• 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

Marokkaan said:
I only reply on ontopic posts. I want to know if the guy is lying. I do not talk about other things then that.

So be ontopic or leave the topic.
Click to expand...

Fine.

He's not lying, he's mistaken or using sloppy language. Happy?
 
Marokkaan said:
I only reply on ontopic posts. I want to know if the guy is lying. I do not talk about other things then that.

So be ontopic or leave the topic.
Click to expand...

Lying about seeing molten steel, or lying about the materials in the offices of the towers causing the molten steel?:D
 
Dash80 said:
A youtube video, of course. Nevermind I suppose it counts as seeing steel melt.

Have you seen it up close?

I have, in the foundry my dad worked in.
Click to expand...

:boggled:So you see with your own eyes a square in steelform. And you see with your own eyes, that the square is melting.

You dont need to be a expert to see that, well maybe you need glasses, but thats not my problem.
 
So, how much thermite would it take to keep the rubble burning hot enough to melt steel?

Sorry, I must have missed where you guys answered that.
 
excaza said:
So, how much thermite would it take to keep the rubble burning hot enough to melt steel?

Sorry, I must have missed where you guys answered that.
Click to expand...

They avoid explaining how molten steel would advance their conspiracy theory like the plague. Personally, I don't blame them.
 
Marokkaan said:
So next time read the thread title and the first post.

How can he be mistaken? Whats so difficult to see melted beams?
Click to expand...

Others here have explained that the word "molten" can also have other meanings besides "melted" or "in liquid form due to extreme heat". I also said that the heat levels measured in the debris pile were certainly sufficient to cause warping, bending, and twisting of the steel beams. I did not hear him say he literally saw, in front of his eyes, a beam melting into liquid. Could you quote the relevant statement please?
 
Sabrina said:
Others here have explained that the word "molten" can also have other meanings besides "melted" or "in liquid form due to extreme heat". I also said that the heat levels measured in the debris pile were certainly sufficient to cause warping, bending, and twisting of the steel beams. I did not hear him say he literally saw, in front of his eyes, a beam melting into liquid. Could you quote the relevant statement please?
Click to expand...

He said melted beams and he said molten steel. So its not up to you or me to judge. But its up to people like john gross, to take this man and others serious.

Let me take an example.

We have a suspect who said to me, i killed the man.

But what does he mean with killing, does he really mean he killed the man.

Or does he means he killed him with a rapsong, or killed him with a game.

So i can not judge what he really said, but i can not ignore. Maybe the guy really killed him. So i have to take him to the police. So the police can interrogate him.

It would be crazy, to ignore, just because he didnt said it literally.

Thats why eyewitnesses are so important in a investigation, you cant just ignore people.

NIST ignored a lot of people.
 
No one has ever said we should ignore this man.

We have SAID that we need more information than a fifteen or twenty second single quote can supply. Cherry-picking single quotes when more information is easily obtainable is a hallmark of the truther movement, however, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're focusing on a single quote.

In other words, you are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Actually, scratch that; you're incapable of seeing a TREE because of the leaves.
 
Marokkaan said:
He said melted beams and he said molten steel. So its not up to you or me to judge. But its up to people like john gross, to take this man and others serious.
Click to expand...

Except that we mustn't take him seriously when he says that ordinary fires can create molten steel, because that's just plain silly. But he can't possibly be wrong about the slightest detail of anything he says except for the fact that he's totally wrong about that bit, right?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Except that we mustn't take him seriously when he says that ordinary fires can create molten steel, because that's just plain silly. But he can't possibly be wrong about the slightest detail of anything he says except for the fact that he's totally wrong about that bit, right?

Dave
Click to expand...

This reminds me of how Jowenko must be totally right about his claim that WTC7 was a CD, but is totally wrong about his claim that WTC1 and 2 could not be CD.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Except that we mustn't take him seriously when he says that ordinary fires can create molten steel, because that's just plain silly. But he can't possibly be wrong about the slightest detail of anything he says except for the fact that he's totally wrong about that bit, right?

Dave
Click to expand...

Maybe because he has no other explanation, how could he know, what kind of temperature you need to melt steel.

He just saying what he saw.

You are misleading yourself, you are talking about the relation this guy uses between the fire and the melting steel.

But we are talking about the observations, he observes the fires and the debris and the melting beams and steel.
 
Marokkaan said:
:boggled:So you see with your own eyes a square in steelform. And you see with your own eyes, that the square is melting.

You dont need to be a expert to see that, well maybe you need glasses, but thats not my problem.
Click to expand...

Where does Riggs say that he saw steel in square form melting, that is, in the instance of turning from solid to liquid?

Please quote where he says that!
 
Marokkaan said:
Maybe because he has no other explanation, how could he know, what kind of temperature you need to melt steel.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Riggs is not competent to judge the behaviour of steel?

Marokkaan said:
He just saying what he saw.
Click to expand...
Yes, he saw "molten steel pulled from the debris", which is an impossibility if you construe that as "presently liquid steel pulled from the debris". So there MUST be something wrong with that statement, right?
Either the steel is not liquid
Or they didn't pull it.
I guess he is clear about the fact that they pulled something.
I'd go with the assumption that the steel wasn't actually liquid when he saw it.
How about you? Was it liquid when he saw it?

Marokkaan said:
You are misleading yourself, you are talking about the relation this guy uses between the fire and the melting steel.

But we are talking about the observations, he observes the fires and the debris and the melting beams and steel.
Click to expand...
Please quote precisely the text which you construe as meaning that he saw solid steel beams turning presently to liquid! Quote it!!
 
Marokkaan said:
:boggled:So you see with your own eyes a square in steelform. And you see with your own eyes, that the square is melting.

You dont need to be a expert to see that, well maybe you need glasses, but thats not my problem.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you need to learn to read better in English. You are making mistakes that I know I would not make in my second language.

In English, "square edges" (emphasize that they are square) is incompatible with "melting."
 
leftysergeant said:
Apparently, you need to learn to read better in English. You are making mistakes that I know I would not make in my second language.

In English, "square edges" (emphasize that they are square) is incompatible with "melting."
Click to expand...

: doublefacepalm:
 
Marokkaan said:
: doublefacepalm:
Click to expand...
Is that all you can do?


Not once in your video does this guy say he actually saw melting steel himself. He talks about it yes but he does not say "I observed it"

However he gives his explaination for it and seems to me he supports collapse by impact and fire. Why are you choosing to ignore this? You take one part of his statement as gospel but not the other?

It's this simple: You consider him an expert (and I'm not saying he isn't) and that he witnessed molten steel in the pile. You jump all over this statement.

Your expert provides an explaination for what you say he saw (which he doesn't actually say he witnessed himself), you ignore him on this. WHY? Is he lying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom