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

[Oystein]

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.

Says who? Riggs? Let's see what he said

the fires ... actually melted beams where I was molten steel that was being dug out.

(Yes, that sentence is not grammatical; I may mishear the part that I put in italics; can you or someone confirm or correct that?)

No actual talk of "molten steel ... dripping off the ends of steel beams". You made that "dripping" stuff up, didn't you?!

If you want to take the guy literal, a better rendering of what he said would be "beams mut have melted because we dug ot molten steel". I am saying that his words do not necessarily imply that he witnessed any actual beams being molten.

Then again, maybe taking him unskeptically literally may be not the smart way to go. Maybe he doesn't literally mean "molten". How about that? Is that a possible interpretation, hm?

 

[carlitos]

.....and again, we'd ask what implement could possibly "dig out" molten steel. A steel backhoe?

 

[Oystein]

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.

Great.

You don't know.

And you need a premise that you made up. Besides, that statement "if it was dripping from steel beam, then it was molten steel" is not conclusive when you are merely eyeballing that beam. Could it not be some other material that happened to be on the beam that melts and drops? And how do you distinguish by eyesight alone embers, such as red-hot rust particles, from drops of liquid steel?


So tell me again: What are these witness statements proof for? How (i.e. using which method) did they eliminate or significantly reduce the possible errors of perception and interpretation?

Oh - you said it already: You don't know!

 

[Oystein]

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.

How would this be obvious? Please elaborate! What did the eye witnesses observe that makes this obvious?

In the case of the leaning/bulging WTC7 we already know it and taught it you: They used an optical instrument called a "transit" that measures exactly that which the witness intended to observe, introduces a high degree of accuracy and eliminates typical eye witness errors such as mistaken perception or mistaken interpretation. In short, we know that at least some the witnesses who report a bulge in WTC7 base that report not on error-prone eye-balling, but on the actual use a valid scientific / engineering method.

Now back to you. Which valid scientific / engineering method did the witnesses for molten steel use? Oh, you said it already: You don't know.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Says who? Riggs? Let's see what he said

(Yes, that sentence is not grammatical; I may mishear the part that I put in italics; can you or someone confirm or correct that?)

No actual talk of "molten steel ... dripping off the ends of steel beams". You made that "dripping" stuff up, didn't you?!

If you want to take the guy literal, a better rendering of what he said would be "beams mut have melted because we dug ot molten steel". I am saying that his words do not necessarily imply that he witnessed any actual beams being molten.

Then again, maybe taking him unskeptically literally may be not the smart way to go. Maybe he doesn't literally mean "molten". How about that? Is that a possible interpretation, hm?

He does say molten beams. I didn't make anything up, it was a possibility just like the million alternative explanations offered on thsi thread.

 

[excaza]

Only a possibility? You seemed so certain this morning.

 

[bill smith]

Fixed that for you.

Dave

Would molten aluminium adhere to red hot steel Dave so that it could drip off drop by drop ? You know the quote 'girder dripping with molten steel' that some fireman said. Could that have been molten aliminium dripping off the red hot steel girder in other words ?

 

[AndrewBurley]

Only a possibility? You seemed so certain this morning.

Certain of what? That he say the steel dripping off beams?

 

[Oystein]

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.

If the demo company's witness had said "We called an engineer who used a thermometer / spectroscope / metallurgical chemistry kit / [plug in any valid method] to find out what that glowing stuff really was and the result was molten steel", then that would be a very credible witness statement, even if we don't have photos or specimen.

(Even then of course it would be a loooooooong way from being evidence for thermite or any other such nonsense hypothesis)

 

[AndrewBurley]

Would molten aluminium adhere to red hot steel Dave so that it could drip off drop by drop ? You know the quote 'girder dripping with molten steel' that some fireman said.

Didn't some say on video that "molten steel was running through the channel rails....like a foundry"

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I just made a cup of tea, a liquid is dripping of the plastic spoon I used to stir in the Splenda^tm. Should be worried that I'm about to drink molten plastic?

 

[The Platypus]

Didn't some say on video that "molten steel was running through the channel rails....like a foundry"

Just because someone said something on a youtube video, doesn't mean it's true. And these cult recruiters accuse us of believing what we are told... Geeze...

 

[Oystein]

Here's a relevant one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153654

Uhm thanks, that's a good one discussing the reliability of eye witnesses.
I meant another topic: Where truthers explain the physical process from bulk amount of thermite somewhere in the towers pre-collapse through violent collapse to buk amount of liquid steel post-collapse. The interesting question being: Why did the thermite end up in bulk amounts in the rubble so that it was still able to react and melt bulk amounts of steel, when everything else in the towers that wasn't steel was so thoroughly broken and dispersed?

 

[excaza]

I'm just wondering if they understand how much thermite it would take to burn for weeks.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

OK show us proof that the beam is melting......we'll wait.

 

[Myriad]

It would be obvious though if it was the beam that was melting.

Only one thing could make it obvious that it was the beam itself that was melting, rather than some other liquid material dripping off the beam: visible changes in the shape of the remaining beam. That's how we can tell when a piece of ice is melting, rather than just having water dripping off it from somewhere else, because we see the sharp edges of the piece of ice becoming rounded, the dripping water eroding channels in the ice, and similar effects.

The problem you have with this theory is that if that happened, there should be beams that show that kind of evidence of melting: rounding off of sharp edges, erosion channels, and similar morphologies. But, they do not exist. (The few known pieces that exhibit thinning from corrosion, and the resulting sharpened edges, are inconsistent with melting.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[AndrewBurley]

Just because someone said something on a youtube video, doesn't mean it's true. And these cult recruiters accuse us of believing what we are told... Geeze...

How does the site it is hosted at have any relevance? These were firefighters, heroic first responders and you casually call them liars.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Only one thing could make it obvious that it was the beam itself that was melting, rather than some other liquid material dripping off the beam: visible changes in the shape of the remaining beam. That's how we can tell when a piece of ice is melting, rather than just having water dripping off it from somewhere else, because we see the sharp edges of the piece of ice becoming rounded, the dripping water eroding channels in the ice, and similar effects.

The problem you have with this theory is that if that happened, there should be beams that show that kind of evidence of melting: rounding off of sharp edges, erosion channels, and similar morphologies. But, they do not exist. (The few known pieces that exhibit thinning from corrosion, and the resulting sharpened edges, are inconsistent with melting.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

I would like to see your evidence for this. Was every beam checked for such evidence? Why would they bother if melting has no relevance to the collapse?

 

[Oystein]

He does say molten beams. I didn't make anything up, it was a possibility just like the million alternative explanations offered on thsi thread.

No, he didn't. He said "the fires ... actually melted beams". You don't know if that is an observation (there's a problem: If he saw something that's molten, then that's a liquid; if he saw a beam, then that was solid. "Molten beam" is an oxymoron) or his interpretation of something he observed.

And again, being merely an eye witness, he was prone to commit any number of mistakes, such as

• Mistaken perception: Maybe he thinks he saw some liquid that was in fact not a liquid; etc.
• Mistaken interpretation: Maybe he saw something falling from red-hot beams and thought it was material from the beams themselves when it wasn't
• Mistaken memory: Maybe he saw red-hot beams and also, independently, molten metal (copper...), and in his recollection throws the two together
• Mistaken language: Maybe he didn't mean "turned to liquid phase" when he said "molten" but "became so soft they bent like pretzels"

Which of these possible mistakes that ALL eye witnesses are prone to, who don't use valid scientific or engineering methods of observation, can you rule out in the case of Mr. Riggs?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

He does say molten beams. I didn't make anything up, it was a possibility just like the million alternative explanations offered on thsi thread.

yes its POSSIBLE for some of that material to have been molten steel but do you now agree we cannot say it WAS?

baby steps.....