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

Here's a shot from in front of the WFC buildings 3+4 I just happened across:

High-res:
upload.wikimedia.org...

I Too, Refuse To Drink The Kool-Aid! (Great Aphorism By Tsloan)

Dear IgnoranceIsntBliss:

Time to clean out the Augean stables.

Our entire (scientific) world is based on ‘assumptions’. We cannot see what substances are really made of. We cannot look at molecules or atoms. We only theorize that they are there based on CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence, and nothing else.

For example whoever designed the very roof over your head, based their design wholly on guesswork. Because they never actually SAW the forces (e. g. Van der Waals) holding the construction materials together they specified. But you seem to be o.k. with that.

Depressingly, the evidence overwhelmingly points toward the use of nuclear weapons on 9-11 at the WTC sites. You can nitpick all you want. Why didn’t this or that car burn? Why did they sometimes only partially burn? What about the gas line? None of this matters — in light of the WTC buildings proper going off like roman candles. The characteristics of the big (fusion) explosions explain the smaller observed oddities such as car fires.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

The Nuclear Challenge:
Show some cars "melted" by "nukes", and explain how/why.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The Nuclear Challenge:
Show some cars "melted" by "nukes", and explain how/why.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

hmm thats easy, just check out some of the vintage nuclear test videos, I can recall buildings and cars being melted/turned to dust.

How? Intense heat, why? because they were testing it?

If you want a direct comparison to the micro nukes used in the WTC then you would be hard pushed, perhaps if Bali bombing and OKC were confirmed micro nuke incidents you may be able to compare against them.



check out 0:33

[edit on 6-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

Some of the cars in the car park took fire because of hot ash and embers falling on them from the fires in the towers that became mixed with the dust of pulverised concrete when the tower collapsed. The fires did not start immediately because fires always take time to grow. Nothing else needs to be invoked to explain this non-problem.

Originally posted by micpsi
Some of the cars in the car park took fire because of hot ash and embers falling on them from the fires in the towers that became mixed with the dust of pulverised concrete when the tower collapsed. The fires did not start immediately because fires always take time to grow. Nothing else needs to be invoked to explain this non-problem.

Except for the fact that the insides to many of them were fine. What are you flash-igniting, if not the interior of the car? Do you know how much heat it takes to flash-ignite the exterior of a car? The heat and temperatures required are way high, above and beyond what it would require to roast everyone in between.



IIB is showing his egomaniacal side.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I originally thought I'd use this thread to shut down the nuke hypothesis

Ie, 'shut it down' by only focusing on the cars, which is a hell of a lot of pure speculation, and accusing everyone of trying to derail the thread every time other evidences are offered.

All the details argued in-between are all classical examples of fallacious "debunker" logic. I say very simply that high explosives don't impart lateral velocity to large amounts of mass. In other words, high explosives don't eject 20-ton debris 600 feet.

I challenge IIB to show me a single demolition in which structural debris is ejected energetically, and he simply responds with something like 'it wasn't a typical demolition.' No, it wasn't, because they didn't just use high explosives. The offer is still up for anyone to show me high explosives ejecting serious structural debris in an implosion. Saying "it wasn't typical" is nonsense in regards to explaining where the energy came from, if not HE's.


IIB's ego and naivety are apparently to the point where he thinks it's his rock-solid "logic" that frustrates us:

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.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Go look at what they posted, both of them. It was just after my then-latest round of expose on the matter.

So he's talking like this is a pissing contest, he's going to win, "wipe up", people are starting to realize how futile it is to try to argue with this dude and his "logic" of debunk an entire set of evidences just by focusing on the most speculative, and he responds perfectly in-character by asserting it's once again his fool-proof and rock-solid logic that's causing us to accuse him of making this into an insincere pissing contest.

If he wants to talk 4th-generation, pure fusion devices, and evidence, then he'd want to talk about this kind of stuff:












Once again, C4 and thermite don't do any of those things.


Yet IIB, being the reasonable egomaniac that he is, is going to "use this thread", focusing solely on his "exposés" on the multitudes of car fires spanning multiple blocks around the WTC, to "shut down the nuke hypothesis".

That's his stated agenda and that's what he intends to do here, end of story.

Everyone expecting a reasonable discussion might as well drop this thread, unless your idea of a reasonable discussion is aluminum panels being blown down streets against cars makes the cars catch on fire, and apparently so do dust clouds that aren't even hot to burn hundreds of victims in between.

I don't know if the gas line thing holds water or not, but I know it didn't run firey rings around the blocks surrounding the WTC complex, so it isn't an all-encompassing theory by any means, even within the car-fire subset of nuke discussion, and even if it does hold water.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by bsbray11]

So did you actually have soem example of cars that were blown by "nukes"?

It's not like I just rushed head first into this with a preconception. I had looked well into to it days in advance of this thread.

Your implosion argument isn't even applicable. These we're typical implosions. With CD's the base meeting the ground is where the building smashes itself into smitherines using mainly gravity. That wasn't the case with the WTC's, which started smashing on top of themselves from the top instead of at the base. Show me an example of a large skyrise that fell the same way as the WTC's, and didn't eject large matter in an even semi-similar way. t would seem the burden of proof is on you with this one, as you're the one alleging that it was an implosion that we could compare with other known examples, and that what happened was impossible.

So now we're dredgng different dynamics back up to support the nuke claim in general, yet don't support the cars claim.

It's interesting that you should use the Winter Garden damage as evidence. My post above shows a mass of cars right in front of it that weren't "melted".

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Here's a shot from in front of the WFC buildings 3+4 I just happened across:

High-res:
upload.wikimedia.org...

I was a tad abrassive earlier in this thread. I should have stated it something more like "shut down the nukes-melted-the-cars hypothesis". In the other thread I said you guys can try to argue your nuke claim, just without using the cars as evidence, unless you can show which and explain.








Show which cars were burned/melted/etc by nukes.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Look iib,

You can choose not to have the nuke theory as a ''possibility''

But don't try to force dictatorship on others who wants to keep an open mind to all possibilities. You act like because in your mind you debunked a theory that the whole world should agree with you and shouldn't investigate into nukes being used on 911.
Well to be honest after looking at all the evidences, debris causing the car fires is not close to being the best possibility available but that's just my personal opinion, i won't attack you for believing debris burned these cars just because i highly doubt it.

This is why you are coming off as ego maniac, you want to push your views on others and when they don't agree with you, you call them trolls, and accuse them of derailing your thread when they offer evidence that contradicts your theory.





[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

selfless

I'm not sure I ever said it wasn't possible, but my words are dripping with the odds of nukes+cars being slim to none.

I've been asking over and over for some solid case examples if we're to take this car dynamic seriously. I'm still waiting.

You are attacking me now, you have been, and many others have here, including one troll who you went to bat for over and over again. You carried the torch for him after he left.

Debris not being close to the reason for car fires?

Let's see...
Gas pipes blew up in the FURTHEST away location we know of. TO take your theory we have to assume that the nuke blast went around hundreds of vehicles to target just a handful, and then those cars exploding blew up the gas line.

That's the furthest away location we know of.

From there virtually everywhere there's burned cars there are nonburned cars right next to them, or in the middle of them. If nukes were gonna lite up a street of cars from a geometric blast/emp wave the odds of it picking and choosing is slim to none.

If you want to push on in using the cars as evidence, which carries roughly a 0.01% probablility, and sound like the kookiest of kooks in allegding that NUCLEAR BOMBS were used at WTC, good luck to you.

Claims like these and people irrationally holding onto and promoting these WILD claims are absolutely destroying the "Truth Movement" by making the entire thing look absurd while diverting people (including yourselves) away from the Actionable Consensus issues. THeories like these are the brainchildren of actual disinfo agents like Rick Seigels outfit, and when you irrationally insist on pushing these theories you yourself are acting as a disinfo agent, whether you realize it or not. The striking thing about this is you yourself have flamed and borderline trolled this thread which is exactly what disinfo agents aim to do. So you think whatever you want about that, whoever you are, but you're being played as you've behaved here exactly as a disinfo agent while promoting disinfo theories.



I'm still waiting for some hardcore examples of cars melted by nukes.

I still have more examples that make the nuke+cars claim even more impossible.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

I attacked a theory, and hurt it BAD, so you and some of your like mindeds' have been attacking me if anything. If the evidence supported a different conclussion I'd be all over it. In fact this research has put to rest some other new lines of "conspiracist" 'favoring' theories I thought I'd get to be the one to point them out. It's not my fault you've self-identified the car theory to yourself, and then took offense, and then had to nitpick and attack me in here. Do I really need to start pulling quotes? I may be abbrassive, but where did I insult and directly attack people first (calling out red herrings or other fallacies doesnt count as attacking people). You better be happy. You've ensured that we've not discussed only the cars angle. People liek you want to throw wild ideas around all over the place, and the same ones in every topic, to ensure that no real conclussions can be made about specific details; otherwise, irrational beliefs in wild theories my not live too long. No wonder the true "debunker" types out there get to throw things like "911 truth Cult" and other derogortory accusations, as here I'm being met as if I walked into a Scientology 'church' with gay photos of LRonHubbard. I'm already prepared to 'be ignored', and often are because I'm the guy who points out the irrational biases ON BOTH SIDES, so that people may one day come to their senses and agree on the ACTIONABLE CONSENSUS issues. If people don't you can forget about there being any reason of dreaming of a "truth movement". Keep on kooking and they'll keep on running from or debunking you. Divide and Conquer. Meanwhile there's a huge list of undeniable issues worthy of getting an investigation. Disinfo theories and behaviors are making sure noone has time to get to them (even me at this juncture, which should have been a slam dunk). Can you list some "actionable consensus" issues that don't involve nukes or bombs or demolitions or spires or pentagons of hijackers or anything that isn't in Loose Change???? We've already lost. Moreover, 9/11 is almost irrelevent at this point with what is but a few years away. Keep focusing on UFO's and WTC Nukes ATS. Forget about reality that actually matters and is absolutely true without even room for debate and trumps the significance of both.




I'm still waiting for some examples of cars that were burned by nukes.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Please note that i am not here to ''defend'' a nuke theory.

Had you been a nice person i would not have said anything to you iib, it's not the content that is the problem, it's the person behind it.

I don't take offense to someone ''attacking'' a theory like you claim. It doesn't matter to me what you believe iib, but please don't force it on to others as being the only possibility just because you dictate it so, that's why i am over reacting.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Dear IgnoranceIsntBlisss:

Why do you ask for the impossible? Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re asking for OFFICIAL pictures of automobiles exposed to the effects of high-energy neutrons coming from an advanced, and not governmentally acknowledged weapon, a pure fusion bomb. Are you crazy?

The dozens and dozens of pictures of burnt cars — uploaded meticulously by your fellow ATS members — SHOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU’RE REQUESTING. Except that they’re not department of defense certified. And, I’m afraid that’s not likely to change soon either.

Pure hydrogen bombs, and antimatter if I might add, have been theoretically and practically researched ‘six kinds of sideways’. By whom? By our very own military and energy departments. Hydrogen (fusion) is a holy grail of both those institutions. Both these entities have been researching — for fifty years or so — to miniaturize the process. Our generals want mini-bombs to blow things up and our electric companies want hydrogen mini-pellets to explosively generate power, akin to the way ordinary combustion engines are powered by sequential explosions also.

What’s holding us back then? Militarily, nothing. A few months ago it was publicly announced that we would be ‘remodeling’ our entire nuclear arsenal. No one has dared mention this of course, but isn’t it plausible that this ‘modernization’ will certainly include installation of some 4th generation nuclear weapons? We’ll still keep good ol’ fission weapons of course. We want them for the really big bombs. Plus they have a nice shelf life and are easy to store. Fission materials have a greater energy density than fusible substances. For your reference here are the energy density data for
1. Fusion energy =100 Giga Joule/cm3
2. Fission energy = 1,000 GJ/cm3
3. Annihilation energy (antimatter) = 10,000 GJ/cm3

Sorry about the long digression. But I included that for those readers interested in more than just empty rhetoric.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Here I tried to focus on one issue, I declared it from the beginning, I provided extensive evidence and the conclussion I found from it all, and people couldn't handle it. I explained every side, and showed the weaknesses and improbabilities of the rest of the theories (which I already had knewor thought of in advance BTW), and people couldn't leave it at the focus of the topic.

Now I'm wrong and arrogent because i already formed my conclussion before the thread started, because I had seen all of the evidence and claims from BOTH SIDES... and I eventually admitted I intended to debunk it early on, because I had already seen more than enough.

