• 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



Why would I need a phone card? You do realize that 343 Firemen died on 911???? What could possibly entice them to lie. These guys walk into burning buildings to save people so you are not going to scare them or bribe them. You threaten their families and then you will likely only be identifiable by your dental records, if that.......

Their friends and family died on 911, the idea that they as a group or as individuals would cover up their mass murder or the CD of WTC7 is ludicrous, no utterly insane!
 
Last edited:
The exterior columns were clad in aluminum, do truthers even consider this? 220 floors worth of aluminum cladding melting in the rubble is not only plausible but very probable. A lot of it detached during the collapse but perhaps any remaining fixed in place could melt and even "drip off the beams."
 
Last edited:
melted metal from a fire

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Yes, concrete often, even typically, contains gravel.
Got a point?

Is that formerly molten concrete that the guns are encased in ?

PS and maybe an answer to post 172 above would be nice. Please answer the post itself so that observers can keep the context.
 
Last edited:
He's talking about it ... but I have not seen any pictures of anything resembling melted and recooled puddles. That is the engineering definition of "molten" ... liquified by heat and still liquid.

He may be using the word "molten" to mean "glowing red". That is one of the two definitions of it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molten
Definition of MOLTEN
1 obsolete : made by melting and casting
2: fused or liquefied by heat : melted <molten lava>
3: having warmth or brilliance : glowing

You can acquire definition #3 with nothing more than a wood fire and an improvised bellows as shown here, men forging blades with a wood fire.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KAaz35v7DiE/TVZmnPp_C9I/AAAAAAAAAMw/kdWKmarUxB4/s1600/Jean%27s+020.JPG

Farriers do it all the time:
http://www.beachlakestables.com/Images/Farrier-2-725.jpg
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-628...-photo-we-can-see-the-human-hand-holding.html

popularly we use the word molten for a liquid substance, the chance that he means glowing is really absurd, if he would say it was glowing, then he would say that. We are talking about a debris expert. This person is not a random person or a policeofficer or something. He has experience with debris.


But we are now speculating, if NIST took this person serious, or the other persons, we did not have this problem.

The chance is very very big the debris expert talking about a molten substance. Melted beams, where you can see the beams were melting.

And its not that strange, if we hear this woman, talking about melted steel toe boots, the chance is bigger that they are talking about the same melting like the debrix expert.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa1YWK1-1E
 
That isn't what he claimed. He simply said it was molten.
Molten doesn't equal liquid. Laymen will often use a term such as molten when what the really mean is the material is glowing red/yellow/white hot. This is why us metallurgists refer to a liquidus when referring to metals or alloys and their melting points or ranges . I'd never describe a metal as molten, because it doesn't convey any definitive meaning.

For example a layman might think that a steel member is melting when it's only another metal or alloy, such as aluminium (MP @ 660°c) or lead (MP @ 327°C) or tin (MP @ 231°C) or copper (MP @1083°C) that have far lower melting points than iron (MP @ 1538°C) or plain carbon steel (as low as 1425°C), running down a red hot iron "beam".

If a metal is fully liquid it has no crystal structure and therefore cannot remain as a shape. The liquid will take the form of whatever it flows into. Therefore someone seeing liquid will not describe that liquid as a solid shape like a beam. If there were accounts of large amounts of liquid metal at ground zero then there would be evidence of this because it would be extremely difficult to remove and would subsequently show up when examined by the teams at fresh kills, just like the steel that was severely corroded due to high temperature corrosion in the rubble pile.

It is also difficult to pick liquids up (referring to the grapple photo) especially those whose temperature is greater than 1538°C. Most people have no idea how hot that really is nor how corrosive iron is at that temperature. Refractory lining in steel making has to be replaced as a part of ongoing maintenance due to the corrosive nature of iron at this temperature. A diggers bucket or grapple isn't going to last very long in that environment and the rest of the materials such as gaskets, hydraulics, seals and oil are going to last a lot less - I'm talking minutes.

Liquid iron is extremely dangerous, there's no way people would be risking their lives or machines trying to remove such material.

I've had furnaces running at 1000-1100°C for heat treatment of steel and it's quite amusing to see some peoples' reactions to the inside of the furnace especially when you tell them what temp it's at then ask them to move back a bit, then take a sample out and plunge it into quenching oil!

Similarly metal does not equal steel: it is impossible to tell what a material is just by looking at it. I can't do it and no-one I know can. You have to rely on external clues to try and deduce what the material is. So it's even possible for someone to describe what they think or have been told is a steel (iron) "beam" melting when actually what they are seeing is aluminium cladding or some other alloy melting. It's not uncommon to get metals or alloys in a fully liquid state in fires because there are plenty of alloys and metals that have melting points below the temperatures fires can produce- see above.

Now I know you may feel the need to post pictures showing the colour of liquid aluminium as being silver, but we've been through that a thousand times on this forum so please don't.

I hope this helps to clear that part up.
 
I don't know.
What's your point?

I just wanted to nail down that it cannot be excluded that the guns are encased in formerly-molten concrete. Therefore it cannot be excluded that there were temperatures far above what could be expected from normal fires.
 
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]

Omg shocking molten steel. So the debris expert is not that crazy.
 
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.
Experiment - you can do this at home.

Take a piece of paper and fold it into a "U" shape. Turn on a tap. Place the paper under the tap so that the water flows down the "U" shape.

Once you've performed this experiment please answer the following;

When the water was flowing:

was the water dripping off the end of the paper?
was the paper liquid?
was the paper molten?
was the water molten?
Do paper and water have the same melting point?
Are paper and water the same thing?

If you can figure out why I'm asking you to perform this experiment and answer the questions then you'll realise why it answers your question.
 
...
But we are now speculating,
Should I oystein-bookmark this? A rare instance of Marokkaan saying something true!

if NIST took this person serious, or the other persons, we did not have this problem.
Why should NIST be interested in the fire conditions inside the rubble pile - which is the topic of this video? If NIST took that person serious, they'd have learned that there were contents from millions of square feet of office space burning like hell. NIST knew that already. It does not tell them anything interesting or new about the conditions before the collapse.

If you disagree, Marokkaan, please explain how observation of what fire in the rubble does to the rubble help explain why and how the towers collapsed!

The chance is very very big the debris expert talking about a molten substance. Melted beams, where you can see the beams were melting.
Since that is not what he is saying, you are indeed speculating.

And its not that strange, if we hear this woman, talking about melted steel toe boots, the chance is bigger that they are talking about the same melting like the debrix expert.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa1YWK1-1E
Holy crap! Are you construing this as "steel from steel-toed boots melted"? Is that what she said? Can you please quote her accurately? A do not forget the 1100°!

Tell me, when a "steel toed boot" starts to melt, which part would you expect to melt first:

A) The steel toe
B) Everything but the steel toe (rubber, leather, plastics...)
C) The steel toe and the rubber would melt at the same temp

In the unlikely case you picked A or C, please explain how any of the workers escaped from the required >2800°F?
What would happen to their feet if indeed the steel-caps came close to 2800°F
And why would the woman say 1100°, when molten steel requires 2800°?




Do you EVER think before you chant the creeds of this truther religion?
 
popularly we use the word molten for a liquid substance, the chance that he means glowing is really absurd, if he would say it was glowing, then he would say that. We are talking about a debris expert. This person is not a random person or a policeofficer or something. He has experience with debris.

So there is often molten steel in debris? who knew:rolleyes:



But we are now speculating,

indeed you are:rolleyes:

The chance is very very big the debris expert talking about a molten substance. Melted beams, where you can see the beams were melting.

water is a molten substance! and I see no melting beams.

And its not that strange, if we hear this woman, talking about melted steel toe boots, the chance is bigger that they are talking about the same melting like the debris expert.

ROTFLOL, the steel toecaps were not melting the soles were.....just when you think a twoofer has reached the maximum level of dumbess, one just reaches out and proves you wrong............
 
I just wanted to nail down that it cannot be excluded that the guns are encased in formerly-molten concrete. Therefore it cannot be excluded that there were temperatures far above what could be expected from normal fires.

I don't care. I only meant to correct your false assertion that concrete would have a melting point even higher than that of steel.

Besides: That was WTC6. Are you trying to imply the possibility that they even thermited WTC6??
 
So do we have to ignore this man, who is saying as a debris expert, that he saw melted beams and molten steel???

If it is, we can also ignore all the witnesses that support the debunkers theory. LOL.
 
I just wanted to nail down that it cannot be excluded that the guns are encased in formerly-molten concrete. Therefore it cannot be excluded that there were temperatures far above what could be expected from normal fires.


Please show that these guns are not in fact the results of a teleporter malfunction.....you can't? Therefore we can't exclude teleporter accidents either can we?:rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom