• 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:
Dave Rogers, this image is taken from the RJ Lee report. What are those things with the little arrows pointing to them?

[qimg]http://i56.tinypic.com/k471qx.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
I see you've completely ignored my previous post as to why thermite could not be present in the rubble pile. Standard truther fair - ignore anything you don't like.

Secondly that's an iron oxide particle. Look at the EDX spectrum for confirmation. We've already been over that a thousand times too with another poster.

Microspheres containing iron are to be expected in fires. It's as simple as that. They are in no way evidence of thermite. Bearing in mind that fly ash is a constituent of concrete and fly ash contains iron microspheres that have seen high temperatures but not temperatures over the melting point of iron then it's not unusual to find them in dust when a large amount of concrete has been destroyed.

Again you are simply drudging up the standard truther nonsense that has been discussed to death here. Have you not got anything new or interesting?
 
AndrewBurley said:
He was a debris removal specialist that was there. Why should I discard his testimony in favour of a random person on the internet who won't even watch the video?
Click to expand...
I watched the video. It's been circulating around the Youtubes for some time now.

However, do you know why I can discard his testimony about the presence of molten steel onsite?

He didn't take samples for testing to see if it was steel or not. And unless he's Geordi LaForge with some kind of VISOR thingie, the old Mark 1 Ocular Sensor can't identify one molten metal from another.
 
Marokkaan said:
Lol common language?? what tha &#*#@&@ are u talking. Only people who have trouble with their vocabulary, or are illiterate will say this

OW my .... somebody will now open the door and say surprise candid camera! ?
Click to expand...

ObviousTroll.jpg
 
AndrewBurley said:
Your point?
Click to expand...

That it wasn't a normal building fire. A lot of other things happened, many of which could have produced microspheres or released ones that were already present.

AndrewBurley said:
Considering you claimed moments ago that they didn't even exist you seem to know a lot about their formation.
Click to expand...

No, to be precise I claim to know less about their formation than you claim to know. For one thing, I would dispute that:

AndrewBurley said:
They do prove that iron melted during the wtc event.
Click to expand...

Because, of course, they prove no such thing; we have no way of knowing whether, for example, they were present inside the WTC framing before the collapse as residues from welding during construction.

AndrewBurley said:
I didn't think you would have the intellectual honesty for that. Go back and look how the conversation went after I made the entirely factual statement that iron spheres were found in the dust.
Click to expand...

It's quite possible to repeat lies without meaning to. As I said, I suspect you honestly believe that everything you say is true, even though a lot of it is carefully constructed lies by implication. For example, it's a lie that the presence of molten iron at Ground Zero has been established beyond mere anecdotal evidence, or that it would be proof of thermite if it had, but I can acccept that you honestly don't believe it's a lie. I don't think you made it all up; you've just been taken in by the people who did. So if I claim something you say is a lie, I'm not calling you a liar. It's an important distinction.

Dave

ETA: By the way, Sunstealer knows a lot more about materials analysis than I do, and has just pointed out that it's an iron oxide particle. Now he's pointed that out, I see there's a very clear oxygen peak in the EDX spectrum; it looks like there's some silicon in there as well. Looks like it wasn't factually true, after all.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
Lol common language?? what tha &#*#@&@ are u talking. Only people who have trouble with their vocabulary, or are illiterate will say this

OW my .... somebody will now open the door and say surprise candid camera! ?
Click to expand...

Remember when I said that maybe the reason you are a truther is just because you are too invested in a belief to see things differently and that it wasn't cause you were crazy or stupid?

Arguments like this cause me to reflect on that comment and think that maybe it is because of stupidity after all......
 
Marokkaan said:
RJ lee report:

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation
of spherical particles due to surface tension…”
“In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC
Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including
spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles
are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent
in typical office dust…”
“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such
as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that
accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust…”

The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool
indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].

(iron melts at 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) while iron (III) oxide melts at 1,565 °C (2,849 °F) [6] and aluminosilicates melt
around 1,450 C

The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur)
in steel
1,000 1,832
To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652
To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800
To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849
To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164
To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753
To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000
Click to expand...

Did you find the part in the RJ Lee report about nano thermite yet Marokkaan?
 
newton3376 said:
Remember when I said that maybe the reason you are a truther is just because you are too invested in a belief to see things differently and that it wasn't cause you were crazy or stupid?

Arguments like this cause me to reflect on that comment and think that maybe it is because of stupidity after all......
Click to expand...

Even when u come with the dictionary you still not see you are contradicting yourselve.

If you even can not read a dictionary, then how i suppose to believe, that you can read texts like NIST reports, or other articles.
 
You also have to love how truthers cherry pick and mis-interpret data and text. Here are some other quotes that put the context back in. Nowhere in the report does it say that thermite is required to produce the materials observed in the dust.


In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust.
Click to expand...
Page 7

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust. Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Click to expand...
Page 16.

Now Andrew I know you don't like answering simple questions but perhaps you could do me the courtesy this time.

You quote their report and use their data so you must have some faith in them. RJ Lee states that these iron microspheres are to be expected.

Why do you not believe these experts? If not why not?


In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of
heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic,
bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting
and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.
Click to expand...
Page 19.

Nowhere do they point out that unreacted thermite was found in the dust.
 
Dave Rogers said:
That it wasn't a normal building fire. A lot of other things happened, many of which could have produced microspheres or released ones that were already present.



No, to be precise I claim to know less about their formation than you claim to know. For one thing, I would dispute that:



Because, of course, they prove no such thing; we have no way of knowing whether, for example, they were present inside the WTC framing before the collapse as residues from welding during construction.



It's quite possible to repeat lies without meaning to. As I said, I suspect you honestly believe that everything you say is true, even though a lot of it is carefully constructed lies by implication. For example, it's a lie that the presence of molten iron at Ground Zero has been established beyond mere anecdotal evidence, or that it would be proof of thermite if it had, but I can acccept that you honestly don't believe it's a lie. I don't think you made it all up; you've just been taken in by the people who did. So if I claim something you say is a lie, I'm not calling you a liar. It's an important distinction.

Dave

ETA: By the way, Sunstealer knows a lot more about materials analysis than I do, and has just pointed out that it's an iron oxide particle. Now he's pointed that out, I see there's a very clear oxygen peak in the EDX spectrum; it looks like there's some silicon in there as well. Looks like it wasn't factually true, after all.
Click to expand...

They are iron spheres. I know that is inconvenient for you but reality wins i'm afraid.
 
Marokkaan said:
Even when u come with the dictionary you still not see you are contradicting yourselve.

If you even can not read a dictionary, then how i suppose to believe, that you can read texts like NIST reports, or other articles.
Click to expand...

26d75_ORIG-troll_dance.gif
 
Marokkaan said:
Even when u come with the dictionary you still not see you are contradicting yourselve.

If you even can not read a dictionary, then how i suppose to believe, that you can read texts like NIST reports, or other articles.
Click to expand...

Whats funny is that you are the only one who seems confused by the point I was trying to make to you....

At this point I see you are hopeless and simply aren't going to get it.
 
Marokkaan said:
Even when u come with the dictionary you still not see you are contradicting yourselve.

If you even can not read a dictionary, then how i suppose to believe, that you can read texts like NIST reports, or other articles.
Click to expand...
Have you been reading this again?


 
AndrewBurley said:
I didn't think you would have the intellectual honesty for that.
Click to expand...

Dear, dear Andrew. I have never come across a truther who said there was any molten metal except steel. Not even once. (perhaps you could be the first!!!)

Could you do us a favor and find a truther who thinks that the molten metal in the WTC buildings was anything OTHER than steel? So far it's 100% molten steel being seen by firemen, Riggs, etc...

So this leads us again to the vexing question (the one that just WILL NOT go away),
what happened to the aluminum, copper, tin and other base metals????

Why did they not melt?

Truthers must answer this question or be treated as trolls. IF temperatures really were high enough (1500 Celsius) to melt steel, then WHY is ONLY molten steel observed, and not other metals????

Answer the question or be a troll. Your choice. Obvious answer is obvious to non-trolls. ;)
 
alienentity said:
I wonder, do YOU have the intellectual honesty to answer this question which I put to you
2
days ago?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7570979&postcount=263


What specific training does Riggs have which would allow him to identify molten metals?
Click to expand...

What training would you need? He was there and he is a debris specialist. His testimony is also corroborated by other people involved in the clean up who say they saw molten steel. I know you would like to paint them all as confused and say they didn't conduct metallurgic tests but i'm afraid that won't fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom