• 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

Dash80 said:
If it's melted how can you tell it's original form? If I melted some chocolate could you tell what it's shape was before it became liquid? Can you tell the difference between chocolate and the brown stuff you're peddling?
Click to expand...


If i see a chocolate bar melting, than i see the chocolate bar and the melting process.

Or else i wouldnt see the chocolate bar, i would not say the words, i would rather see a molten substance.

Why you dont understand that?
 
AndrewBurley said:
Richard Riggs, the "debris expert" in the video, is (or was) General manager of Aman Environmental Inc., a company responsible for the kingdome demolition.

http://www.amanenvironmental.com/

http://www.amanenvironmental.com/project.htm

He also wrote a book entitled "How to survive in a 911 environment"

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/1403314225/Richard_Riggs/How_To_Survive_In_A_911_Environment.html
Click to expand...
It seems to me that Mr. Riggs doesn't think therm*te was responsible, afterall he already said in the video what he thought caused the molten material. Are you going to read his book, have a look what he says in it?

If his opinion is that the buildings collapsed from impact and fire what would you say? He is by your own admission an expert, would you resort to calling him a shill or a liar then!
 
The Platypus said:
Very telling how Andrew has nothing to say after telling such a blatant and obvious disgusting lie in an attempt to win imaginary points.

Quite the typical example of 911 cult mentality at it's core.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

twinstead said:
Then explain how melted steel fits into your conspiracy theory
Click to expand...

AndrewBurley said:
You agree he saw melted steel then?
Click to expand...

Just here to play games then, eh?
 
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...


Every beam was checked to assess its general condition and suitability for further investigation -- especially, identifiable markings for determining its as-built position, and any signs of improper construction or unusual damage such as was noted in the highly corroded beams that were recovered and further investigated. So yes, signs of melting such as flow marks, rounded edges/corners, erosion channels, and dismemberment such as shortened ends without fracture or missing flanges without fracture, would have been noticed and investigated.

Not to mention, every beam had to be handled by multiple debris removal experts in order to move it from the site, load it on a vehicle, unload it at Fresh Kills, and ultimately to remove it from there too.

No piece of steel debris bearings signs of having melted, nor of deformation caused by demolition explosives, was ever reported.

Is that ironclad proof? No, but it's sufficient evidence to render your idle speculations to the contrary insignificant. If steel melted, then it had to melt from somewhere, and re-solidify somewhere else. Both events would leave ample and clear physical signs which were absent.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
If i see a chocolate bar melting, than i see the chocolate bar and the melting process.

Or else i wouldnt see the chocolate bar, i would not say the words, i would rather see a molten substance.

Why you dont understand that?
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen melting/melted steel?
 
Myriad said:
Every beam was checked to assess its general condition and suitability for further investigation -- especially, identifiable markings for determining its as-built position, and any signs of improper construction or unusual damage such as was noted in the highly corroded beams that were recovered and further investigated. So yes, signs of melting such as flow marks, rounded edges/corners, erosion channels, and dismemberment such as shortened ends without fracture or missing flanges without fracture, would have been noticed and investigated.

Not to mention, every beam had to be handled by multiple debris removal experts in order to move it from the site, load it on a vehicle, unload it at Fresh Kills, and ultimately to remove it from there too.

No piece of steel debris bearings signs of having melted, nor of deformation caused by demolition explosives, was ever reported.

Is that ironclad proof? No, but it's sufficient evidence to render your idle speculations to the contrary insignificant. If steel melted, then it had to melt from somewhere, and re-solidify somewhere else. Both events would leave ample and clear physical signs which were absent.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Yes it was, by Richard Riggs.
 
twinstead said:
Then explain how melted steel fits into your conspiracy theory
Click to expand...

Yes please.

Last try:


carlitos said:
You have now been asked at least twice three FOUR FIVE Seven 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...
Looking forward to either
a - reading a coherent reply that actually answers the question
b - giving up on another useless truther troll who won't think
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
You agree he saw melted steel then?
Click to expand...

No, I'm convinced there's no way he could have known it was melted steel. What is bad for you is that you are spending all this time to try to prove something that you have no idea how it even fits into your "theory". That's idiotic.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Yes it was, by Richard Riggs.
Click to expand...


He reported digging up hot incandescent (and considerably softened) steel. That's what he meant by "molten" (and that is indeed a valid meaning of the word.) I know that he didn't mean steel hotter than its melting point because that is liquid and could not be dug up, and he does not strike me as a joker who would casually report a physical impossibility.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Redtail said:
How does it support the truthers? Riggs said himself that the material from an office fire this size would melt steel.:D
Click to expand...
They only trust his expertise in one area, and ignore the fact that his own opinion debunks them. Do you get it truthers? You say he's an expert so he'd know what he was looking at, so why don't you take into account his opinion of what caused it? He's not qualified to do this? He's lying? Covering up the truth? Take your pick guys, because you can't have it both ways.
 
Dash80 said:
Have you ever seen melting/melted steel?
Click to expand...

Yup.
In a Foundry.
There's just no way that steel could be in the claimed molten state outside of those conditions and temperatures where it could be observed as molten...
 
bill smith said:
Is that formerly molten concrete that the guns are encased in ?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The temperatures that would melt concrete would also have melted the steel objects to such a degree as to render then nearly unidentifiable.

In a fire as hot as that in WTC 6, concrete will crumble, crack, spall and otherwise lose any structural integrity. Add water and acid, and all manner of new minerals form. There were hundreds of pounds of smokeless gunpowder in the building near where the guns were stored. It creates some very acid residues. There is no reason to doubt that the chemical composition of the rubble in that location went through some interesting changes over time.

The substance in which the guns are imbedded is not homogenous. This is inconsistant with its having been in a molten state when it covered the guns.

The labels put on them in the museum were most likely written by cops rather than by engineers or chemists. The same could be said of the "meteorite" at Hangar 17. That, too, is described as "previously molten" even though there are still identifiable objects that were clearly deformed mechanically, as well as paper and carpeting. A lot of mistakes were made in identifying some of the debris.
 
Oystein said:
Funny that you don't link that source.

Oh and who ever said that you need to melt ALL the components in concrete to embed guns in it? Did you just invent yourself a cute little strawman?
Click to expand...

And his claim ignores the obvious:

1- the guns are intact and made of steel
2- melting point of gun grade steel is...1700C
3- concrete melts at 2600C

So then what he's claiming is that 2600C concrete flowed around the gun and solidified, and had zero effect on a gun that melts at 900C lower temp...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom