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

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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

Notice that someone posted a video of a nuclear explosion and you see what it does to cars.

And also, you should read wizard's post about how it's not possible for anyone to show you the result of a car caught in the blast of a secret military nuclear device, since it's secret.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

I'm sorry but i don't see your so called proof that all the cars around the perimeters were caused by multiple gas leaks... that's just speculations.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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.

Again, if that's all you have for ''proof'' I'm afraid that don't cut it... one car blowing up causing a chain reaction fires and explosions from car to car all around the perimeters 2 blocks away from the world trade center and no one got burned? Seems to me that if a bunch of cars started to blow up everywhere, there would be a lot of people who got burned or even worst...

In fact, logic dictates that if these cars all caught on fire from individual debris, there would be a hell of a lot more wreckages then what we see on these pictures... The whole debris theory is just like the nuke theory, a possibility out of many and to claim that it's the only explanation for the cars being on fire is not a good idea.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by selfless
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.

Because, if all these cars were burned by debris coming from the world trade center 2 blocks away which there would have to be an explosion for debris to proppulse into the air in the first place...

There would be at least a few cars who would have big debris on top of them or around them at least which i don't see much convincing evidence of that in the pictures in this thread.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by selfless
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?

I don't think you did, you answered it from your perspective but it did not serve the purpose of answering the question in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, It only added more questions to the debris theory. But to each his own, it's all good :0


[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by selfless
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.

The debris could be plowed and lifted by people to make paths etc. The cars required huge machines to move and flatbeds to transport.
Many of these images were from that day and the day after. Moving burned parked cars weren't on the top of the action item list I doubt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You were saying?

Who is it again who only reads their own posts and not their opponents?

ALl of your questions have been thoroughly answered during this thread. GO back and see, and if you have an actual refutation to something (other than my generalizations above) please do quote it up here and provide your better answer(s). Be sure to read the entire thread this time so we're not covering the same ground.

In fact, logic dictates that if these cars all magically started to blow up like that individually, there would be a hell of a lot more wreckages then what we see on these pictures...

When you read the entire thread, look at all of the images and albums, and read all of the testamonies you'll see that your argument here and elsewhere is without a leg to stand on.

Before I go I must point you to a few logical fallacies I hope you'll enlighten yourself with so that you don't have to keep flaming people until you get them to go into meltdown. I don't know how old you are but I have my guesses.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
And last but not least:
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You were saying?

Who is it again who only reads their own posts and not their opponents?

I answered your question, you must have missed it, no big deal :0

Here it is bellow,

Originally posted by selfless
And for debris big enough to do that type of damage on these pictures, you actually believe that they removed all the debris on top of all the vehicles the very same day the world trade center went down?

What about the pictures of cars in full inferno, we don't see any debris on top of them...

The whole thing doesn't add up.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
ALl of your questions have been thoroughly answered during this thread. GO back and see, and if you have an actual refutation to something (other than my generalizations above) please do quote it up here and provide your better answer(s). Be sure to read the entire thread this time so we're not covering the same ground.

That's a matter of opinion, I think what was offered was mostly speculations.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

I've answered MANY TIMES that all it would take is a blunt burning plastic containing object to fly thru the window and lite the inside of the car on fire. Like i said, read the thread.

Or how about sheet metal debris ramming up underneath teh cars and exploiting the gas lines or tanks, and then some sparking / flaming debris in the area causing the vehicle fire. You can imagine a NUCLEAR BOMB BEING USED BY THE US GOVERNMENT AT WTC, but you can't imagine the chaos and destruction that went on down there? This is insane.

Nice try at sidestepping around the fact that you called me out on something i had already answered 4 pages ago.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
ALl of your questions have been thoroughly answered during this thread. GO back and see, and if you have an actual refutation to something (other than my generalizations above) please do quote it up here and provide your better answer(s). Be sure to read the entire thread this time so we're not covering the same ground.

No, it's you who needs to go read back the thread because my questions were not actually answered, they were just offered speculations.
Nothing got concluded they still remain unanswered.

OK.

GO thru, and resubmit all of them that HAVENT been answered in a nice clean numbered outline.

Problem is they've all been answered or made completely irrelevent from everything that's been exposed here.








OR, you can actually answer the challenge and show examples of cars that were undoubtably caused by nukes. Be sure to list the names of the streets and map references if you think you actually have an argument. If you cant tell us what street then you're clearly not competent enough to make an informed decision about how to judge which case.

Do this if you actually want a response. I'm done wasting time on this. I want examples and explainations. Bottom line. Don't say "cars were somewhere burning"... SHOW US THE CARS and tell us where and why.

If you insist on responding again without doing such you lose all credibility and respect you have left at this point. If you argue but cant show examples it proves you have no idea what your talking about and it's safe to question what your ultimate motives here are.

IIB,

I am not here to debunk anything, i keep all possibilities open.

Stop assuming that i am here to debunk your theory, i am not a debunker.

Why should i go and google a bunch of 911 pictures with a 56k to show you pictures on that day? They are all in this thread, fortunately for me.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is this, The theory of debris is a possibility but for debris to make it that far suggests an explosion so it's a paradox... even if cars were hit by debris there had to of been an explosion to propulse them that far...

So why try to debunk a theory of explosives if by doing so you only give more proof there was explosives being used?

"that far"

Where is there?

What cars?



See what I mean?

The challenge has been, for many pages now, show examples. You might get off with the 56k excuse, but where is the rest who are trying to support this argument?

It's sort of like:
S: "God exists"
IIB: Ok, which 'GOD' are you talking about? Which text should I analyse to try to form an opinion and tell you the best conclusion that I can come up with?
B: "But there were accounts of floods in each ancient religion."
S: "God exists"
IIB: Red Herrings. Let's stay on the topic of which. Show me which one to rexamine...
S: "You're arrogent and I should attack you instead of tell you which 'god'"
IIB: Well I thought I seen all of the angles in all of them. Show me which one to look at again...
S: "God exists". "You're a dictator"
IIB: Well tell me why then.
S: "There are things that I don't know yet."
IIB: Show me which...
S: "You still havent answered my first questions. You're an egomaniac!"
IIB: I did answer the questions!
S: "No, I answered your questions."
IIB: Whatever... Tell me which one...
S: "No."
S: "I'm trying to keep an open mind."

[edit on 6-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Common IIB, there is no need for that analogy because you see, i am not forcing you to believe nukes were used on 911 :0

IIB,

Do you think that the world trade center could have propulsed debris 2 city blocks away from structural failure?


[edit on 7-5-2007 by selfless]

From it landing on top of itself? What would you expect? It to fall in a nice neat pile in its footprint?

Here's proof that debris landed in front of WTC7:


There's so much that could be said of that image...

[edit on 7-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Debris thru the window.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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.

Most implosions I've seen have explosives detonating higher up on all of the floors where supports are cut, and then the last ones are cut to actually bring it down. Here's an example:



Nothing flies out with lateral force. But those flashes ARE ALL HIGH EXPLOSIVES GOING OFF.

Now tell me where the heavy debris is being shot out. I've satisfied your request, now satisfy mine or admit you're wrong.

Get a high explosives expert on here. See what they tell you.

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".

Nothing to do with my point, and none of the others were addressed.

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.

And I've already told you several times that I don't know what happened to the cars. The subject is speculative and there were probably a number of different mechanisms. As I've also said before, there were even cars on fire before either tower came down. There's no one single mechanism for all of them.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by bsbray11]

The general method of CD's is to
1. Gut them out to the max, ahem, or min.
2. Wire them up with high-explosive detcord and shaped charges that wrap around the columns to be cut.
3. Set the timing / sequencing etc.
4. Blast out from the botom up, causing the building to lose all horizontal structural integrity as it smashes into itself as it vertically hits the ground.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
www.howstuffworks.com...

How interesting that they even have an image of a building blowing out in the middle:



Regardless of what started or supplimented the WTC towers, they smashed into themselves at the top of the buildings.

We simply can't use conventional CD's as proper examples, especially considering there's no examples of structure's the size and height of the WTC. This also means that we can't say that there's no way they could have smashed apart the way they did, and especially not by using examples of clean CD's. You can lean this way or that way, but absolutist terminology like that is illogical.

For something to compare the towers to, you'll need to find out when the next major skyrise detonation will be so you can try to convince them to only rig it so that the top blows out on top of itself. Shoot for something over 50 storeys. Then you can logically use absolutes with the results.


What other's related to cars?


Can you guess what might happen to the car behind that one?

Can you show me some cars that defy reason? Have you gotten familiar with understanding the streets/locations you're looking at when you view the images? I gotta tell you I'm using some huge monitors and imagery and I've learned the area rather well during this challenge.


The main point of this thread is about whether or not the cars can be used as evidence of nukes. If they can't then your best bet would be to give up on pushing them in the micronuke theory.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How interesting that they even have an image of a building blowing out in the middle

And what you see coming out is dust and small pieces of debris, not heavy structural members.

You would also be able to see high explosives wrapped around perimeter columns if they were rigged that way in the towers.

Regardless of what started or supplimented the WTC towers, they smashed into themselves at the top of the buildings.

So what? Are you saying if there was more room to fall outwards, demolitions would show bigger chunks of debris shooting out farther? I don't follow the logic, because you aren't making it clear enough to critique. Why does starting it higher up make such a difference here as to the lateral velocity imparted?


Also consider the very quote you include. They say explosives are the trigger, gravity pulls the building down. So then when do the explosives rocket out the structural members?

[edit on 7-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Dude, yo, if you can't make sense of what I said I don't know what to tell you. It's common sense. The collapses started some 800+ feet up in the air. The buildings weren't gutted out so that we could see right thru them. The TINY building example didn't have perimeter columns. It wasn't HUGE (it didn't contain even comparable kinetic energy). And so on. Do yourself a favor, and stop trying to compare standard CD's to the twin towers. It's like taking an example of a truck smashing into the side of a mountain from over a cliff, and comparing it with a little compact cars that was blown up by some punk kids with pipebombs, and then saying 'look see why didn't the truck do the same things as the cars'.


I tried telling you this in the other wide-topic threads. You moved it back into here for soem reason. Back on topic please. I'm still wating to see some cars that cant be explained without a better cause than nukes...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Dude, yo, if you can't make sense of what I said I don't know what to tell you. It's common sense. The collapses started some 800+ feet up in the air. The buildings weren't gutted out so that we could see right thru them. The TINY building example didn't have perimeter columns. It wasn't HUGE (it didn't contain even comparable kinetic energy). And so on. Do yourself a favor, and stop trying to compare standard CD's to the twin towers.

None of this answers my question, or satisfies why high explosives would impart great lateral velocity for the towers, but not for other CDs.

The building I showed a clip of was the biggest building ever imploded commercially. I forget the exact number of floors but I think it was around 40. You can see high explosive charges going off on the outer perimeter of the building, and it shoots out dust and other small debris, and that's it.

Do you think hundreds of pounds of C4 were strapped to the back of every perimeter column, and then instead of vaporizing the column, sent it flying? What's the idea?


If I get a high explosives expert on here to tell you that high explosives don't do that, will you admit you're wrong?


And if you want to go the kinetic energy route, we can do that too, but they're mutually exclusive positions, you see. It's either one or the other, you can't argue both and just hope that *one* of them sticks.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Yawn.

So then where is the huge bright flash from the neutron bomb?

Who's talking about neutron bombs, IIB?

It would really help if you knew a little more about what you're trying so desperately to debunk.


And do I have to repost my last post, or do you want me to go ahead and pull and explosives expert in here or what?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by bsbray11]