No more messing around. Why weren't these cars "melted" too?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Show me one car that was from a nuke. Where? Which ones?

The suggested theory of nukes being used is considered to be technologies not yet known to the public also known as ''secret government technology''.

Since these are secret component technological bombs, the results of the surrounding area in which they were used would also be unpredictable and can't be compared to known reactions of known types of nuclear bombs to the general public.

The reason these technologies are kept secret is because when they use them to achieve their agenda, they want to keep it secret that they were the ones who were responsible for the event that took place.

Also, with secret technology, they can do things that if known to the general public, would result in the whole world revolting against them and try to stop them. But most of them don't because no one knows these things are going on, hence the word secret.

A good example of possible secret technology being used is on 911.
Make everyone believe that, planes made the buildings come down so they can blame it on a group of people that just happens to have the resource they want, oil.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
SteveR was here to disrupt the thread and attack me.

Hmm no, Steve did not insult you nor did he disrupt the thread.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Since these are secret component technological bombs, the results of the surrounding area in which they were used would also be unpredictable and can't be compared to known reactions of known types of nuclear bombs to the general public.

A good example of possible secret technology being used is on 911.
Make everyone believe that, planes made the buildings come down so they can blame it on a group of people that just happens to have the resource they want, oil.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by selfless]

So the nuke caused cars to catch on fire but didn't burn people or cause radiation sickness?? Theoretically is this coceivable? I've heard newtron bombs kill all living things but leave everything else standing, is it possible for a nuke to work the other way??

SO did you actually have an example or argument of how any actual cars were "melted" by "nukes". This thread was about cars which were actually hit by 'nukewaves'. If you cant show substantial images and explain then why even post other than to disrput the thread and the total annihilation of the cars melted by nukes theory?

SteveR:
Post #1: Ad Hominem attacks.
Post #2: Weak, and totally false argument.
Post #3: Completely absurd argument. Absolutely pointless.
Post #4: Mentions some hypothesis, but doesn't actually link it or elaborate on it. Finishes his short post with his ad hominem attack.
Post #5: Cries because I try to keep the topic on track. Complains that it should not focus on a key aspect of the nuke hypothesis, and instead let everyone shovel in different theories and conjecture that doesnt have anything to do with these specific dynamics, but may help prop up the nuke theory which thanks to this thread is without a leg to stand on.
[do I really need to link the direct links to his posts and my responses??????]

Then you come and back him up? You really want to be associated with him?

Shows me some examples of cars that were actually melted by nukes? I've provided far more images in my posts than any other source I'm aware of on the issue.


BTW, selfless, you too are a troll. There I said it.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by selfless

Since these are secret component technological bombs, the results of the surrounding area in which they were used would also be unpredictable and can't be compared to known reactions of known types of nuclear bombs to the general public.

A good example of possible secret technology being used is on 911.
Make everyone believe that, planes made the buildings come down so they can blame it on a group of people that just happens to have the resource they want, oil.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by selfless]

So the nuke caused cars to catch on fire but didn't burn people or cause radiation sickness?? Theoretically is this coceivable? I've heard newtron bombs kill all living things but leave everything else standing, is it possible for a nuke to work the other way??

I am offering possibilities.

We can also ask, why did the debris magically fall on all the cars and not on people and then magically removed them selves from the top of the cars when the pictures of the burned cars were taken.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
SteveR:
Post #1: Ad Hominem attacks.
Post #2: Weak, and totally false argument.
Post #3: Completely absurd argument. Absolutely pointless.
Post #4: Mentions some hypothesis, but doesn't actually link it or elaborate on it. Finishes his short post with his ad hominem attack.
Post #5: Cries because I try to keep the topic on track. Complains that it should not focus on a key aspect of the nuke hypothesis, and instead let everyone shovel in different theories and conjecture that doesnt have anything to do with these specific dynamics, but may help prop up the nuke theory which thanks to this thread is without a leg to stand on.

Then you come and back him up? You really want to be associated with him?

Huh, you turn his posts into numbers and then instead of addressing what he said you add your own views and accusations to differentiate them.

Originally posted by selfless
We can also ask, why did the debris magically fall on all the cars and not on people and then magically removed them selves from the top of the cars when the pictures of the burned cars were taken.

Go watch somes videos of the dust cloud from the street level.

I've completely demonstrated that a gas line blew up the WFC lot.

I've demonstrated that large pieces of debris landed as far as the bus behind the WTC7 sidestreet.

Elaborated on the ground shaking, which adds to the odds of gaslines being the cause of the burning cars (whereever, as demonstrated by the WFC lot which was further than the WTC7 bus).

Explained that blunt burning objects containing burning plastics could have punch thru car windows and ignited the insides of the cars on fire.

Showed stacks of examples of "melted" cars which have "nonmelted cars" close by, which alonewrecks the nukes-melted-the-cars hypothesis.

And so on.

Show some examples and explain, or case closed. Nuke hypothesis is even more outlandish than the directed energy waves hypothesis, and now the cars can't even be used as evidence of nukes.

Originally posted by selfless
Huh, you turn his posts into numbers and then instead of addressing what he said you add your own views and accusations to differentiate them.

They're there for everyone to see you troll.

Since you're trying to derail the thread since I'm reducing your belief in a fasion similar to the event in question, why aren't you already making huge posts citing his quotes and his bs? Come on, you can totally divert attention from the fact that the cars=nuke theory is leveled.

The Nuclear Challenge:
Show us some cars ignited by nukes, and be sure to explain.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I've completely demonstrated that a gas line blew up the WFC lot.

This is where you forgot one detail.

How do you prove that the gas line blowing up was caused by debris from the world trade center who magically pancaked onto it self?

Just the fact that debris made it all the way to 2 blocks away isn't looking good for the no explosives being used theory...

How do you know that the gas leak is not caused by a nearby explosion? You don't.

And yet you claim that you debunked a nuke theory? I'm sorry but in my eye, you did not debunk anything.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by selfless
Huh, you turn his posts into numbers and then instead of addressing what he said you add your own views and accusations to differentiate them.

They're there for everyone to see you troll.

You dare to insult me of a troll because what i said was caused by what you previously said?

There you go again, i did not insult you in any way and yet you call me a troll.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
SteveR:
Post #1: Ad Hominem attacks.
Post #2: Weak, and totally false argument.
Post #3: Completely absurd argument. Absolutely pointless.
Post #4: Mentions some hypothesis, but doesn't actually link it or elaborate on it. Finishes his short post with his ad hominem attack.
Post #5: Cries because I try to keep the topic on track. Complains that it should not focus on a key aspect of the nuke hypothesis, and instead let everyone shovel in different theories and conjecture that doesnt have anything to do with these specific dynamics, but may help prop up the nuke theory which thanks to this thread is without a leg to stand on.

That is what i consider a troll, insult someone who does not agree with your views.

You can disagree with someone but at least don't insult him.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by selfless]

So that's all you have left to keep this over-the-top cars+nukes hypothesis fascination going?
Your theory is that:
a nukewave magically zapped a small handful of cars in the WFC Lot, after missing all of the cars before & after & around said point, and was so magical that it even made the shot thanks to the slim odds of the large dirt mound that was partially blocking the cars. Then, the cars exploded from the nukewave, and then exploded the gas line underneath the ground which should have been rather packed tight dirt considering it was a parking lot in a Manhattan.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by selfless
That is what i consider a troll, insult someone who does not agree with your views.

Troll:
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.
www.urbandictionary.com...

Let me know when we're on the same page...

Originally posted by selfless

I am offering possibilities.

We can also ask, why did the debris magically fall on all the cars and not on people and then magically removed them selves from the top of the cars when the pictures of the burned cars were taken.

First of all I've seen a few car fires, or the results of a car fire and they're consistent with IIB's pics here. Do your have any shots of Hiroshima's melted cars or some modern nuke test photos of same phenomonon(spelling?).

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Wow, Red Herring overkill! Way to go guys

When your arguments are spreading thin, throw in some new unrelated materials. Go back and see the title of this topic. Just beneath it see where i linked in the broad issue thread, where that OP is now Red herring my thread. O, and the spires didnt turn to dust. Do your homework, and come back, but don't red herring my thread with it try yours. That's doesnt even help your argument even if they did.

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers.

Everything everyone said previous to your post was on topic and not red herring.

You just showed your true colors when you accused them of such when they were not agreeing with your views.

You disappoint me in this thread and I'm sure you disappointed many.

All the your debunking arguments were contradicted a few pages ago IIB, i don't have to keep repeating what everyone's been saying.



[edit on 5-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by bsbray11

And you don't "wipe up" a discussion if you're being sincere. You're going "dark side" on me, IIB. Don't make this into a chess game. You're the one that showed us the reports that debates in which one defends their political bias causes a sort of high in the brain. So drop taking sides and look at the information. You say red herring, I say look at the goddamned steel spewing dust, the evaporated steel, the 600-foot ejections of 20-ton debris. If you talk about 'wiping up', or 'winning' or anything along those lines, you're a lost cause here. You're doing nothing but promoting your own agenda.

Bsbray11 said it all perfectly a few pages down, i should have stayed out of it after that point.

Now i won't do that mistake anymore, i am out of here.

Go look at what they posted, both of them. It was just after my then-latest round of expose on the matter. I stepped up the cars related volume, and they cut in with things that weren't on point, and did little besides divert from the cars issue and prop up the general nuke issue.

I laid out the gasline image:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
They started sidestepping around that, and then bang bang they posted car irrelevant posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Note that I later explained how if we're to take that image as proof of nukes then it itself destorys the cars melted by nukes theory.

I must admit that I shouldn't of generalized that "red herring" post towards both of them without being specific of who I was saying what towards.. Sorry.

EDIT: I had some context signficant typos I had to remove, and that last paragraph to add.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by selfless
Bsbray11 said it all perfectly a few pages down, i should have stayed out of it after that point.

Now i won't do that mistake anymore, i am out of here.

Dude, yo, I had seen more than enough to make a valid assessment by the time I made the post. Days in advance.

The odds of those cars being melted by nukes is slim to none. Get over it.


[edit on 5-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I haven't really read the above, but I agree that the idea of nukes is ridiculous.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]