• 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:
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?
Click to expand...

Please, before you worry about the details, think about the big picture:
carlitos said:
You have now been asked at least twice three times 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?
Click to expand...
 
Oystein said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maybe he saw molten steel. Is that possible?
 
AndrewBurley said:
Didn't some say on video that "molten steel was running through the channel rails....like a foundry"
Click to expand...

Yes, somebody said that.
Which vakid scientific / engineering method did that someone use to identify that stuff as "molten" "steel"?

Also: What material were those channel rails made of? You should now suggest something that does not melt and does not even deform quickly when molten steel runs through it.
 
On planet Truth, is this:


AndrewBurley said:
Maybe he saw molten steel. Is that possible?
Click to expand...

an answer to this?

Oystein said:
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?
Click to expand...
I mean, for Christ's sake, it was a multiple choice question!
 
AndrewBurley said:
Maybe he saw molten steel. Is that possible?
Click to expand...

Possible, but exceedingly unlikely. There is zero corroboration for that, and no internally consistent theory to explain it.

Maybe he didn't see molten steel. Is that possible?

ETA:
Please indicate which of the following you find IMPOSSIBLE:
O Riggs mistakenly perceived something as liquid steel
O Riggs mistakenly interpreted some observation(s) as the result of melted steel
O Riggs mistakenly remembers some observation(s) as indicating molten steel
O Riggs mistakenly describes his observations as molten steel
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
Didn't some say on video that "molten steel was running through the channel rails....like a foundry"
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a firefighter who is filmed saying this. Here's an interesting bit of corroboration for you: Molten metal was seen running in the parking garage under WTC 6!

'Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.

Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running'

Assuming, as truthers always do, that this was molten steel, then there must have been something hot enough to melt steel in WTC 6 as well!! But we are then faced with a dilemma - that building was taken apart by hand by large work crews, and there were ZERO discoveries of either:

melted steel beams
thermite residue
explosive cutter charges

Or any other signs of demolition gear of any kind. Yet ALL the other criteria that you find suspicious were met - the molten metal, the 'red hot' glowing temperatures.

So the question is, was molten steel found or not? Can YOU personally say whether there is conclusive evidence or not? Because IF the answer is yes, then it is YES to WTC 6 as well.

You truthers have created this dilemma for yourselves by refusing to consider alternative explanations, and taking anecdotal evidence as irrefutable, conclusive evidence (which is a huge mistake).
 
AndrewBurley said:
How does the site it is hosted at have any relevance? These were firefighters, heroic first responders and you casually call them liars.
Click to expand...

Nice try at a dodge, but just because someone says something on video, no matter where it's hosted, still doesn't mean it's true.

Nice try with the snakey lie trying to say i called some heroes liars. That was totally dishonest and disgusting and only shows what games you cult recruiters are always trying to play. Clearly it's you cult recruiters that are liars.

Why is it that in the kook world, this false dichotomy that everything and everyone has to be either infallibly truthful or evil liars?

In the real world people can simply be mistaken, people can say things when they don't know what they are talking about, people can make spur of the moment judgements that turn out to be incorrect, etc...
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Yes, there is a firefighter who is filmed saying this. Here's an interesting bit of corroboration for you: Molten metal was seen running in the parking garage under WTC 6!

'Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.

Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running'

Assuming, as truthers always do, that this was molten steel, then there must have been something hot enough to melt steel in WTC 6 as well!! But we are then faced with a dilemma - that building was taken apart by hand by large work crews, and there were ZERO discoveries of either:

melted steel beams
thermite residue
explosive cutter charges

Or any other signs of demolition gear of any kind. Yet ALL the other criteria that you find suspicious were met - the molten metal, the 'red hot' glowing temperatures.

So the question is, was molten steel found or not? Can YOU personally say whether there is conclusive evidence or not? Because IF the answer is yes, then it is YES to WTC 6 as well.

You truthers have created this dilemma for yourselves by refusing to consider alternative explanations, and taking anecdotal evidence as irrefutable, conclusive evidence (which is a huge mistake).
Click to expand...

The guns encased in formerly molten concrete were from WTC6 weren't they Alien ? Did you know that the components of concrete like stone and so on melt at an even higher temperature than steel ? Get the picture ?
 
AndrewBurley said:
How does the site it is hosted at have any relevance? These were firefighters, heroic first responders and you casually call them liars.
Click to expand...

facepalm01.jpg


No one here other than twoofers have EVER accused the FDNY of being liars:mad:

We are saying they are MISTAKEN

1mis·take
verb \mə-ˈstāk\
mis·took\-ˈstu̇k\mis·tak·en\-ˈstā-kən\mis·tak·ing
Definition of MISTAKE
transitive verb
1
: to blunder in the choice of <mistook her way in the dark>
2
a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : misinterpret <don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said> b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of
3
: to identify wrongly : confuse with another <I mistook him for his brother>
intransitive verb
: to be wrong <you mistook when you thought I laughed at you — Thomas Hardy>
— mis·tak·en·ly adverb
— mis·tak·er noun
See mistake defined for English-language learners »
See mistake defined for kids »
Examples of MISTAKE

1. <the auctioneer mistook my nod for a bid, and I ended up buying a painting I don't even like>
2. <you seriously mistake me if you think I scare so easily>

They saw a molten material, they assumed wrongly it was steel, or just said "steel" when they really meant "metal" and if you had asked them at the time "are you sure it was steel or maybe just another metal......I would bet my life they would say "yeah it was metal of some sort.......but no, we don't know it was steel"
 
Oystein said:
Possible, but exceedingly unlikely. There is zero corroboration for that, and no internally consistent theory to explain it.

Maybe he didn't see molten steel. Is that possible?

ETA:
Please indicate which of the following you find IMPOSSIBLE:
O Riggs mistakenly perceived something as liquid steel
O Riggs mistakenly interpreted some observation(s) as the result of melted steel
O Riggs mistakenly remembers some observation(s) as indicating molten steel
O Riggs mistakenly describes his observations as molten steel
Click to expand...

I was just asking Dave something Oystein but he seems to have gone fishing or something. Maybe you can answer it

'' 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 aluminium dripping off the red hot steel girder in other words ? ''
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The guns encased in formerly molten concrete were from WTC6 weren't they Alien ? Did you know that the components of concrete like stone and so on melt at an even higher temperature than steel ? Get the picture ?
Click to expand...


Sorry Bill you get a zombie as well......the "guns in concrete" was discussed yesterday and utterly debunked.....heat will break up concrete and dry wall and reactivate the chemical process that makes portland cement, mix with water you have concrete slurry not molten concrete, next you'll be saying there was no heat or water at ground zero!

TrutherZombies.jpg


Oh and by the way did you concede that the Winter Garden was not destroyed and that columns lie all the way across to it........yes or no?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The guns encased in formerly molten concrete were from WTC6 weren't they Alien ? Did you know that the components of concrete like stone and so on melt at an even higher temperature than steel ? Get the picture ?
Click to expand...

Concrete, being a mix of several materials, does not have a defined melting point.
You can find out if you google "melting point of concrete".

But you can find out where some of the main minerals contained in concrete melt, for example
Calcium Carbonate: 825 °C (aragonite), 1339 °C (calcite)
SiO2 (main ingredient of sand): 1600-1725 °C

Now we have learned elsewhere that mixing stuff with other stuff tends to lower melting points.

Conclusion: Concrete will "melt" at temperatures around the melting point of steel; probably begin to melt earlier than steel.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Concrete, being a mix of several materials, does not have a defined melting point.
You can find out if you google "melting point of concrete".

But you can find out where some of the main minerals contained in concrete melt, for example
Calcium Carbonate: 825 °C (aragonite), 1339 °C (calcite)
SiO2 (main ingredient of sand): 1600-1725 °C

Now we have learned elsewhere that mixing stuff with other stuff tends to lower melting points.

Conclusion: Concrete will "melt" at temperatures around the melting point of steel; probably begin to melt earlier than steel.
Click to expand...

Here's a few pictures..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3394886&postcount=32

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RhdBxEe_6M video

Is there anything else in concrete like stones and so on ?
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
Maybe he saw molten steel. Is that possible?
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely. I've already given you the anecdotal evidence for molten metal in another building (which is usually excluded from conspiracy theorists litany).

The problem has been explained to you, however you seem to be unable to step back from the single POV you've adopted and understand the context of anecdotal reporting.

When you are assessing eyewitness testimony, you should find out what the relevant expertise of the witness is, and what the conditions were when they made their observations.

To accurately assess the composition and temperature of a molten metal,

a) some accurate method of measuring the temperature should be employed
b) some experience with metallurgy would be required
c) samples of the material would need to be collected and analyzed by a properly equipped laboratory

None of this was done. Therefore the accuracy of the eyewitness descriptions is suspect. The only thing that can be determined is that there appeared to be some molten metal in various locations. We cannot conclude what it actually was, and it would be rash and unwise to make the claim that it was molten steel, for example.
Unfortunately this is precisely what truthers are doing.

Now let's compare with the FDNY testimony regarding the condition of WTC 7.

a) some accurate methods of measuring the condition of the building WERE employed. One of those was a transit. At least one city engineer was onsite specifically to assess the condition of the building and consult with FDNY. The engineers name is not given in the testimony, so we don't know exactly who that was.
b) Various FDNY, who ARE trained in this exact area, were tasked with assessing the condition of WTC 7 throughout the morning. They were not random workers who made casual observations, they were professional firefighters who have training and experience that is directly relevant to the observations.

They noted the deteriorating condition of the building, both internally and externally.
As noted ' Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13'. (To compare with the observations of molten metal, we accept that molten metal was seen; we also accept that the building was bulging as seen. The firefighter is not attempting to explain exactly WHY it is bulging - he is not an engineer)
Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7...."At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.'

c) The condition of the building WAS recorded on many photographs during the day. Direct observations of the severity of the fires can be made in many cases.

d) Steel was examined after WTC 7 collapsed (and the towers). In no cases was steel found to be melted by high temperature. There is ZERO evidence of molten (ie above the melting point) steel from physical examination.

e) The only non-intact steel samples found were cases of sulphidation, a corrosive process. Very careful analysis was done by qualified experts, and reports were published. The reports specifically explain that the temperature in which this process occurs is WELL BELOW the melting point of steel, under 1000 degress Celsius.



After contemplating all of this, I would guess that a typical truther still will not make the connection that there is NO physical evidence of melted steel, yet there is massive physical evidence of fire-induced failure of steel structure. The truther will come to the erroneous conclusion that fire did not bring the building down, but instead an incendiary melted the steel in a perfectly timed and coordinated fashion.

Truther assertions (we've all read them many times, no need to reiterate) are not sufficiently linked to observable reality, and in fact mainly run counter to observable reality. As such, they do not have any real credibility in knowledgeable circles, and remain basically a collection of urban legends.

The urban legend of molten steel is just one prominent example which does not actually have any empirical foundation. This does not prevent truthers from believing fervently in the myth, however. We see that every day.
 
AndrewBurley said:
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...

As, but then how does he know it was steel and not some other materal know to be present in the building like aluminum or lead, or plastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom