Cheerful Spring wrote: » They showed up at some American flight schools that were legitimate. That was the ruse. The problem was they were American flight instructors so there was a language problem right away. So it might not be because they were bad pilots they just did understand the flight instructions told to them by the American flight instructors? The main pilots got training at schools that were owned partly by Saudi Arabia. I would be surprised if they got training elsewhere that never got documented as it would expose further the Saudi involvement. Out in Las Vegas or Florida, the Saudis may have brought in their own pilots to train them? There evidence for this in the official report. One instructor claimed one of 9/11 hijackers least he thought had military aviation training.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » No steel buildings collapsed due to fire, nano-thermite prior to 9/11. So how can you prove it when never occurred before? Scientifically nano-thermite chips were found in the dust.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I can not speculate till I know for sure what the failures were inside the buildings. That just common sense.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Molten steel is Molten Iron I have told you this countless times.
Dohnjoe wrote: » This entire thing is a creative writing exercise for you - which you can't back up with credible sources Remember, this is your theory, another truther has a different take, another with yet another take and so on Your speculation and made-up secret "missions" as are valid as theirs, or Alex Jones or Dr Judy Wood's
Cheerful Spring wrote: » When I provide credible sources you still dismiss it.
9/11 Firefighters describing seeing a molten steel that looked like lava like a foundry you dismissed that.
King Mob wrote: » You didn't answer my question. You again, didn't answer my question. Are you having trouble understanding it. Provide something that shows that nanothermite can produce rivers of molten metal. Tell us how much molten metal a kilogram of nanothermite can produce. If you can't provide this or answer the question, don't deflect. Say that you can't show it and that you don't know. Sure you can. You are a demolition expert aren't you? How much nanothermite was used, where and when was it placed. By who? Yes, you've claimed this several times. It's not true and betrays that you don't understand what you are talking about. However, that doesn't answer the question I asked. What is the yellow liquid?
Dohnjoe wrote: » You dismiss explanations because they don't fit your bizarre made-up-on-the-fly theories This has been explained multiple times. Firefighters, rescue workers, officials, witnesses describe seeing various forms of molten metal (some even use the phrase "molten steel"). They were mistaken. They didn't see "molten steel", they saw molten metal like aluminium, or they saw glowing metal, or they saw material burning/glowing It's perfectly easy to understand. Yet you refuse to accept this explanation because it doesn't fit your own personal views. And as mentioned this is not a thread to convince someone who will refuse all explanations anyway You still haven't provided any credible evidence of your own personal theory. Suspects? none Witnesses? none Physical evidence? none Motive? none Who did it? who was involved in the plan? what was their aim? You have demonstrated you can't provide answers. Can't provide credible evidence for your "theory" (your subjective non-understanding of the NIST isn't evidence)
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Mistaken
Dohnjoe wrote: » Apart from your mental gymnastics, distortions and deflections, there is no credible evidence of molten steel You claim a photo shows "molten steel" and a "reflection of a man", if I take it to a photography forum and a metallurgy forum and get it independently confirmed, will you accept their findings? or will you just reject them because "it looks like molten steel" to you?
GreeBo wrote: » Hi there... Im still waiting on an explanation for your reflected man theory. Its a simple question....reflected in what?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Firefighter
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Your questions are stupid. I not sure what this is even relevant when you can't provide evidence of fire collapsing steel framed buildings prior to 2001. Am I asking you for examples and asking you to prove it?job.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I never claimed to know how much nano-thermite was used. We do know thermate does melt steel. There is a research we can look to verify this is possible. If thermate can melt steel nanothermite is going to do a far better job.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Mistaken according to who? Show me research that debunks their claims. You ignoring that FEMA in 2002 confirmed finding a liquid made of Iron and Sulphur on the steel. You just ignored that. You gloss over that NIST claims nobody has ever stated they saw Molten steel. Molten steel was clearly stated by them in the video I posted. This was 9/11 firefighter own words. You can't ignore that.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Some people including a firefighter mistake molten metal for "molten steel" (an easy enough mistake to make) yet you convert that into irrefutable testimony and "proof" of the presence molten steel
Dohnjoe wrote: » Many firefighters are on record stating that the building was about to collapse due to the fire - you ignore all of this because it doesn't fit your view Some people including a firefighter mistake molten metal for "molten steel" (an easy enough mistake to make) yet you convert that into irrefutable testimony and "proof" of the presence molten steel Likewise you demonstrate you will discard the consensus of hundreds of experts if they don't support your view, yet will embrace an individual expert if they do The widely established version of events hasn't changed in 17 years, yours seems to morph and change in 17 days.. or hours
Cheerful Spring wrote: » We have clear evidence there what people witnessed and saw could be melted steel and Iron. And very suspicious when the liquid was flowing near the steel columns in the rubble.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So? What does this have to do with your claim? Where do you think those elements came from?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I don't believe a man with no hands and no legs can't stand in a yellow burning liquid, sorry. You believe he can go prove it:cool:
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Hottest a fire can get to with jet fuel is 600c to 700c. And jet fuel burned of in the first fifteen minutes. Temp plunged. It even lower at WTC7 by 3 pm fires were 300c to 500c, way below the temp needed to melt Iron and Steel
King Mob wrote: » But why do they say molten steel? You claim molten steel doesn't exist? Surely they would be saying molten iron? How come not a single person actually says iron? Are they wrong?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I never said it doesn't exist I said when steel melts its Iron. Molten steel is an Iron alloy. Steel is 95 per cent iron. Steel is not 100 per cent Iron, it contains 5 per cent of carbon and other alloys. It doesn't matter if they call it molten steel or molten Iron.
GreeBo wrote: » Sorry but you cant use one unproven theory to somehow add weight to another unproven theory. The only "yellow burning liquid" is from the UTI one of those workers has. Again, its your theory, so all thats missing is you explaining the material this man is reflected in.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It explains what we are seeing. You believe you seeing a tiny man standing between steel columns and a man with no legs and hands is standing in a yellow liquid. It's clear to me its just a reflection. The way the fireman stands is a dead giveaway is a reflection. The firefighter and the tiny man between the steel columns has his body positioned in same way hands and all.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Thats not what i asked, what is the significance of those 2 elements being present in your opinion?
King Mob wrote: » But what is he being reflected by?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The firefighter holding something in his hands, I suspect is a reflection of light bouncing off something. There is a rubble on the ground you can't make out every background detail because the photo is low resolution.
King Mob wrote: » But bouncing off what?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Their rubble clearly on the ground, we know it there, but you can't see that clearly can you? If we had a higher resolution picture then we know. If you convinced a tiny man is standing between columns and man with no legs and hands is standing in a yellow liquid ask someone who knows photography are you correct?
GreeBo wrote: » The highly reflective properties of rubble? You'd wonder what the lads were at polishing bronze for all those years. btw you keep talking about one of the men on the left having something in their hands...what has this got to do with a reflection exactly? (unless its a portable holographic projector)
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The Sulphar and Iron?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
