Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

Why would a debris removal specialist know if a molten substance was steel? What training does he have that he knows it is steel?

Let's try this just a few words at a time, OK?

"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams"

The beams are made of steel.

melted means "change from a solid to a liquid"

Are you with me so far?

So, is that a concession that you can not answer the questions that I presented to you?

I see that went over your head. No worries.

When we left off we had some molten steel from a melted steel beam.

"it was molten steel that was being dug up."

Richard Riggs is a Debris Removal Specialist. He is qualified to recognize melting beams and molten metal. Does he have to say "I saw girders melting" like Abolhassan Astansh did?
No!
The man is a professional and this is not the hard call you try to make it out to be.

There is not doubt in his mind that the molten metal in the pile is the remains of melted steel beams.

Your question is absurd. You are desperately trying to come up with a reason to deny what he clearly said.


There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

 

[bje]

C7 is a good case in point regarding terminology. He frequently mixes the words "metal" and "steel", without realising that metal includes material that is not steel. Nor does he realise that if temperatures are hot enough to melt steel or keep steel liquid then by default any material with a lower melting temperature must also be a liquid. It's not hard to work out is it?

He quotes people to back his claims, but when you ask him how, he just says, I didn't say that the witnesses did. He can't work out that just because a witness says something that it isn't necessarily true and that in order to find out the truth you need corroborating evidence.

He claims thermite is the only evidence to support liquid steel, but doesn't say how it got there, nor does he realise you'd need tons of the stuff to keep a significant quantity of steel liquid. It's obvious he doesn't understand the thermite reaction (equation), because he doesn't realise it's not sustainable over a long period of time.

Thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid over days/weeks/months in the rubble pile.

This is characteristic behavior we have seen repeatedly from Truthers for the last seven years.

 

[bje]

There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

Chris wrote for all to see:

Quote:
"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government has not and will not do that."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=641

No tests, no proof of molten steel or thermite. Now, Chris contradicts himself in desperation.

How transparent.

 

[Sunstealer]

I don't know how the metal stayed molten for as long as it did, only that it did.

So now you are changing your story. So thermite isn't used to keep the metal liquid in the debris pile.

I believe the people who said there was molten metal months later.

If there was liquid metal months later and thermite was not the source of the heat in the pile (as you now seem to claim) then what was the source of heat in the pile?

If the heat in the rubble pile was sufficient to keep the steel liquid then the temperature must have been above or at the melting point of the steel. Therefore, any steel subject to this temperature would become liquid, i,e it would melt. That means that thermite would not be the only source of heat.

So your next statement

You are just trying to sidestep the FACT that thermite is the only thing that could melt the steel in the first place.

cannot be true.

You've debunked yourself. Well done.

Edit: Just read Dave Rogers post #1805 - he does the same thing as I have - liquid steel in the rubble pile debunks the use of thermite to create liquid steel.

 

[Wolrab]

I see that went over your head. No worries.

When we left off we had some molten steel from a melted steel beam.

"it was molten steel that was being dug up."

Richard Riggs is a Debris Removal Specialist. He is qualified to recognize melting beams and molten metal. Does he have to say "I saw girders melting" like Abolhassan Astansh did?
No!
The man is a professional and this is not the hard call you try to make it out to be.

There is not doubt in his mind that the molten metal in the pile is the remains of melted steel beams.

Your question is absurd. You are desperately trying to come up with a reason to deny what he clearly said.


There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

Then contact him, fer the love of Pete! You have a name, use your incredible investigoogling skill to ask him to clarify what he saw and did. Just think of the awesome pwnage! You could rub this in everyone's face here. You could be a hero in the truther world, "The Man Who Showed Those Damned Debunkers Who's King". Cripes, get on with it already.

 

[George 152]

To make that absurd claim you have concluded that Mark Loizeaux and all the other witnesses are idiots or liars.


So go to a foundry and ask to watch a steel pour.
See just how long the steel stays molten after it has left the furnace.
Oh and while you're there ask them as to just how much energy it takes to melt and keep steel in a molten state.

 

[bje]

Chris has got himself all tied up in knots.

 

[beachnut]

I see that went over your head. No worries.

When we left off we had some molten steel from a melted steel beam.

"it was molten steel that was being dug up."

Richard Riggs is a Debris Removal Specialist. He is qualified to recognize melting beams and molten metal. Does he have to say "I saw girders melting" like Abolhassan Astansh did?
No!
The man is a professional and this is not the hard call you try to make it out to be.

There is not doubt in his mind that the molten metal in the pile is the remains of melted steel beams.

Your question is absurd. You are desperately trying to come up with a reason to deny what he clearly said.


