• 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

AndrewBurley said:
If Riggs had written a paper or something about how wrong truthers were, the debunkers would be crawling all over it proclaiming what a great experienced expert he is, like Blanchard. But, because he says there was molten steel, he's suddenly not qualified.
Click to expand...

He's qualified to recognize molten steel on sight but not qualified to state how it became molten?

Lol! Parliament!
 
AndrewBurley said:
Why? Do you live in a black and white world where either everything someone says is true or everything someone says is false???:confused:
Click to expand...

Irony-796569.jpg


No we live in the real world where most things are shades of grey.....
 
AndrewBurley said:
Why? Do you live in a black and white world where either everything someone says is true or everything someone says is false???:confused:
Click to expand...

ACtually it is you guys who are trying to argue in absolutes. Riggs says that there was molten steel, which he says was caused by office materials burning.

Most of us have no trouble understanding what the situation was, and that Riggs wasn't in a position to know what the composition of the molten material was.

He never actually says he saw a melted steel beam. And in fact most of us agree (except for truthers, oddly) because we also know this is corroborated by the lack of evidence of melted steel beams when the debris was removed and sorted at Freshkills.

Most of us can easily accept that he may have used the word 'steel' in error. That isn't a problem for us. But it seems to be a problem for truthers.

Fact is, a number of laymen described the molten metal as 'steel', but we understand that they had no way of knowing what it actually was. This really isn't difficult.

The pictures and videos do not show molten steel per se, they may in fact show molten metals dripping off steel in many cases. None of this is inconsistent with the best physical evidence we have (no molten steel). In fact it all fits perfectly well without any need to deny eyewitnesses.

BAck to Dr John Gross. When he's aske about the 'huge pools of molten steel', he says he hasn't seen any personally, nor has he seen reports of it.

And truthers accuse him of lying. What an interesting double-standard. But that's typical for truthers - an eyewitness is 100% accurate if they agree with 9/11 Truth mythology, but they are lying if they don't agree.

Barry Jennings is accused, by truthers, of lying about dead bodies in WTC 7. But when he says that there was an explosion b4 the towers fell, that is taken as 'Gospel according to St. Gage.'

Truthers still cannot explain how a molten liquid can be identified by eye in the context of flaming debris piles. Or in the garage of WTC 6, where molten metal was also seen.

Again truthers - was molten steel also present in WTC 6? Your logic argues 'yes', but we know that WTC 6 didn't have any exotic incendiaries in it. Because none were found when it was taken apart by crews.

So which is it? Molten metal, or molten steel? Was there no molten tin, aluminum or lead? It was 100% steel? Or 50% steel, 25% aluminum and 25% copper?
Please, truthers, only you guys have the talent to spot molten steel at a glance. Tell us!!

The people outside your conspiracy cult on this forum do not have a problem grappling with these facts. It's good to be us..:D
 
AndrewBurley said:
For the third time, Mr Riggs ran the demolition company that brought down the Kingdome. He wasn't a garbage collector.
Click to expand...

Since you are so adamant about his qualifications at identifying molten metals, can you explain where, in demolitions, molten metals are found???

And also, if the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, wouldn't Riggs recognize this immediately and explain that?

something doesn't add up here, it seems you truthers have mangled the testimony to mean something it doesn't, and are stuck in a hole of your own making.

Have fun trying to get out! The ladder is always there if you are willing to join reality, but until then, enjoy the rabbit hole. See if you can find any giant pools of molten steel down there while you're at it!
 
Hey truthers! I have to isolate one question for you which is puzzling me -

If all the molten metal at GZ was molten steel (That's what truthers insist, so I'm just going with the flow here), then what happened to all the aluminum, copper, tin etc?

Did it melt also, or only the steel?
And if other metals melted, why don't we EVER see any evidence of them at GZ?

Please help explain this to me. Thanks. :)
 
alienentity said:
Hey truthers! I have to isolate one question for you which is puzzling me -

If all the molten metal at GZ was molten steel (That's what truthers insist, so I'm just going with the flow here), then what happened to all the aluminum, copper, tin etc?

Did it melt also, or only the steel?
And if other metals melted, why don't we EVER see any evidence of them at GZ?

Please help explain this to me. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

When has anyone ever claimed all the molten metal was steel? Quote them.
 
AndrewBurley said:
When has anyone ever claimed all the molten metal was steel? Quote them.
Click to expand...

Where is the melted steel? You have hearsay and fantasy on your side, the easy do nothing side using zero evidence and moronic claims as support for 10 years of failed claims.
 
AndrewBurley said:
If Riggs had written a paper or something about how wrong truthers were, the debunkers would be crawling all over it proclaiming what a great experienced expert he is, like Blanchard. But, because he says there was molten steel, he's suddenly not qualified.
Click to expand...

We don't do what truthers do.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Research?
Click to expand...

If by research you mean google and youtube, then yea, you folks do plenty of research. Meanwhile, in the real world, the largest investigation in the history of the United States took place right after 9-11.

Perhaps you've heard of it.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Research?
Click to expand...

A plethora of irony that is. :rolleyes:

You truthers refuse to understand what real research requires.You ask questions, yes, but you never answer them. You never put forward an overall scenario of the alleged conspiracy. You imply that’s not up to you. So who is it up to? Whom do you expect to answer your questions? When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or you simply rebound with another question.
 
AndrewBurley said:
No, you live in a world where any witness that says something remotely against the official story is 'examined critically' to the nth degree and branded as mistaken, confused or contradictory....while any witness that supports the official story has their testimony regarded as gospel and anyone who dare question it is disrespecting a 9/11 hero/victim.
Click to expand...

AndrewBurley said:
If Riggs had written a paper or something about how wrong truthers were, the debunkers would be crawling all over it proclaiming what a great experienced expert he is, like Blanchard. But, because he says there was molten steel, he's suddenly not qualified.
Click to expand...

Lol there is no doubt in it. They are just defending their debunkers religion.
 
Marokkaan said:
Lol there is no doubt in it. They are just defending their debunkers religion.
Click to expand...
I'll ask this again (as apparently you struggle to understand the english language on this issue). Your new pet witness seems to support the official explaination. His book appears to support it too from what I've seen, I'll reserve proper judgement until I see if I can get hold of a copy. You trust him completely about molten steel but dismiss the explaination he gave in the video. You have no concrete proof he actually saw this steel himself, he simply talks about it. Yes you assume he saw it, can you show us where he says this?

Why do you so readily accept his (expert) statement on the steel and not his explaination? Is he lying? Is he covering up for the perps? What would be the point in mentioning the steel then lying about why it's there? Why not just keep his mouth shut?
 
AndrewBurley said:
If Riggs had written a paper or something about how wrong truthers were, the debunkers would be crawling all over it proclaiming what a great experienced expert he is, like Blanchard. But, because he says there was molten steel, he's suddenly not qualified.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

You seem a bit more coherent than Marokkaan, so maybe this will work:

OK. For the sake of discussion: This guy, who is probably as much an expert on collapsing giant skyscrapers as we get, says steel was melted. Fine, let's assume he is right.

Now what? This is evidence of, ...what? - And why?

Hans
 
Last edited:
Curious that Andrew never replied to this:

Oystein said:
Can you please quote Riggs verbatim where he says that he saw a beam that was melting, i.e. turning from solid to liquid as he watched? Thanks.
Click to expand...

So let me bump it:

AndrewBurley, can you please quote Riggs verbatim where he says that he saw a beam that was melting, i.e. turning from solid to liquid as he watched? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom