Molten Steel

[Disbelief]

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.

No, it is way over your head, kind of like the enigineering, metallurgy, chemistry, etc.

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

No, we had a claim by you as follows:

"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!

So, you make a claim that he is qualified in recognizing molten metal. Seems easy enough, as most people would be able to see molten metal.

The man is a professional and this is not the hard call you try to make it out to be.

Sure, I agree that it would not be hard to determine molten metal in the debris pile.

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

So, in his mind it is molten steel. I agree that this is his opinion, based solely on what you wrote since I can not see the video from here.

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!

Now, this is where you lose it. Why is it absurd to question someone's credentials? Don't you want to know if the person, who you claim is an expert in determining that the melted metal is in fact steel, can professionally make that assessment? Do you want a podiatrist, who is a trained medical doctor, doing heart surgery on you? Do you want a carpenter to build a steel structure for you?

Do some work to back up your claim that he is an expert in determining what type of material was melted by sight, or you have nothing.

 

[tsig]

[/B]

No, it's a mantra. In fact, it's more like a Zen koan, because it's essentially meaningless. Thermite is not a possible cause of molten steel weeks after the collapse, therefore it can't be the only possible cause.



No, I simply point out that if it existed and remained molten for weeks, something must have existed in the rubble pile that was (a) capable of creating sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel and (b) capable of releasing heat continuously over several weeks. Since (b) excludes thermite, then if there was molten metal weeks after the collapse, this proves that there is some possible cause of molten steel in the debris piles other than thermite. This refutes your koan.

Dave

We all know that if you keep saying a thing over and over it becomes true.

Molten metal = molten steel = thermite(nano or super) = govmt did it.

 

[A W Smith]

48 pages and no physical evidence of a single globual of molten steel

This thread has a fork in it. Its done. All C7 has is third party witness hyperbole and simile. There was a glob of molten aluminum. Mark Roberts held it in his hands while visiting the curator of the hangar at Kennedy. Yet not one photograph of a solidified glob of molten steel. You would think such a find would be extraordinary. That it would be set aside and examined as the result of a phenomena unseen in the annals of history. You would think out of the tens of thousands of cleanup workers quite a few would have been witness to it. But no, Such an unusual find was just discarded into the bed of a "dumpster lined with sand" Much like Slab Chop Vinny tosses the obsolete food processor over his shoulder and into the sink. Never mind that the excavator grapple tines would have not only been unable to pick up a liquid, But the tines would have fused together upon dipping into anything molten. Chris will continue to fall back on the only toe hold he has, Hyperbole, Simile, Third party accounts, Arguments from authority, Arguments from Incredulity. Expect nothing to change. A weak mind will always be weak. The deluded will always and forever be lost in their paranoia. Those who have lost control of their lives will always look for a bogyman to point their finger at and blame their problems on. Like I said. This thread and Chris is done.

 

[lapman]

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.

That is absolutely false. Even though it is true that thermite can melt steel, it cannot sustain it nor can it be used without anyone noticing the bright light associated with the reaction to create the amount of melted steel seen months after the collapse. That is an absolute, irrefutable fact. So, thermite cannot be even considered a possible cause by any means. Whatever process kept the steel melted is what melted the steel in the first place. That is a fact.

 

[nicepants]

That should read "molten steel" [my bad]

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.

According to the quotes you've posted, the fires caused it:

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

 

[bje]

Good Lord, Chris7 is still making a total ****ing imbecile of himself. Is he some sort of masochistic pervert? That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Bananaman.

 

[bje]

That should read "molten steel" [my bad]

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.

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.

 

[Sunstealer]

It's very simple,

Liquid steel in the debris pile debunks the use of thermite.

In order for steel to remain liquid in the pile then the temperatures in the pile must be at or above the temperature to melt steel

This means that steel that was not melted by thermite is now being melted in the pile.

When you look at the pool of liquid steel how can you tell which part has been melted by thermite and which part has been melted by the heat in the debris pile?

If thermite didn't keep the steel liquid in the pile but the heat of the debris pile was hot enough to keep steel liquid then there is no way of knowing about thermite in the first place. All you can conclude was that steel was liquid in the pile and the heat in the pile was hot enough to melt it and sustain the liquid.

You cannot claim that liquid steel in the rubble pile days/weeks/months after is evidence of thermite.

 

[Sunstealer]

That should read "molten steel" [my bad]

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.

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

Why do you keep changing your position? You say thermite one minute then say you don't know the next. Why do you do this? Please stick to one theory or the other.

 

[Christopher7]

Can you answer that question, or not?

I could speculate but that always results in a lot of insults. People here have no interest in intelligently debating the possibility, they just ask these speculation questions to avoid the facts by berating others.

 

[Christopher7]

Good Lord, Chris7 is still making a total ****ing imbecile of himself. Is he some sort of masochistic pervert? That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Bananaman.

That's because you have your head anatomically misplaced.

 

[Toke]

So you are not going to read up on MOL, detensity, heat detensity, melting heat, and other high school subjects?
There are plenty of nice people here who would be willing to help you.

 

[Christopher7]

You refuse to listen to ANY evidence that thermite never existed, including wondering how it could have kept "steel" molten for weeks.

Evidence?
I have seen a lot of biased speculation based on insufficient data. It is a waste of time to "debate' anything speculative with a bunch of ill mannered adolescents.

 

[Christopher7]

So you are not going to read up on MOL, detensity, heat detensity, melting heat, and other high school subjects?
There are plenty of nice people here who would be willing to help you.

Right.

 

[Christopher7]

If they were melted how did he know they were beams? Can you look at a puddle of liquid and tell what shape it was before it melted?

Your lack of imagination is showing. Perhaps deliberate, what?

He probably saw a partially melted girder.

 

[lapman]

I could speculate but that always results in a lot of insults. People here have no interest in intelligently debating the possibility, they just ask these speculation questions to avoid the facts by berating others.

Pot meet kettle. You are avoiding #1904?

 

[Wolrab]

I see C7 still hasn't bothered to email either the good doctor or the honorable Mr. Riggs. I wonder what could possibly be holding him back? It couldn't be fear could it? He must be afraid of the fame and notoriety he would gain by debunking the debunkers.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.

No, it's a mantra. In fact, it's more like a Zen koan, because it's essentially meaningless. Thermite is not a possible cause of molten steel weeks after the collapse, therefore it can't be the only possible cause.

There you go again.

"I can't figure out how it happened, therefore, it cannot be."

You deny it's existence and and ponder what kept it molten for weeks.

No, I simply point out that if it existed and remained molten for weeks, something must have existed in the rubble pile that was (a) capable of creating sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel and (b) capable of releasing heat continuously over several weeks. Since (b) excludes thermite, then if there was molten metal weeks after the collapse, this proves that there is some possible cause of molten steel in the debris piles other than thermite. This refutes your koan.

Dave

You are assuming the steel was melted in the pile. FEMA acknowledged the obvious which you will not. The steel could have melted prior to collapse and aided in the collapse.

I offered a scenario for the molten steel staying molten for a long time but all I got was a lot of asinine insults so I'm not going to go there again.

The question is just personal incredulity anyway.

 

[Christopher7]

I know several other explanations for the claims of molten steel in the debris pile.

Do tell.

 

[Sunstealer]

Why do you avoid my posts 1908 and 1909 C7? You never answer the questions I put to you. Is that because you can't?

How can you tell by looking at a pool of liquid steel which part was melted by thermite and which part was melted by the heat in the rubble pile?

If you believe that liquid steel was present weeks after then you have to acknowledge that the fact that the temperature in the pile must have been high enough to keep steel liquid. Please acknoledge this.