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

[Marokkaan]

I've already explained it Marokkaan. If you did not understand it then that is your problem, not mine.

I have a limit of how much I'm willing to explain things to people who are crazy, stupid, or just too invested in a belief to see differently.

In your case I think it's the third option...which means there is hope of you eventually coming out of it.

yes thats possible, or you try to dodge it because you realize you were contradicting yourselve.

Actually.....not many people worked on the project.

They conducted training runs at BAF in Afghanistan and it was a CIA operation....DEVGRU was attached to the CIA SOG for the mission. Members of those two groups likely knew about the operation early on, but the whole operation was kept very close hold in the States and in Afghanistan.

Most special Operations guys had no idea it was going on.....even those with close friends in the SOCOM world. Everyone did a very good job of keeping the operation under wraps.

That's not a conspiracy Marokkaan....it's a special mission using two small groups that are both good at keeping their mouths shut. They are good at doing so because bragging about it can compromise the mission objective and also endanger the operators lives. Please do not ever compare DEVGRU, SOG, CAG, or any such group with your asinine conspiracy theories.

It's insulting to the members of those groups

Irony meter some where?

 

[Oystein]

Because it completely demolishes the truther canard of "melted steel must mean thermite." You might want to coordinate with your peers before you start attacking their assertions.

Why do you deem this supposed molten steel so important?

lolll

Why the laughing-out-loud? Didn't you say earlier...?

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

So what is molten steel evidence for? What is the theory which you seek to prove by invoking reports of molten steel?

 

[Marokkaan]

That's all you've got? Really?

The quintessential truther line is that office fires cannot be hot enough to melt steel, therefore there must have been thermite present if molten steel is present. Since you are taking this man's word as gospel, that means you believe that office fires can get hot enough to melt steel, and that no thermite would be required.

Is logic really so difficult for truther idiots?

Lol please my stomach hurts

 

[Dash80]

Yes

The molten steel? I think molten steel solid steel that turns in liquid.

Do I agree? Another amazing question....

For one thing im sure, i totally agree, he saw melted beams.

The molten steel i can not agree or disagree. One thing is for sure, he saw a liquid substance.

So i have to ask you again.

Why is the explanation from richard riggs about the cause of melting steel important?

Because he gave one atleast.

What do you think caused "molten steel?"

 

[Dash80]

Lol please my stomach hurts

That's a side effect of being full of crap.

 

[Marokkaan]

Because he gave one atleast.What do you think caused "molten steel?"

What it has to do in relation with his observation of melted beams?

 

[excaza]

What is the importance of molten steel? Why would it indicate a conspiracy?

 

[AndrewBurley]

What is the importance of molten steel? Why would it indicate a conspiracy?

It would indicate temperatures higher than office content fires which would provide some corroboration to thermite theories. For the thermite theory to be true you would expect molten steel or iron. How do you explain the Iron spheres in the dust?

 

[excaza]

It would indicate temperatures higher than office content fires which would provide some corroboration to thermite theories. For the thermite theory to be true you would expect molten steel or iron. How do you explain the Iron spheres in the dust?

Except your messiah said steel could melt in a normal office fire, and Marokkan just told all of us that thermite wasn't involved.

 

[Animal]

It would indicate temperatures higher than office content fires which would provide some corroboration to thermite theories. For the thermite theory to be true you would expect molten steel or iron.

Thermite / thermate would NEVER have been able to keep steel molten for the period of time required for a "debris removal specialist" to observe it

The claim that thermite / thermate was the cause is another troofer fail that ignores reality

How do you explain the Iron spheres in the dust?

welding, cutting torches are quite common in building construction. Iron has already been shown to be used in some of the building materials.

Your claim that iron spheres = thermate just as flawed as your claim that a knife in a back of a copse proves murder.

 

[Dash80]

What it has to do in relation with his observation of melted beams?

You don't get the connection? He mentions molten steel and explains what he thinks caused it. You've brought up the subject of molten steel in this thread, what do you think caused it?

 

[newton3376]

Irony meter some where?

If you are comparing an operation like deliberately bringing down three high rise buildings.....with the operation of attacking a compound in Pakistan....well I can't help you. They are nothing alike.

 

[Marokkaan]

You don't get the connection? He mentions molten steel and explains what he thinks caused it. You've brought up the subject of molten steel in this thread, what do you think caused it?

He mention also the melted beams, why do you ignore that?

Again, what is the connection between telling the cause of observing things, and observing things.

 

[Marokkaan]

If you are comparing an operation like deliberately bringing down three high rise buildings.....with the operation of attacking a compound in Pakistan....well I can't help you. They are nothing alike.

This is funny, what a lot debunkers do.

Dodge the mistake you made. You can not accept you made a mistake by thinking the killing of osama bin laden is not a conspiracy.

It almost looks now, your are saying everything whats a conspiracy, has to come from 9/11 or from weird crazy people.

Debunkers do not even understand the definition of a conspiracy lol.

 

[excaza]

What is the importance of molten steel? Why would it indicate a conspiracy?

 

[newton3376]

This is funny, what a lot debunkers do.

Dodge the mistake you made. You can not accept you made a mistake by thinking the killing of osama bin laden is not a conspiracy.

It almost looks now, your are saying everything whats a conspiracy, has to come from 9/11 or from weird crazy people.

Debunkers do not even understand the definition of a conspiracy lol.

Killing Bin Laden was not a Conspiracy.

It was public knowledge we wanted to kill or capture him (preferably kill IMO)...so no, you can't compare that to your 9/11 conspiracy theories.

They are not even remotely the same. Just because something is CLASSIFIED doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Things are CLASSIFIED to keep information from people that do not have:

1. The proper clearance level.
2. A need to know.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It would indicate temperatures higher than office content fires which would provide some corroboration to thermite theories.

No, it wouldn't. Thermite is incapable of sustaining such high temperatures for weeks; it burns out in seconds.

For the thermite theory to be true you would expect molten steel or iron. How do you explain the Iron spheres in the dust?

They weren't iron spheres. Go away and look it up again, and find out why you're wrong. I'd tell you myself, but you wouldn't believe me, so find it out from Steven Jones.

Dave

 

[AndrewBurley]

No, it wouldn't. Thermite is incapable of sustaining such high temperatures for weeks; it burns out in seconds.

Indeed it does. However, that does not rule out the possibility of unignited thermite igniting later in the pile. In fact once steel is molten, by whatever means, if it was insulated correctly it could stay molten.

They weren't iron spheres. Go away and look it up again, and find out why you're wrong. I'd tell you myself, but you wouldn't believe me, so find it out from Steven Jones.

Dave

They were iron spheres. Denying them won't make them go away. The RJ Lee report documented them, not just Steven Jones.

 

[Oystein]

It would indicate temperatures higher than office content fires which would provide some corroboration to thermite theories.

What IS or ARE the "thermite theories"?
Can you briefly summarize one that describes how, where and when thermite was installed, how when and where it was ignited, how it worked before the collapse (by the shockwave of an explosive, or by high heat as an incendiary, or both, or...), and what became of it, or its reaction products, during the collapse that pulverized everything from all or most of the concrete to at least half of the human occupants (or so you try to convince), and where they (thermite and products of thermite reaction) ended up at the end of the collapse, and what happened to them in the time after collapse and until Riggs "saw melted beams, molten steel"?

Thanks.

For the thermite theory to be true you would expect molten steel or iron.

We can assess the validity of this statement only after you have told us which theory you are talking about.

For example, I would expect that both the thermite and any steel that was molten by the thermite before and until collapse initiation would have been widely dispersed during the collapse, causing all of the molten steel to resolidify in a matter of seconds, and all of the thermite to be so diluted in the dust that it could not sustain a reaction sufficient to melt bulk amounts of steel (such as "a beam"). Consequently, I would expect to NOT find any bulk amounts (saym more than 2 pounds in one piece) of melted (liquid), or formerly liquid, steel more than an hour after the collapse.

How do you explain the Iron spheres in the dust?

You are moving goal posts, Andrew!
Remember, we are not discussing iron spheres (which are on the micro-scale - liquid iron spheres would look exactly like embers and could not be distinguished from solid embers except perhaps by color - liquid steel is white-hot, solid embers more usually red, orange or yellow).

We are instead talking about "melted beams, molten steel", i.e. bulk amounts of liquid steel. Please stick to this topic - Richard Riggs is not talking about dust particles!

 

[Marokkaan]

Killing Bin Laden was not a Conspiracy.

It was public knowledge we wanted to kill or capture him (preferably kill IMO)...so no, you can't compare that to your 9/11 conspiracy theories.

They are not even remotely the same. Just because something is CLASSIFIED doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Things are CLASSIFIED to keep information from people that do not have:

1. The proper clearance level.
2. A need to know.

The project, was to do it in silent.

It was a conspiracy to know about osama bin laden and where he lived and to do a project to kill him for political reasons.

THis is a conspiracy. If you dont understand the definition of a conspiracy , than i can not help you.