Debris removal specialist: Richard riggs saw melted beams, molten steel

[Neally]

I just repeat my quote, maybe you have to read it again.
If i see you, its not i think i saw you, but i saw you. There is a difference.

Waaahh this is crazy, i have now a discussion with somebody who does not see the difference between i think i saw, and i saw.

Here's a clue to understanding my point. Our perception and interpretation thereof doesn't necessarily match reality. Ever hear of two witnesses to the same accident give significantly different account of what they think they saw?

Avoidance noted as to what is the point of all this is.

 

[IDB87]

For the sake of argument, say molten steel WAS found. How does that fit into the conspiracy theory?

Devil's advocate.

IF thermite was used to bring down the towers, would it create 'molten' metal that could be kept alive due to the fuel present in the fires? Or would the amount of fuel present be insufficient to keep the required temperature up?

/devils advocate

 

[Marokkaan]

The point Neally is trying to make (and you are completely incapable of comprehending, apparently) is that there could be any number of outside factors that make your conclusions "I saw you at the mall yesterday" wrong. How far away were you? Did you see their face full on, or only from the side? Did you see a face at all? Did you call out the name of the person you thought it was and receive an acknowledgment? Can the person whom you claim you saw prove that they were, in fact, elsewhere at the time you thought you saw them? These are all factors that affect the statement "I saw you at the mall yesterday".

Likewise, when we look at the video provided, we can hear what is being said, but without independent verification through corroboration (which we do not have), scientific analysis of the substance in question, (which we also do not have), or further statements from Mr. Riggs where he states unequivocally "I saw melted steel while helping to clean up Ground Zero" (WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE), then we cannot say definitively that Mr. Riggs in fact saw molten steel (in its liquid state, that is). The fact that you don't get that makes me wonder just how disconnected with reality you are, quite honestly.

And thats why we need NIST. But NIST ignores it.

You can not ignore a eye witness who is talking about molten steel and melted beams, especially if the person has experience with debris removal.

 

[twinstead]

And thats why we need NIST. But NIST ignores it.

You can not ignore a eye witness who is talking about molten steel and melted beams, especially if the person has experience with debris removal.

The NIST wasn't concerned about what happened after the collapse initiation--they weren't tasked to describe that. Additionally, what exactly would the relevance of melted beams and molten steel if it did exist?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I just repeat my quote, maybe you have to read it again.
If i see you, its not i think i saw you, but i saw you. There is a difference.

Waaahh this is crazy, i have now a discussion with somebody who does not see the difference between i think i saw, and i saw.

Maro, so whats the difference? Everything you see is what you THINK you see, without other collaborating evidence that's all any eye witness evidence is. Did the Debris removal expert take a sample of the "molten steel" and test it to make sure it was steel? No he didn't, why would he? So we know that he at best "THINKS" he saw molten steel.

English is a complex language, one you clearly have not mastered the subtler points thereof.

 

[Sabrina]

And thats why we need NIST. But NIST ignores it.

You can not ignore a eye witness who is talking about molten steel and melted beams, especially if the person has experience with debris removal.

What makes you think NIST didn't examine the possibility? The difference between you and them is, they looked at the science, which states unequivocally that it is IMPOSSIBLE for steel to be in it's molten (i.e. liquid) state at the temperatures that were recorded in the debris pile. The difference between the highest temperature recorded at Ground Zero (around 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, IIRC) and the melting point of steel (around 2500 degrees Fahrenheit) is far too great to take any accounts of "molten steel" seriously. When you also take into account that it is impossible to determine exactly what metal it is when it is in its liquid state, and remember that there were numerous other metals with LOWER than 1800 degree melting points that comprised the structure of the Twin Towers, then you can come to a reasonable conclusion that the reports of "pools of molten steel" are in actuality pools of molten aluminum, or copper.

Likewise, the reports of warped and twisted columns are consistent with this conclusion, because while steel cannot MELT at the temperatures recorded in the debris pile, they CAN weaken and become distorted or warped. This is what you seem to not get; there are other factors in play besides one person's perception of what is going on. NIST thoroughly examined as many steel beams as they could for their report; had they found anything that appeared to have been melted, rather than warped or twisted due to the tremendous forces and high temperatures in the pile, they would have tried to find a cause, I can assure you. That they did not, suggests that whatever smoking gun you are trying to find DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[excaza]

Devil's advocate.

IF thermite was used to bring down the towers, would it create 'molten' metal that could be kept alive due to the fuel present in the fires? Or would the amount of fuel present be insufficient to keep the required temperature up?

/devils advocate

That would require the fires to be hot enough to melt the metal in the first place. Never mind the duration.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Devil's advocate.

IF thermite was used to bring down the towers, would it create 'molten' metal that could be kept alive due to the fuel present in the fires? Or would the amount of fuel present be insufficient to keep the required temperature up?

/devils advocate

It would depend on the mass of molten metal, the heat provided by the pile and insulation level of the surrounding material.

I'd guess it would have to be a huge volume of steel, much hotter fires and much better insulation. I can't find the link right now but some really big machine tools had castings that weighed hundreds of tons and even those would be solid in a mater of weeks.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And thats why we need NIST. But NIST ignores it.

You can not ignore a eye witness who is talking about molten steel and melted beams, especially if the person has experience with debris removal.

How would NIST help? Do you want them to water board the debris removal specialist to see if he is mistaken or not?

 

[AndrewBurley]

That's metal. What metal we don't know for sure, but we can safely assume it's aluminum.

The glowing pipe? That proves what exactly? That it was hot in a fire?

STOP THE PRESSES!

How can you safely assume that? Our debris specialist needs to provide test results absolutely proving what he saw but you can just assume from a photograph?

 

[AndrewBurley]

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.)

I told you who this guy is. He used to run the demolition company that demolished the Kingdome stadium.

 

[Neally]

I told you who this guy is. He used to run the demolition company that demolished the Kingdome stadium.

Which doesn't necessarily make him an expert in the visual identification of molten steel.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Which doesn't necessarily make him an expert in the visual identification of molten steel.

You don't need to be an expert to see a steel beam that is melting.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

Let's make it simple Marokkaan:Riggs had seen melted beams and molten steel, right?

Riggs had said he believes office fires can get hot enough to melt steel, right?

If you take what Riggs says as gospel, he answers a suspicion of yours through his own observation. You are accepting what he had seen(melted beams and molten steel) as gospel; and yet you are not accepting his opinion that office fires can melt steel (deduction)?


We know he said they were "pulling it out" from the rubble, right?

Molten steel in liquid form cannot be "pulled out" because it's like a fluid and extremely hot making it unable to be "pulled out".

There's a huge inconsistancy here and if you are going to take all of Rigg's testimony as gospel, you have a big problem!

 

[Sabrina]

How can you safely assume that? Our debris specialist needs to provide test results absolutely proving what he saw but you can just assume from a photograph?

Because we know the maximum temperatures recorded in the debris pile, which all point to it being unlikely that it was steel, and since aluminum was plentiful in the towers, it's the most likely metal. The entire sides of the building were aluminum cladding, after all.

But you might notice that Noah didn't say we KNOW it was aluminum; "safely assume" in this context means, in the absence of data proving otherwise, this is the most likely conclusion. It leaves the door open to provide further evidence that may or may not contradict the statement.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Next step, I think, is tell it to the other truthers that he said that burning paper, furniture and carpets were hot enough to melt steel. If they don't agree with that, then maybe they'd better not agree with everything else he said.

Dave

 

[AndrewBurley]

Next step, I think, is tell it to the other truthers that he said that burning paper, furniture and carpets were hot enough to melt steel. If they don't agree with that, then maybe they'd better not agree with everything else he said.

Dave

Why? Do you live in a black and white world where either everything someone says is true or everything someone says is false???

 

[Dave Rogers]

How can you safely assume that? Our debris specialist needs to provide test results absolutely proving what he saw but you can just assume from a photograph?

Let's suppose everything he said is true, and that (a) he saw molten steel and (b) it was melted by the building contents burning. Where does that get you?

Alternatively, let's suppose not everything he said is true. Why should it be the bit about molten steel that's true and the bit about it being melted by the contents fire that isn't?

Third and last, let's suppose that just the bits you've chosen to believe are true, and the bits you've chosen not to believe aren't true. How does that have anything to do with a 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why? Do you live in a black and white world where either everything someone says is true or everything someone says is false???

Oh, the irony. You're saying that, if he says he saw molten steel, then that must be true because he's an expert, but it means nothing if he says the fires melted the steel.

I live in a world where, if you accept that one part of a statement has to be examined critically, you have to be equally skeptical about the remaining part of it. It's a place called "reality".

Dave

 

[Neally]

You don't need to be an expert to see a steel beam that is melting.

And he never said he saw that. He said "the fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that got dug up." Clearly he wasn't watching the steel as it melted but was reporting that "molten steel" was dug up. Again a debris removal specialist doesn't mean he is an expert at identifying something that he described as "molten steel".