intense heat from various sources that blurs the air, amid billowing smoke, amid unprecedented stress, amid shaky ground (debris) that they may be standing on, that's surely a recipe for some degree of error of perception or interpretation.

The good thing is, we know from forefighters that they did not just eyeball the building, like your witnesses for "molten steel" merely eyeballed whatever glowing stuff they saw. No. The fire department employed an engineer and an instrument called "transit" to measure the movement of the building. So we know that their assessment ("building is bulging and not stable any longer") was based not simply on eyeballing, but on a valid scientific / engineering method to make that observation.

Now back to you: What valid scientific method had Mr. Riggs at his disposal to identify whatever he saw pulled from the rubble as "molten" "steel"? Was any metallurgical, physical or chemical analysis or instrument used?
Click to expand...

I don't know. It may have been. It would be possible to determine it was steel by sight if, for example, it was dripping from steel beams.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, it wouldn't. Other molten material can drip from a steel beam.

Dave
Click to expand...

It would be obvious though if it was the beam that was melting. You know this and yet pretend you don't. In the same way that you issued a challenge to Fonebone to prove it was steel, I would ask you to prove wtc7 was leaning.
 
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...

Nope. It's aluminum. Care to debate?
 
Dave Rogers said:
...
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
Click to expand...

Do we have a thread yet dedicated to this question? I think it deserves one, as that "molten steel seen" stuff is mostly broken at that link: If there was thermite pre-collapse, then collapse, then sightings of serious amounts of molten steel post-collapse, how would truthers explain that all the forces that ripped every human being to shreds and "pulverized all the concrete" and caused those great turbulences; those forces, whatever they be - gravity or explosives or space rays - why did they not also disperse bulk amounts of thermite and molten steel also?
 
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.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814e6f737f5764a.jpg[/qimg][/QUOTE]

May I point out some obvious clues:

a) The claws are grabbing something that is solid
b) This solid mass is red-hot - that means it is well below 1000°C and thus 600°C and more below the melting point of steel
c) Whatever is falling from that solid mass in the instant that the photo was taken was in contact with that solid mass a moment earlier - it can't have been or still be liquid (molten)
d) The falling stuff is also at most yellow hot and thus 500°C and more below the melting point of steel

What you see there is called "embers". Look it up.
Click to expand...
 
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...


No its an expert witness using a piece of equipment that shows a measurable problem. The problem was checked by a professional.

Its not the same as a guy say "I saw molten beams" but where he took no pictures or samples of the molten material and had them tested by other expert witnesses.
 
AndrewBurley said:
There are a few molten steel witnesses that all seem pretty sure they saw molten steel. Were they all mistaken?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Eye witnesses can make mistakes at several steps along the cognitive process:
  • Mistaken perception
  • Mistaken interpretation
  • Mistaken memory
  • Mistaken language
 
AndrewBurley said:
It would be obvious though if it was the beam that was melting. You know this and yet pretend you don't. In the same way that you issued a challenge to Fonebone to prove it was steel, I would ask you to prove wtc7 was leaning.
Click to expand...

You have now been asked at least twice what the relevance of this is.

ASSUME for the sake of argument that there were "melted beams" at the WTC site a few weeks after the buildings collapsed.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? What hypothesis have you developed to explain the events of the day into which this (molten steel beams) plays a role?
 
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 how do you know that's steel?. You can't even see that the material is yellow and orange hot , not white:rolleyes:

sorry, but you are now officially a zombie twoofer

unstoppably ignorant.
TrutherZombies.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom