• 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

Let's pretend it was moleten steel,can someone explain what this proves?


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited out breach of Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Myriad said:
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. 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
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no way that a steel "beam" close to it's melting point isn't going to do anything, but sag under it's own weight. Truthers simply have no experience of material properties and how they change with temperature. They seem to think that steel has a yield strength at 1400°C that equals the yield strength at 25°C. They seem to think that it only loses strength when liquid. A classic example is the "fires can't melt steel" meme.
 
Marokkaan said:
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.
Click to expand...


Who is ignoring him???? We examined his statement and found nothing unusual or unexpected about it.
 
"debris experts removal specialists"

garbageman1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
So do we have to ignore this man, who is saying as a debris expert, that he saw melted beams and molten steel???
Click to expand...
Did anyone in the thread say "we have to ignore this man"? Quote, please!

TMD, do you see the deceptive tactics Marokkaan is using here? How do you feel about that?

Marokkaan said:
If it is, we can also ignore all the witnesses that support the debunkers theory. LOL.
Click to expand...
If. But that is not at all what the debunker side is teaching you.
Instead, we say that witness reports need to be taken with skepticism, and need corroboration.
It turns out that many witness testimonies are in fact corroborated by other forms of evidence. The reports of molten steel however are not.
No, we don't ignore these statements. We put them into perspective.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Why would you try to denigrate the man in the video in this way?
Click to expand...

I'm not.

Now:


carlitos said:
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 FOUR 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...
Click to expand...
 
AndrewBurley said:
Why would you try to denigrate the man in the video in this way?
Click to expand...

Honest question:

Do we know what makes Mr. Riggs an "specialist", or an "expert"? Does he have any metallurgical training, for example? Or is he just a work hand with muscle and the need for some cash? Do we know?

ETA: Why do you denigrate the men in carlito's photo?
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
Why would you try to denigrate the man in the video in this way?
Click to expand...

To make a point. If twoofers can claim that a "debris removal specialist" is an expert in metallurgy..............and whats wrong with garbage collectors that you would say its "denigrating"? How long would any City last without them?
 
AndrewBurley said:
It does smack of desperate denialism rather than honest debate.
Click to expand...
BS is a bit like a fluffer, he's here to get you all gee'd up and ready, he'll back you up no matter what you say, no matter how stupid. He's prepping you for your big truther performance on JREF. You seem to have bukkaked us with stupid just like every other truther, so I guess BS is good at his job or did you arrive stupid?
 
Oystein said:
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??
Click to expand...

Well I did find a site that said for all the components in concrete yo melt you would need a temperature of about 2,600 degrees centigrade. Way way above what is needed to nelt steel,
 
Marokkaan said:
Since when you need to be an expert, to see melted beams:boggled:

Do we need an expert, to see molten chocolate?
Click to expand...

Easy and valid tests to identify a substance as molten chocolate are available even to amateurs without any equipment at all:
- Judge colour: If it is brown, that's good
- Judge smell: Smells like chocolate? Great! Everybody knows what chocolate smells like
- Dip your finger in; if it sinks in, it's indeed liquid. If it's hot, but doesn't burn you instantly, that a bonus-
- Taste it: If it tastes sweet and yummy and just like chocolate: Bingo! Chances are great that you found yourself some chocolate!

The same cannot be said of molten steel:
- Colour is inconclusive - any molten stuff will glow according to its temp, not accorcing to its chemical substance
- Smell: I don#t think any of the witnesses has said that the stuff smelled like molten steel
- Dip in your finger: I would not advise this
- Taste it: See above

So how else would YOU identify some glowing stuff you found in a rubble pile?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Almost certainly not, nor is there any need for it to be........its wonderful how a mistaken caption suddenly turns something into a fact in twoofer world........
Click to expand...
BS is on my ignore list due to the amount of BS BS writes. Molten concrete eh? BS doesn't understand that concrete doesn't melt nor does it have a melting point. It's a composite material. BS is a fluffer - here to strike the egos of other truthers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom