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

[AndrewBurley]

*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

It would be evidence of something in the piles that could melt steel. An anomaly, wouldn't you say?

 

[newton3376]

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.

Nope nope and nope...

You are missing the point.

NO ONE is qualified to identify a molten substance simply by looking at it.....that's why you have to TEST THE MATERIAL.

 

[Marokkaan]

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?

Im talking to a wall......

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Nope. We apply the same level of critical examination to both. I could, for example, simply say that Riggs claimed ordinary building fires can produce molten steel, and thus reject your entire claim on that basis. As it happens, I regard that claim with extreme skepticism; I don't believe an ordinary fire can get that hot. But, as we never tire of pointing out, and you never dare respond to, even if he's right about the molten steel and wrong about the fire, how does this suggest a conspiracy?

Dave

 

[newton3376]

Im talking to a wall......

Let me ask you something Marokkaan...

This is a serious question that I've asked of other truthers/conspiracy theorists...

Is there a certain timeframe where you are willing to give up this 9/11 crap?

I mean...lets say that 30 years from now we STILL do not have a new investigation, the majority of the worlds Engineers and Scientists still think truthers are nuts, and no one has "broken" the conspiracy....no death bed confessions....no declassified information implicating the guilty...nothing.

How many years have to pass by before you take a look back and think....."Gee.....maybe the truth movement was wrong."

How many? 20? 30? 50?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It would be evidence of something in the piles that could melt steel. An anomaly, wouldn't you say?

So what? Anomalies are not proof of a conspiracy; they suggest that there is some detail of events that we don't fully understand, but they do nothing to overturn the mountain of evidence that supports the understanding we already have. It's a classic fallacy of conspiracy theorists to claim that anything that casts doubt on the understanding of a series of events is evidence of a conspiracy to falsify those events; in terms of logic it's a simple non sequitur.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

Let me ask you something Marokkaan...

This is a serious question that I've asked of other truthers/conspiracy theorists...

Is there a certain timeframe where you are willing to give up this 9/11 crap?

I mean...lets say that 30 years from now we STILL do not have a new investigation, the majority of the worlds Engineers and Scientists still think truthers are nuts, and no one has "broken" the conspiracy....no death bed confessions....no declassified information implicating the guilty...nothing.

How many years have to pass by before you take a look back and think....."Gee.....maybe the truth movement was wrong."

How many? 20? 30? 50?

And now its about another subject. what tha &#*#&

 

[newton3376]

And now its about another subject. what tha &#*#&

Marokkaan....

All this crap has been answered time and time again....

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: No.

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No.

Q: Is molten steel proof of thermite?
A: No.

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: No.

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: No.

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: No.

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: No.


It's all been answered Marokkaan...you can stop asking quesiton now.

Now back to my original question.....how much time must pass for you to finally admit that you were wrong?

 

[Oystein]

It would be evidence of something in the piles that could melt steel. An anomaly, wouldn't you say?

Andrew, I see you are active in this thread, so I conclude you are actively dodging the following question, which I would kindly ask you to answer now:

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.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It would be evidence of something in the piles that could melt steel. An anomaly, wouldn't you say?

No, not really. Pile a lot of combustibles together in a heap. Insulate them from the surroundings by a thick layer of dust and debris, provide a constant but limited supply of air, add fire, and the temperature reached is solely determined by the ratio between heat-loss and heat produced through combustion.

They have been firing stone-ware and melting steel by that method since antiquity (both processes requiring temperatures around 1,500 - 1,600 deg C).

And we already know that parts of those piles burned for months.

Hans

 

[Marokkaan]

Marokkaan....

All this crap has been answered time and time again....

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: No.

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No.

Q: Is molten steel proof of thermite?
A: No.

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: No.

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: No.

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: No.

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: No.


It's all been answered Marokkaan...you can stop asking quesiton now.

Now back to my original question.....how much time must pass for you to finally admit that you were wrong?

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: yes

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No. But its an eyewitness who contradicts the claims of NIST.
NIST have to pay attention to this guy and the other eye witnesses

Q: Is molten steel proof of thermite?
A: No.

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: yes

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: no

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: yes

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: yes

 

[timhau]

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: yes

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No. But its an eyewitness who contradicts the claims of NIST.
NIST have to pay attention to this guy and the other eye witnesses

Q: Is molten steel proof of thermite?
A: No.

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: yes

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: no

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: yes

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: yes

Oh, I'm sorry, you've got the wrong reality. You might want to try the alternative universe next door.

 

[newton3376]

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: yes

How? Prove this.

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No. But its an eyewitness who contradicts the claims of NIST.
NIST have to pay attention to this guy and the other eye witnesses

Sorry....NIST was interested in evidence...not hearsay.

Q: Is molten steel proof of thermite?
A: No.

Correct.

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: yes

Where? Show me.

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: no

Correct.

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: yes

Prove it. Show me.

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: yes

Prove it. Show me.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: yes

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No. But its an eyewitness who contradicts the claims of NIST.
NIST have to pay attention to this guy and the other eye witnesses

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: yes

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: no

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: yes

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: yes

Oh? ... Well, that's what you get from talking to walls.
Try people for a change.

Hans

 

[Dash80]

Im talking to a wall......

Is answering my questions too difficult for you?

 

[Oystein]

Q: Can you tell what a molten material is just by looking at it?
A: yes

Ok, hands down: HOW do you do it? How do molten copper, molten gold, molten brass, molten silver, molten aluminium and molten zinc look different from one another?

Q: Are Richard Riggs statements proof of molten steel?
A: No. But its an eyewitness who contradicts the claims of NIST.
NIST have to pay attention to this guy and the other eye witnesses

Specifically which "claims of NIST" are contradicted by an eyewitness?

Q: Is molten steel proof of thermite?
A: No.

Q: Is there proof of significant quantities of molten steel or molten iron?
A: yes

What would molten steel be proof of, if not thermite?

Q: Was thermite found in the dust?
A: no

Q: Was there any evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues found?
A: yes

Specifically which evidence of controlled demolition devices or residues was found, since you rule out thermite?

Q: Is there a large percentage of experts that believe in controlled demolition?
A: yes

Can you substantiate that answer by providing a minimum percentage? Yes, I do expect a number here. And don't forget to say what totality that is a percentage of. So say something like "At least 20% of all demolition contractors in the USA believe in controlled demolition" or "at least 10% of all structural and civil engineers in New York state believe in controlled demolition".

 

[Marokkaan]

How? Prove this.


Sorry....NIST was interested in evidence...not hearsay

Correct.



Where? Show me.



Correct.



Prove it. Show me.



Prove it. Show me.

How? Prove this.

It looks like liquid, no.




Sorry....NIST was interested in evidence...not hearsay

So thats why a part of the 200 experts interviewed more than 1,000 people



Correct.

yes

Where? Show me.

no

Correct.

yes

Prove it. Show me.

no

Prove it. Show me.

no

 

[Marokkaan]

Is answering my questions too difficult for you?

Yes, your questions are strange and ridiculous

 

[Dash80]

Yes, your questions are strange and ridiculous

No they're not and I'm not the only one who asked them.

I'll try again, as simply as possible.

Why do you ignore his explaination? Is he...

A) Lying/part of the cover up?
B) Giving his expert opinion?
C) Not qualified enough to know what he's talking about?

 

[Marokkaan]

No they're not and I'm not the only one who asked them.

I'll try again, as simply as possible.

Why do you ignore his explaination? Is he...

A) Lying/part of the cover up?
B) Giving his expert opinion?
C) Not qualified enough to know what he's talking about?

A) Lying/part of the cover up?
He does not lie. But if you believe he is lying, then you do believe in a conspiracy, isnt it?

B) Giving his expert opinion?

There is nothing important about his expertise, everybody with good eyes can see a melted beam.

C) Not qualified enough to know what he's talking about?

See above.