There was molten steel in the debris pile.

Deal with it. Stop denying it!

He said that in November 2001, and it was hearsay, he never saw liquid steel. Busted with another hearsay source.
I would laugh but it is sad you post hearsay as evidence and never check your sources.

 

[Christopher7]

C7 is a good case in point regarding terminology.

This is a good case and point for misinterpretation and double talk.

He frequently mixes the words "metal" and "steel", without realising that metal includes material that is not steel.

No so. I use both terms as appropriate to the statement.

Nor does he realise that if temperatures are hot enough to melt steel or keep steel liquid then by default any material with a lower melting temperature must also be a liquid.

Steel is the only metal in concentration in the debris piles. You ignore the witness statements of beams dripping molten steel.

He quotes people to back his claims, but when you ask him how, he just says, I didn't say that the witnesses did. He can't work out that just because a witness says something that it isn't necessarily true and that in order to find out the truth you need corroborating evidence.

The corroborating evidence is the number of people saying there was molten steel.

He claims thermite is the only evidence to support liquid steel, but doesn't say how it got there, nor does he realise you'd need tons of the stuff to keep a significant quantity of steel liquid. It's obvious he doesn't understand the thermite reaction (equation), because he doesn't realise it's not sustainable over a long period of time.

You double talk arount the fact you cannot dispute.

Thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place.

Thermite cannot sustain temperatures high enough to keep steel liquid over days/weeks/months in the rubble pile.

What melted the steel?

 

[Baylor]

Thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place.

Stundie revisited.

 

[Baylor]

You ignore the witness statements of beams dripping molten steel.

This is a good case and point for double talk.

Until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris wrote for all to see:

Quote:
"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government has not and will not do that."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=641

No tests, no proof of molten steel or thermite. Now, Chris contradicts himself in desperation.

I answered this double talk already:

The witness statements prove the existence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten metal.

"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government has not and will not do that."

Your ability to misinterpret is quite accomplished.

It will take independent, verifiable tests to scientifically prove whether or not thermite was used.

The witness statements are another matter. They clearly establish the existence of molten steel in the debris pile.

The presence of molten steel in the debris pile can only be explained by thermite.

Therefore, the molten steel in the debris pile is evidence of thermite.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite is the only known cause of the molten steel in the first place.

Stundie revisited.

You cannot dispute this FACT so you make a stupid comment instead.

What melted the steel?

 

[Christopher7]

Until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

This is a good case and point for double talk.

How is that double talk?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Stundie revisited.

Why is that a stundie other then you have nothing else to respond with?

The molten steel is well documented by multiple witness accounts. Granted this alone is not absolute proof of anything without an investigation. Especially to debunkers who ignore all kinds of witness accounts about any and every part of 9/11.

But if there was molten steel in the pile what other then thermite/thermate could have caused it according to debunkers?

Anything?

 

[Thunder]

Why is that a stundie other then you have nothing else to respond with?

The molten steel is well documented by multiple witness accounts. Granted this alone is not absolute proof of anything without an investigation. Especially to debunkers who ignore all kinds of witness accounts about any and every part of 9/11.

But if there was molten steel in the pile what other then thermite/thermate could have caused it according to debunkers?

Anything?

I told you before, masochism. Its very unhealthy.

 

[Baylor]

Why is that a stundie other then you have nothing else to respond with?

The molten steel is well documented by multiple witness accounts. Granted this alone is not absolute proof of anything without an investigation. Especially to debunkers who ignore all kinds of witness accounts about any and every part of 9/11.

But if there was molten steel in the pile what other then thermite/thermate could have caused it according to debunkers?

Anything?

Yeah. How about an Oxy-Acetylene Torch that was in an equipment room in one of the towers. Let's weigh the evidence. Oxy-Acetylene Torches exist. "Thermtie cutter charges" do not.

 

[beachnut]

... The molten steel is well documented by multiple witness accounts. ...

Hearsay. If you had proof of this and your thermite delusion, you would have a Pulitzer Prize. But you don't.

over 7 years of no evidence

 

[Baylor]

How is that double talk?

You ignore the witness statements of beams dripping molten steel.

Until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

How is that not double talk?

 

[bje]

I answered this double talk already:

The witness statements prove the existence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten metal.

"Only a real investigation where someone actually tests the remaining steel will give us the proof. The government ha not do that."

Your ability to misinterpret is quite accomplished.

It will take independent, verifiable tests to scientifically prove whether or not thermite was used.

I already easily debunked you on this in post #1839 above. I know how desperate you are, Chris, but I showed how your contridictions of yourself is just plain idiotic.