I've asked over and over for soem examples of cars burned by nukes. It's been pages since anyones made attempts.

Because of these reasons, and not tolerating pointless red herrings and circumstantial evidence to prop up your nuke belief I'm every name in the book. Right?

The fact that you cant show examples or even formulate an actual argument to favor your view and make my view look more improbable speaks volumes. What you're doing here is egging me on to get me to go into meltdown and further divert from teh issue that the cars+nukes has been debunked, unless you have an actual argument. If you don't and you persist in AD HOMINEM attacks, it just makes my view look even better.

Originally posted by selfless
Please note that i am not here to ''defend'' a nuke theory.

Had you been a nice person i would not have said anything to you iib, it's not the content that is the problem, it's the person behind it.

I don't take offense to someone ''attacking'' a theory like you claim. It doesn't matter to me what you believe iib, but please don't force it on to others as being the only possibility just because you dictate it so, that's why i am here to put you in your place.

The only thing I "dictated" was the topic of the thread.

Keep on derailing the thread. You're doing a 'good' job

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The fact that you cant show examples or even formulate an actual argument to favor your view and make my view look more improbable speaks volumes.

Excuse me,, you will realize that i have asked questions on the first pages of this thread that were not even remotely answered.

And i don't want to favor my ''view'' i don't have a view, i am open to all the possibilities unlike your self.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Why do you ask for the impossible? Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re asking for OFFICIAL pictures of automobiles exposed to the effects of high-energy neutrons coming from an advanced, and not governmentally acknowledged weapon, a pure fusion bomb. Are you crazy?

What are you talking about? I never asked for official .gov stamped and approved images.

I asked over and over for car images that show evidence of nukes.

Here, I'll be more specific: Please show us Car images that suggest nukes having been the highest probability of cause.

The dozens and dozens of pictures of burnt cars — uploaded meticulously by your fellow ATS members — SHOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU’RE REQUESTING. Except that they’re not department of defense certified. And, I’m afraid that’s not likely to change soon either.

Then show them! I keep asking. The best examples have been WTC7 sidestreety and the WFC Lot. Those didn't stand up. Did you read the thread? Do I need to start a new one outlines everything that has come out during this course so that's its all lined up right in the first post? My goal here was to make this an easy thread for people to go thru and get right to the info, but people like selfless here have made sure that was impossible.


I'm not arguing about the existence of various devices and our uber-imperialist-militaristic-establishment, but this theory, especially when you actually assess the real self-speaking evidence is absurd. I'd like to point otu that I really didn't ATTACK the theory too eraly on, and tried to let everyone argue it, but people liek selfless here will make sure to make me look as bad as possible since they're personally offended and look bad because they're so obsessed with this theory.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

So these are the questions that have you holding onto the nuke belief?

I'm almost certain I answered at least one of them, but I dont have time for this let alone digging for such.

Originally posted by selfless
Sure we see some dust here and there but where is the debris that caused all these vehicles to catch on a big blaze of fire?

Burning / melting objects flying thru their windows.

Gas pipeline fires & explosions. We have PROOF that the FURTHEST lot experienced a gas line explosion.

Debris ramming up underneath the cars fuel tanks (the "dust here and there" is as usually as deep or deeper than the undersides of most of the cars).

One car blowing up and causing chain reaction fires and explosions from car to car.

And so on.

I don't see any debris on top of the cars in these photo's that would indicate debris caused the cars to catch on fire, maybe I am missing something?

Why does something have to land on top of a car to be able to blow it up or catch it's interior on fire? See above.

And why would they remove the debris and not remove the cars? Seems to me like if they removed the debris from the cars (Had to be big ones to do damage like this), the cars would have been towed a long time ago before the pictures were even taken.

I know I answered this. Go back and see Mr. "stop reading your owns posts". Can people lift and scoop cars with snow shovels and their bare hands? If the "melted" cars were radioactive then why were they beign temporarily dumped on the sides of main streets 7 blocks away?

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The fact that you cant show examples or even formulate an actual argument to favor your view and make my view look more improbable speaks volumes.

I forgot to add the part towards the end of that sentance that said:

" -yet you insist on attacking me and derailing the thread to the furthest extent possible- speaks volumes."

[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]