To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

King Mob

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.

You didn't answer my question.

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.

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can not speculate till I know for sure what the failures were inside the buildings. That just common sense.

Sure you can. You are a demolition expert aren't you?
How much nanothermite was used, where and when was it placed. By who?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Molten steel is Molten Iron I have told you this countless times.

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?

Cheerful Spring

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

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.

Even though I provided photographic evidence of what they described exactly.

You dismiss evidence from truthers and from people who are not believers in the 9/11 conspiracy.

You believe NIST who are on record stating nobody ever stated they saw molten steel and there no video of anyone saying this.

You dismiss this as a conspiracy rather then looking at the facts.

GreeBo

Hi there...

Im still waiting on an explanation for your reflected man theory.
Its a simple question....reflected in what?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When I provide credible sources you still dismiss it.

You dismiss explanations because they don't fit your bizarre made-up-on-the-fly theories

9/11 Firefighters describing seeing a molten steel that looked like lava like a foundry you dismissed that.

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

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?

Yes, I did. The official account is not a full account of the pilots training prior to 9/11

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?

If you believe nano-thermite was not used you have to provide an alternative explanation that adequately explains why steel melted into a liquid. It obvious it can not be done when the buildings stood. The fire was not hot enough to melt steel.

Are you claiming paper, plastic wood melted the steel?

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

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)

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Mistaken

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?

Cheerful Spring

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?

No credible evidence?

Just eyewitnesses accounts, photographic evidence, FEMA 2002 report the intragranular melting in the steel. FEMA confirming they also found a liquid made of Iron (steel and iron melts at 1500 Celsius)

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

Hi there...

Im still waiting on an explanation for your reflected man theory.
Its a simple question....reflected in what?

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:

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Firefighter

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

King Mob

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.

It's relevant because:
1. The fact your explanation is totally empty and doesn't actually explain anything is demonstrated by how you are not able to provide any solid evidence or supposition.
2. If you can't show that Thermite/thermate/nanothermite can produce the effect you claim it can, then you can't claim the effect is proof of your theory.

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.

Why are you switching between thermate and nanothermite.
Why does it matter what Thermate can or can't do? You are claiming it's nanothermite.

Also I am not asking you to show that it can melt steel. I'm asking you show it can produce rivers of molten metal.

If we are to rely on the "evidence" you provided about thermate, then it would show that nanothermite does not produce much molten metal at all.
Neither does your one example of a partial demolition of not a skyscraper. That didn't have rivers of molten metal either.

Also I asked you a direct question.
What do you think the "yellow liquid" was?

Also I would like you to explain your ridiculous mirror theory for how the man can stand in said yellow liquid.
Or how a mirror could survive so close to molten metal...
Or who put it there...
And why...

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

So? What does this have to do with your claim? Where do you think those elements came from?

King Mob

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

Note, that despite being irrefutable and unquestionable, some witness specifically say that it was molten/melted steel, a material that cheerful contends does not exist.

Cheerful Spring

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

I don't ignore it, but it obvious why they felt that way the twin towers had just collapsed and they lost many firefighters when the building came down. They may even think the same when other buildings were on fire that day but that was not reported.

The problem is FEMA confirmed molten Iron. They found a liquid that contained mostly Iron and Suphar. Obviously when the steel sample melted it produced Iron. Steel is 95 per Iron content, only 5 per cent other alloys.

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.

King Mob

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.

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

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So? What does this have to do with your claim? Where do you think those elements came from?

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

GreeBo

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:

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.

Timberrrrrrrr

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

Thats not what i asked, what is the significance of those 2 elements being present in your opinion?

Cheerful Spring

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?

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.

King Mob

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.

So what was it they were seeing?

Why did you claim previously that molten steel was just molten iron?

What is the yellow liquid?

What was this man being reflected in? A big mirror? Why was a big mirror in the middle of the rubble?

Can you please provide something that shows nanothermite (or any other type of thermite) can produce a river of molten metal?
What you have shown so far shows that thermite does not do this.

Cheerful Spring

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.

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 have his body positioned in same way hands and all.

King Mob

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.

But what is he being reflected by?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thats not what i asked, what is the significance of those 2 elements being present in your opinion?

The Sulphar and Iron?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But what is he being reflected by?

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

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.

But bouncing off what?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But bouncing off what?

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

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?

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

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)

You can't see but it obvious to me this a mirror reflection.

Clearly it just a reflection of the fireman.

Watch the position of his hands and body.

From the back.


The mirror reflection of the same fireman.

King Mob

But rubble doesn't reflect things cheerful...

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Sulphar and Iron?

Yes