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

[Dash80]

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.

I never ignored what he said, yes he said it. He doesn't confirm he saw it himself though.

There's no connection between observing something and determining it's cause? Then nobody needs to bother with the observed WTC collapses, not important. Case closed.

 

[excaza]

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.

I don't understand the point of this semantic sidetrack. Is your assertion that 9/11 was carried out by the US government in order to provide a reason to shoot Bin Laden? If so, why bother? They had ample reason to shoot the guy before 9/11 even happened.

 

[Oystein]

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.

But Marokkaan and you claim that Riggs saw beams as they melted - turned from solid to liquid. Would a beam that Riggs observed be "insulated correctly"? How does what you tell us there square with Riggs' report?

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

Please quote to us verbatim what RJ Lee and Jones found.
Hint: It's not "iron spheres"

 

[aggle-rithm]

Indeed it does. However, that does not rule out the possibility of unignited thermite igniting later in the pile.

If that were the case, we would expect to find some unignited thermite. It would be an amazing coincidence that

1) not all of the thermite was used up in the initial ignition, and

2) 100% of the thermite that didn't ignite was ignited later in the pile.

If the survival of a terrorist driver's license is unlikely, then this is virtually impossible.

In fact once steel is molten, by whatever means, if it was insulated correctly it could stay molten.

I doubt that. Can you provide the numbers that show how long x amount of steel can stay molten given the proper insulation? And can you show that the proper insulation was likely to be present in the pile?

Since you are making the claim, it falls to you to prove it.

 

[excaza]

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.

Well, great! Surely there's documentation of molten and/or solidified steel to support this totally feasible scenario?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Indeed it does. However, that does not rule out the possibility of unignited thermite igniting later in the pile.

For each piece of molten steel observed, there would have to have been a thermite burn recently enough for it to remain molten. So, just before the digger pulls up a piece of steel, there's a sudden violent exothermic reaction, throwing out huge quantities of heat and white light. How come nobody noticed?

In fact once steel is molten, by whatever means, if it was insulated correctly it could stay molten.

This is just a ridiculous claim. Any molten steel created by thermite in the rubble pile would lose heat to material around it just because the surrounding material was not as hot. It's beyond the bounds of possibility that the rubble pile could create the conditions required to keep steel molten for more than a few seconds. The very suggestion that thermite could be responsible for molten steel in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses is so absurd, it's laughable.

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

You're wrong. They were not "iron spheres". Look it up.

Dave

 

[Sabrina]

I have to do it at this point...

 

[newton3376]

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.

Please look these up before talking to me about this anymore:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspire


The mission to get Osama can't really be described as a "conspiracy" the way the term is used. It was a classified mission......not a conspiracy.

You are trying to use the word "conspiracy" in a very uncommon (and basically incorrect) way to justify your 9/11 conspiracy theory being called a conspiracy theory.

People call you a conspiracy theorist as a NEGATIVE term. Just like "twoofer", "conspiratard", "investi-googler", etc....they are all NEGATIVE terms denoting what society at large thinks of your position.

They think 9/11 truthers are one or more of the following:

Mentally unstable
Stupid
Gullible

Most don't bother including nicer terms like unaware, uneducated, or uninformed......most would just say truthers are retarded.

I'm sorry that most people in society view you like that......you don't have to like it....but that's the way it is. Don't try to change the common meaning of "Conspiracy" so that you feel better about being called a conspiracy theorist.

It is a NEGATIVE term that is MEANT to denote that your position is moronic and crazy.

 

[newton3376]

I have to do it at this point...

[qimg]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk170/elvisbloom/obvious_troll.jpg[/qimg]

OMFG



Sometimes you crack me up Sabrina.....for the love of FSM that was funny.

 

[AndrewBurley]

For each piece of molten steel observed, there would have to have been a thermite burn recently enough for it to remain molten. So, just before the digger pulls up a piece of steel, there's a sudden violent exothermic reaction, throwing out huge quantities of heat and white light. How come nobody noticed?



This is just a ridiculous claim. Any molten steel created by thermite in the rubble pile would lose heat to material around it just because the surrounding material was not as hot. It's beyond the bounds of possibility that the rubble pile could create the conditions required to keep steel molten for more than a few seconds. The very suggestion that thermite could be responsible for molten steel in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses is so absurd, it's laughable.



You're wrong. They were not "iron spheres". Look it up.

Dave

The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank's insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was "Spherical iron . . . particles."20 This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had "melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."21 The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal.22

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2011/03/05/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-7/

 

[Sabrina]

OMFG



Sometimes you crack me up Sabrina.....for the love of FSM that was funny.

Glad to be of service.

But seriously; at this point it's obvious. Marokkaan is yanking everyone's chain deliberately; NO ONE can be that obtuse unless they are severely mentally retarded.

I plan to post that picture to everything he says. I'd probably get more out of it than continuing to feed his need for attention by doing so.

 

[Marokkaan]

I never ignored what he said, yes he said it. He doesn't confirm he saw it himself though.

There's no connection between observing something and determining it's cause? Then nobody needs to bother with the observed WTC collapses, not important. Case closed.

In this topic.......

Im asking you something about the observations. And you want to make a connection with the cause of it.

I dont see a connection to see the relevance of talking about the cause, when we are talking about the observation.

Why you dont understand that?

 

[Sabrina]

In this topic.......

Im asking you something about the observations. And you want to make a connection with the cause of it.

I dont see a connection to see the relevance of talking about the cause, when we are talking about the observation.

Why you dont understand that?

 

[Marokkaan]

Please look these up before talking to me about this anymore:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspire


The mission to get Osama can't really be described as a "conspiracy" the way the term is used. It was a classified mission......not a conspiracy.

You are trying to use the word "conspiracy" in a very uncommon (and basically incorrect) way to justify your 9/11 conspiracy theory being called a conspiracy theory.

People call you a conspiracy theorist as a NEGATIVE term. Just like "twoofer", "conspiratard", "investi-googler", etc....they are all NEGATIVE terms denoting what society at large thinks of your position.

They think 9/11 truthers are one or more of the following:

Mentally unstable
Stupid
Gullible

Most don't bother including nicer terms like unaware, uneducated, or uninformed......most would just say truthers are retarded.

I'm sorry that most people in society view you like that......you don't have to like it....but that's the way it is. Don't try to change the common meaning of "Conspiracy" so that you feel better about being called a conspiracy theorist.

It is a NEGATIVE term that is MEANT to denote that your position is moronic and crazy.

This is from your link, omg you are contradicting yourselve again!!!

1. the act of conspiring.
2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.


3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:

 

[excaza]

In this topic.......

Im asking you something about the observations. And you want to make a connection with the cause of it.

I dont see a connection to see the relevance of talking about the cause, when we are talking about the observation.

Why you dont understand that?

Ok. Guy supposedly says he saw otherwise completely undocumented molten steel, and that steel can be melted in an office fire.

So what?

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

I'd like you to answer a simple question using your own words, not a youtube link or a link to another site, just your own words so that I can see what level of understanding you have.

What is thermite?

Thanks.

 

[excaza]

This is from your link, omg you are contradicting yourselve again!!!

This semantic waffling serves no purpose, obvious troll is obvious. You know full well what people mean when they call someone a conspiracy theorist. Unless you're completely mentally deficient, the implication is blatantly obvious.

 

[AndrewBurley]

I'd like you to answer a simple question using your own words, not a youtube link or a link to another site, just your own words so that I can see what level of understanding you have.

What is thermite?

Thanks.

I will answer your question about what thermite is when you link to a post where I have linked to a youtube video

 

[excaza]

I will answer your question about what thermite is when you link to a post where I have linked to a youtube video

Why the **** does that have any bearing on your answer?

Is this one of those clever allusions that because no skyscraper has ever collapsed, 9/11 was a conspiracy?

 

[Sunstealer]

I will answer your question about what thermite is when you link to a post where I have linked to a youtube video

Well it's a standard thing for truthers to link to other sites or youtube videos rather than use their own words.

I'm sorry if I've made a presumption with regard to yourself.

The reason I ask is because if I know your level of understanding then I can run you through some simple questions that will lead you to the answer to your question.

Please would you answer the question.

Thanks.