• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol!

How are we misleading ourselves by pointing out the fact that he states the materials from the offices burning were enough to cause molten steel?
 
He states what he saw, and he states what he thinks caused what he saw. Note the lack of "INSIDE JOB!!!111!!1" there.
 
Redtail said:
Lol!

How are we misleading ourselves by pointing out the fact that he states the materials from the offices burning were enough to cause molten steel?
Click to expand...

Do you have problems with understanding reading or are u just trolling?
 
Omg, debunkers have even problem with listening to a witness.

They can not accept, the guy saw melted beams and molten steel.

Debating with these people is hopeless loll
 
Marokkaan said:
Omg, debunkers have even problem with listening to a witness.

They can not accept, the guy saw melted beams and molten steel.

Debating with these people is hopeless loll
Click to expand...

She cannae take anymuir, Cap'n! She's gonna BLOOOOWWW!!!!

:id:
 
carlitos said:
I was a debris removal specialist for a few summers.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean sanitation engineers? Is this guy with AET9/11?

(Disclaimer: garbage collectors do a tough and tremendously important job that is absolutely essential for the health of modern cities. However, calling them 'sanitation engineers' is still ridiculous.)
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
Omg, debunkers have even problem with listening to a witness.

They can not accept, the guy saw melted beams and molten steel.

Debating with these people is hopeless loll
Click to expand...

So where is this molten steel? Why isn't it documented anywhere, by anyone?
 
Marokkaan said:
Omg, debunkers have even problem with listening to a witness.

They can not accept, the guy saw melted beams and molten steel.

Debating with these people is hopeless loll
Click to expand...


If you did not overlook the following points, you would be less confused.

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. That's how we can tell when a piece of ice is melting, rather than just having water dripping off it from somewhere else, because we see the sharp edges of the piece of ice becoming rounded, the dripping water eroding channels in the ice, and similar effects.

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.)
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


Myriad said:
He [Riggs] 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 [or pulled] up, and he does not strike me as a joker who would casually report a physical impossibility.
Click to expand...


Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Dash80 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You can't answer this Marokkaan?
 
Marokkaan is just playing another tedious rhetorical game with you guys, you're wasting your time trying to get him to concede any of your points - he won't. That's his game.

Suggest you ignore him, as I do.
 
Lets use the logic of the debunkers. We can now exclude every eye witness, because everybody could use their own interpretation.

Lets take this example. This famous firefighter about leaning.



You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there.


Lets analyse this.

You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this?

Maybe he was shocked, maybe he used drugs. maybe he was talkin about a bird. Maybe he was talking about king kong climbing the wtc 7

It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already,

Maybe he was talking about the firetruck, or maybe he was talking about a tree.

Maybe he used drugs, maybe he was shocked.


the structural integrity is not there.

Maybe he was talking about the firetruck, maybe he was talking about a card house he made with his friends.

Maybe he used drugs, maybe he was shocked.
 
alienentity said:
Marokkaan is just playing another tedious rhetorical game with you guys, you're wasting your time trying to get him to concede any of your points - he won't. That's his game.

Suggest you ignore him, as I do.
Click to expand...

Then i put you on ignore.
 
Okay, this guy thinks he saw or claims he saw melted beams, molten steel. Now what?
 
Marokkaan said:
Do you have problems with understanding reading or are u just trolling?
Click to expand...

Please provide a precise transcript og Riggs words.

Then show us what he really is saying, and what is mere conjecture!

1. Does he say he saw beams in the process of turning from solid to liquid, or doesn't he say that? To support your answer, please reproduce the exact words that say this!

2. Does he say that office contents burned so hot they melted steel, or doesn't he say that? Support your answer by quoting verbatim those of his words that deal with office contents, the heat of the fires and beams!

3. Does he say that what they dug up was liquid steel, or doesn't he say that? If you think he said that, do you believe this is an accurate statement, or is this an inaccurate statement?
 
Marokkaan said:
<snip> Irrelevant rant
Click to expand...
None of this is relevant to the question I asked. You go nuts over your expert mentioning molten steel, but ignore the fact he (as an expert in your own words) provides an explaination. You ignore it, WHY?
 
Neally said:
Okay, this guy thinks he saw or claims he saw melted beams, molten steel. Now what?
Click to expand...

No not he thinks, he saw it.

If i see you, its not i think i saw you, but i saw you. There is a difference.

Even if you are admitting, you still have to change it LOL

Next step tell it to the other debunkers, so we had the first step and everybody can say, this guy saw melted beams and molten steel.
 
Marokkaan said:
Omg, debunkers have even problem with listening to a witness.

They can not accept, the guy saw melted beams and molten steel.
Click to expand...

Marokkaan said:
Debating with these people is hopeless loll
Click to expand...

Ok, let me reproduce his exact words:
The fire is burning from the bottom because you have so many million square feet of office space that are in those towers - what kind of combustibles are in a million square feet of office space? The paper, furniture, carpets. The fires got very intense down there, actually melted beams where I was molten steel that was dug out.
Click to expand...

Does he say he saw melted beams? Not really. He said "the fires ... melted beams", not "I saw melted beams".
But suppose he saw melted beams, what else did he see? -> He saw that molten steel was dug out. What steel - from the beams? Sounds like it, eh? So can they pull out steel when it is liquid? No? Oh!
Hmm what if that steel was previously molten steel from beams, that had resolidified. Would he say he saw melted beams them? How would he know the previously molten steel was formerly beams, and not rebar, or some other metal altogether?

So either he saw beams, then they were solid all the way, or he saw liquid steel, then he didn't see beams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom