• 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

Argument ad youtubum should be classed as a logical fallacy.

If I could see your vid, i could tell you whether he was wrong or not. But I have no access to streaming here, so I'll just add a preemptive assumption of "wrong" here.

*ahem*

Probably wrong, or mistaken, possibly lying, or just not informed.
 
nvidiot said:
Argument ad youtubum should be classed as a logical fallacy.

If I could see your vid, i could tell you whether he was wrong or not. But I have no access to streaming here, so I'll just add a preemptive assumption of "wrong" here.

*ahem*

Probably wrong, or mistaken, possibly lying, or just not informed.
Click to expand...

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?
 
nvidiot said:
Argument ad youtubum should be classed as a logical fallacy.

If I could see your vid, i could tell you whether he was wrong or not. But I have no access to streaming here, so I'll just add a preemptive assumption of "wrong" here.

*ahem*

Probably wrong, or mistaken, possibly lying, or just not informed.
Click to expand...

Beautiful, you have your opinion without watching the video.:rolleyes:
 
Marokkaan said:
Beautiful, you have your opinion without watching the video.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Can't watch it, not don't want to.

And yup, I can have my opinion without watching the video quite easily.

See, I'm a doin it now!

There is a distinctly high chance that any video taken by a truthers to be evidence of anything is most likely either deliberately distorted, or just wrong. I'm taking the punt.

I'll happily retract my opinion if it's wrong. What do you guys do?
 
nvidiot said:
Can't watch it, not don't want to.

And yup, I can have my opinion without watching the video quite easily.

See, I'm a doin it now!

There is a distinctly high chance that any video taken by a truthers to be evidence of anything is most likely either deliberately distorted, or just wrong. I'm taking the punt.

I'll happily retract my opinion if it's wrong. What do you guys do?
Click to expand...

lol
 
nvidiot said:
Argument ad youtubum should be classed as a logical fallacy.

If I could see your vid, i could tell you whether he was wrong or not. But I have no access to streaming here, so I'll just add a preemptive assumption of "wrong" here.

*ahem*

Probably wrong, or mistaken, possibly lying, or just not informed.
Click to expand...

Do you consider yourself to be the same as most of the debunkers here ?
 
Marokkaan said:
What about this? Is he lying?:D
...
Click to expand...

No. Mistaken.

Question: Since "molten steel" is a liquid, where would you expect to find it in a pile of jumbled solid debris? After you have found the answer, please find out when Riggs said these words. After you have found the answer, please consider what the debris pile looked like at the time, and try to reconcile that with the first answer.

Question: How do these debris removers "dig out" molten steel?
If you ponder that question for a minute, you'll find that something is not quite right in Riggs' statement.
 
I consider myself a human being, and quite individual, thank you very much.

I also consider (from experience) that most if not all examples of truther evidence are nonsense, or distortions, or outright lies, or just wrong.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong in this instance, I'm just going to take the punt that like almost every other time, that this is just another example of a trutherism. When I get access to the video, I'll watch and see if I'm right.

Do you think that my hypothesis will be borne out or do you think this is one of the exceptions to the rule?
 
nvidiot said:
Can't watch it, not don't want to.

And yup, I can have my opinion without watching the video quite easily.

See, I'm a doin it now!

There is a distinctly high chance that any video taken by a truthers to be evidence of anything is most likely either deliberately distorted, or just wrong. I'm taking the punt.

I'll happily retract my opinion if it's wrong. What do you guys do?
Click to expand...

Denialism at it's finest. The video is from a History channel documentary where the debris removal specialist was interviewed and said that molten steel was being removed from the site. The interview was from November 2001, well before any controversy over molten steel.
 
nvidiot said:
I consider myself a human being, and quite individual, thank you very much.

I also consider (from experience) that most if not all examples of truther evidence are nonsense, or distortions, or outright lies, or just wrong.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong in this instance, I'm just going to take the punt that like almost every other time, that this is just another example of a trutherism. When I get access to the video, I'll watch and see if I'm right.

Do you think that my hypothesis will be borne out or do you think this is one of the exceptions to the rule?
Click to expand...

I find you to be a typical debunker. If you were shown live video of George Bush lighting the fuse to blow the Towers away you would still deny it. That's what many of you guys exist for. Professional level denial.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
No. Mistaken.

Question: Since "molten steel" is a liquid, where would you expect to find it in a pile of jumbled solid debris? After you have found the answer, please find out when Riggs said these words. After you have found the answer, please consider what the debris pile looked like at the time, and try to reconcile that with the first answer.

Question: How do these debris removers "dig out" molten steel?
If you ponder that question for a minute, you'll find that something is not quite right in Riggs' statement.
Click to expand...

He may have meant previously molten steel. That is, steel that had formed a liquid pool but then cooled and solidified again.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Denialism at it's finest. The video is from a History channel documentary where the debris removal specialist was interviewed and said that molten steel was being removed from the site. The interview was from November 2001, well before any controversy over molten steel.
Click to expand...

It's not Denialism if I'm willing to change my mind on the basis of evidence. I'm just taking a rather short odds bet that this video doesn't say what a truther wants it to say, or is otherwise being distorted to claim something it cannot support.

Think of this as a simple experiment. As I said, I'm quite happy to reconsider my opinion given evidence to the contrary.
 
Oystein said:
No. Mistaken.

Question: Since "molten steel" is a liquid, where would you expect to find it in a pile of jumbled solid debris? After you have found the answer, please find out when Riggs said these words. After you have found the answer, please consider what the debris pile looked like at the time, and try to reconcile that with the first answer.

Question: How do these debris removers "dig out" molten steel?
If you ponder that question for a minute, you'll find that something is not quite right in Riggs' statement.
Click to expand...

There may well have been pockets of molten steel in the rubble pile Oystein. But the main bulk was much deeper.
 
Last edited:
nvidiot said:
It's not Denialism if I'm willing to change my mind on the basis of evidence. I'm just taking a rather short odds bet that this video doesn't say what a truther wants it to say, or is otherwise being distorted to claim something it cannot support.

Think of this as a simple experiment. As I said, I'm quite happy to reconsider my opinion given evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

You have been given the evidence. It was given to you first, before anything else. You have refused to look at it. Like I said, denialism.
 
bill smith said:
I find you to be a typical debunker. If you were shown live video of George Bush lighting the fuse to blow the Towers away you would still deny it. That's what many of you guys exist for. Professional level denial.
Click to expand...

I think you're projecting Bill.

If I was "shown live video of George Bush lighting the fuse to blow the towers away", as you put it, I'd happily join with those who would call for his head.

But alas, no such evidence is available, or if it is, it must be suppressed, which proves it exists!!!1!1!1eleventy!
 
AndrewBurley said:
He may have meant previously molten steel. That is, steel that had formed a liquid pool but then cooled and solidified again.
Click to expand...

So you think it's possible that what this eye witness says there is not precisely, accurately true? :eek:

Hm - what a novel concept! :D
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
You have been given the evidence. It was given to you first, before anything else. You have refused to look at it. Like I said, denialism.
Click to expand...

No, I clearly pointed out that I can't watch the video at the moment, because of where I am and what device I'm using to access the internet. This has caused me to posit the hypothesis that almost every piece of YouTube "evidence" posted by truthers is wrong, mistaken, lying or distorted in some way, and take the punt that this hypothesis will be borne out when I do get a chance to watch.

I will indeed watch said video and see if it says what the truthers seem to want it to say, (which is what exactly?), and if my assessment that the individual in the video is most likely wrong, lying, mistaken or just had their message distorted, I'll happily say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom