• 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

alienentity said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...


Link me to a single quote where a 'truther' claims that steel was the only
molten metal present. I have never seen such a claim and I am not making that claim myself.
 
Do the truthers in this thread understand that it is quite COMMON to find reports of "molten steel" in fires?
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
Then why deny it?
Click to expand...

No one is denying there are reports of molten steel. The fact is it is simply not surprising to find reports of "molten metal" AND "molten steel" in ordinary fires.

That doesnt mean that molten steel existed in any cases. It means it is common to find people that report seeing molten steel when actually they probably didn't. Reports of it on 911 is therefore not remarkable.
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
Link me to a single quote where a 'truther' claims that steel was the only
molten metal present. I have never seen such a claim and I am not making that claim myself.
Click to expand...

That's a start.

IN YOUR (non youtube) OPINION

Could there be other metals that could account for various accounts of "molten" metal?
 
AndrewBurley said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that no training is required to tell molten steel from molten lead, aluminum, zinc, copper or molten alloys of any or all of those metals?

Man! all those year folks spend in college, all for nothing....:rolleyes:

When will you get it into your head that you cannot observe a molten material from a distance and "know" what it is? You can guess what it is, or assume what it is but there is no way you can be certain without more information.

None of those who mentioned ,in passing, molten "steel", actually tested it to make sure. They merely guessed or assumed.

You are accusing people of mass murder based on a guess or assumption by someone with no relevant skills???? and you wonder why people mock you?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
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.
Click to expand...

What training would you need? You answered a question with a question. Good for you! That's 'Dodging tactic #42' in the debate handbook.

So you refused to answer my question directly, by providing the information i requested.

Readers, please note that Andrew will not answer the question, but has chosen to dodge it.

Moving on, by asking a question of his own, Andrew has implied that special training is NOT NEEDED in order to identify the composition of molten metal. And that a metallurgic test is not necessary - he rejects this out of hand

That's a fine assertion, Andrew. Now can you provide a citation from the scientific literature which supports your assertion? Please do so, I'm sure you have it at the ready, and didn't just make up the assertion off the top of your head. Most truthers fall into the trap of making things up, but you, being intellectually honest, wouldn't do something that shallow - I have faith in you, so please provide the citations to support your claim.
Otherwise some less charitable readers might think you're a troll. I don't want that to happen.

Andrew, you also assert that Rigg's qualifications are of no importance per se (even though it was you who initially defended his qualifications, which seems to contradict your recent statement. But perhaps I'm expecting too much from you..) by mentioning that 'other people' have corroborated his observations.

So how would you characterize the qualifications of the 'other people' to identify the composition of a molten metal, BY SIGHT ALONE, without a metallurgical test?

Please help us out by citing any scientific literature which supports the assertions you're making. For example, enlighten us as to how we can tell the difference between a combination of molten metals, or pure molten steel, or a combination of steel and other metals. We are eager to learn how to do this.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Then why deny it?
Click to expand...

We're not denying it. In fact it's in bold red print right there - it's common.

Why on earth would you call this a denial? Maybe you ought to consult a dictionary once in a while to correct yourself.

Oh, and please provide some citations for your assertions, as I've asked already.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Then why deny it?
Click to expand...

facepalm01.jpg


because in those cases its not steel either! And no one is denying that it might have been steel at the WTC either, just that is very unlikely and you have presented no credible evidence that it was or any credible reason how it could be or a credible reason why it would be a problem even if it was!:boggled:
 
Here's what Andrew wrote some time ago about the 'molten steel':

AndrewBurley said:
Because it is dripping off what look like beams. I suspect ou other molten steel witnesses also knew it was steel because it happened to be dripping off the ends of steel beams.
Click to expand...

Andrew is asserting that there is a 0% probability that the dripping material was any metal other than steel. He asserts that it was, in fact, molten steel.

Did everybody catch that? There ARE NO OTHER molten metals present, at any time, at GZ.

No truther ever allows that there were. Andrew is a truther, so he cannot allow it either.
He'll deny it of course, but let's see him allow that the molten metals could have been anything but steel - he can tell us without equivocation.
 
alienentity said:
That's a fine assertion, Andrew. Now can you provide a citation from the scientific literature which supports your assertion? Please do so, I'm sure you have it at the ready, and didn't just make up the assertion off the top of your head. Most truthers fall into the trap of making things up, but you, being intellectually honest, wouldn't do something that shallow - I have faith in you, so please provide the citations to support your claim.
Click to expand...


That's not where it came from..........think lower, darker and more odoriferous:p.
 
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

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...Morphology.pdf

What have you got to say about this Andrew? Are you going to ignore it and just reply to other peoples posts? Are you running away Andew?
 
newton3376 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Claiming to say its not a conspiracy, but saying the same definition about conspiracy and claiming the dictionary says something different, while its contradicting you.

Come on it shows, you are joking. Or you really have trouble with your language
 
Marokkaan said:
Claiming to say its not a conspiracy, but saying the same definition about conspiracy and claiming the dictionary says something different, while its contradicting you.

Come on it shows, you are joking. Or you really have trouble with your language
Click to expand...

ok ...one too many cocktails..what in the world is he saying??
 
I don't think English is his first language. It's barely his third, on the face of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom