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

I've seen that thrown around by the NUKE camp here during all of this. That's the primary that I've picked up on.

But ok, what are saying did all of that?

One sentence. Please stop derailing this thread. We have the other micronuke thread for all of this. Read the topic. I don't care about gaining the points from this drivel being posted in this thread. This is about cars. This was supposed to be a focus thread for reference. You honorless irrational nukers have completely derailed thsi thread so bad I can't see how it wasn't intentional. I dont know how many times I have to keep saying this But I do know how bad you're making yourself look by refusing reason and derailing a thread that casts serious doubt on the nuke theory in general.




Please, get an Explosives Expert in here to tell me about how NUCLEAR BOMBS were used at WTC. I can't wait for this...

[edit on 8-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by gen.disaray
well that's because some rubble
falls here and some falls there . nothing conspiratoral about it .

Given the mass of the towers, and the considerably small amount of this mass that was actually burning, how did so much "stuff" catch fire... especially things (WTC 7) that was 200m away?

Just a question.

Fire has a tendancy to spread as it burns.....

[edit on 12-5-2007 by selfless]

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

They were Hondas!

Since that other cars thread has been active again i figured I'd bump this and add a few things.

-The following page chronicles the gas line explosions events from that day:
culhavoc.blogsome.com...

-Here's a 10:45 report of another "collapse' that was like "a fireball rolling down a canyon":


They assumed "50 storeys collapsed" because they couldn't tell what was actually happening due to the 'fog of post wtc collapse'.
In any case, more evidence of gas line explosions / fires.

-The following thread shows many examples of conventional gas lines and car fires:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-Gasline in the WFC parking lot:


And note how the gasline lines up perfectly with the street in front of WTC7, where all the "mailtruck in the middle" cars are "melted".
If you read thru the reports in that offsite link I provided above you can read reports about gas events in that specific lot.



But, just in case any would like to persist:

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


[edit on 2-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

If there was such devistating heat to melt a fing bus, why is the tree next to it still there shouldnt it be so burnt it should be standing?

It's simple:
The micronukes were tuned to not react with things like electronics/radios/cameras/helicopter-circuit systems, people/organic flesh, trees/paper, and so on. The only thing they couldn't get around was the gas in the tanks and fuel lines in the vehicles, but luckily they were able to tune it around the gas in the gas mains that were under the streets/sidewalks, and they were able to design them so that the radiation waves propagated randomly so than some cars would melt but others wouldn't so that 'debunkers' such as I could point out how inconsistent the car meltings were.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

IIB just a quick question, do you have any conclusion or any idea of what sort of mechanism brought down the towers or are you still investigating / trying to decide?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I've seen that thrown around by the NUKE camp here during all of this. That's the primary that I've picked up on.

But ok, what are saying did all of that?

One sentence. Please stop derailing this thread. We have the other micronuke thread for all of this. Read the topic. I don't care about gaining the points from this drivel being posted in this thread. This is about cars. This was supposed to be a focus thread for reference. You honorless irrational nukers have completely derailed thsi thread so bad I can't see how it wasn't intentional. I dont know how many times I have to keep saying this But I do know how bad you're making yourself look by refusing reason and derailing a thread that casts serious doubt on the nuke theory in general.




Please, get an Explosives Expert in here to tell me about how NUCLEAR BOMBS were used at WTC. I can't wait for this...

[edit on 8-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Everything you have posted comes from a site that is saying this was caused by a microwave beam not nukes. So it seem's that you are the one derailing your own thread! so i will post the link here for everyone to see what they are talking about.
janedoe0911.tripod.com...

And if your going to look at this site, bare in mind you may want to have at least one hour to examine all of it. It consist of around six full pages.

VicRH: I go back and forth about it all the time. It's awfully debatable.

Russ:
What are you talking about? Your post almost appears to be disinformation aledging that my arguments and analysis and even conclusions perhaps are from that site. Please explain...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
VicRH: I go back and forth about it all the time. It's awfully debatable.

Russ:
What are you talking about? Your post almost appears to be disinformation aledging that my arguments and analysis and even conclusions perhaps are from that site. Please explain...

well , you start your thread with images you downloaded to photobucket. You offer no reference to what site you got this info from. Then you argue that it wasn't caused by micro- nukes. And i would agree. Then you state in a later post that it was a directed micro-nuke. So i was pointing out that the photos you posted where from a site that claims it was caused by a microwave beam. I still dont know what your official position is on the subject. So if you didn't get this info from the site i posted, Than why dont you show me the link you did get it from. Then i will know what your theory is on the subject. Because it sounds like your bouncing different theories around. And how do you figure im trying to feed disinfo to this thread? I was just stating the facts about your pics and where they came from. And the site i posted explains in detail what your pictures are conveying. And i dont believe that these fires where caused by normal fires or even a micro-nuke.
So what i will do is say this, My theory is supported by the info in the link i posted. But i also believe that when you have a situation as complicated as 9/11, Then there Most likely is more than one answer to what happened that day. a combination of things that makes one single argument hard to defend. And i think that after 6 years of debate, This debate will never go any furture due to the massive amounts of info and dis-info that is flooding the web. So instead of arguing how it happened, we should be looking at why it happened. Then the answers would be easier to see. All you have to do is see who had more to gain from these events.

well , you start your thread with images you downloaded to photobucket.

The photos are from the NYPD / Transit etc crews from the event / aftermath. The edits were mine and I then uploaded them.

You offer no reference to what site you got this info from.

Which info? I linked in all 'info'. The photos speak for themselves, but if you really need to know majority of them are raw digital images from a 2 CD set that I ended up with. If you dig around my other 911 threads you might find where I showed how even FEMA scaled down an important WTC7 image even though they started off with the same image I found from the same set they had at their disposal, AND it actually supported the official line. Most of them are like 1500x whatever resolution. Others I scrounged up doing exhaustive web searches.

This is a new one to me: Referencing every photo, as if it's information which could be false, and then if I don't do it up front then it's alleged that I stole/copied the "information" from some quack website "where it came from" the just so happens to show some of the same images that I do. If you go thru this thread I'm sure you'll find that there are scores of photos that I've brought forth that the cherrypicking kook site you linked in doesn't, although I'm sure they have the most of the same ones. It's not "data" as in "global warming" science, meaning different scietists and labs etc produce various forms of data, and then it "comes from" their outfits 'whatever'.

Then you state in a later post that it was a directed micro-nuke.

Um, no I didn't.

So i was pointing out that the photos you posted where from a site that claims it was caused by a microwave beam.

You're talking as if these are "from" that site, meaning the photos were their rendered diagrams depicting whatever. These are 911 photos we're talking about and as far as I'm concerned any and all possible 911 raw evidence including video is completely public domain.

I still dont know what your official position is on the subject. So if you didn't get this info from the site i posted,

What INFO?

Than why dont you show me the link you did get it from. Then i will know what your theory is on the subject.

I dony understand You want to know specifically where whatever data came from to overide my analysis of the same data, to assess my position?

Because it sounds like your bouncing different theories around.

It depends on the case. Gas lines, flying debris, overheated engines from thick dust entering the air system, and etc could be used to explain virtually every case.

I was just stating the facts about your pics and where they came from.

Most of them came from the NY Transit Authority, others like aerial shots mostly come from NYPD, and so on. They dont COME from that website or any other.

And the site i posted explains in detail what your pictures are conveying.

They state their theory. I only glanced at the site, but i have to tell you if they claim tha tthe WFC parking lot was caused by space beams or nukes then they'll then have to claim that the gasline was ruptured by the resulting car fires/explosions, which takes those claims out on a major stretch.

This was originally about nukes, but if you'd like to expand the perspective over to beams then feel free to point out examples and why it makes the most sense for such, and I'll take a look. However, I'm not about to go thru and debunk that entire site, assuming it is wholly debunkable, as time is too valuable.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It's simple:
The micronukes were tuned to not react with things like electronics/radios/cameras/helicopter-circuit systems, people/organic flesh, trees/paper, and so on. The only thing they couldn't get around was the gas in the tanks and fuel lines in the vehicles, but luckily they were able to tune it around the gas in the gas mains that were under the streets/sidewalks, and they were able to design them so that the radiation waves propagated randomly so than some cars would melt but others wouldn't so that 'debunkers' such as I could point out how inconsistent the car meltings were.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

It was these statements that led me to believe you where saying they where micro nukes. But now i see it was a very long sarcastic review of your frustrations listening to the nuke theory. And hey, i will be the first to admit i was way off base about the photos you posted. So for that i apologise. And i to will argue that micro- nukes are laughable to say the least. But i still dont know what your position is on this. Are you saying that this was caused by normal fires. Because thats what my argument is. Thats why i presented you with the microwave theory based on the same photos you have presented. It is more plausible then normal fires burning randomly.

That was me being cynical, doing ninja backflips thru flaming hoops to support the nukes argument.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by XR500Final
The MO for me just does not fit, you have cars with melted engine blocks, and intact rear ends, maybe some molten thermate majically landed right onto them, and then burned their way in, but if there was molten thermate around why didn't the paper get burned up through it. If the behaviour of a intense X-Ray Gamma ray passes through paper but burns up a engine block it seems to be very fitting. . .

*snip*

Wouldn't the paper have arrived on the ground way after the collapse & also long after some atomic device(s) being detonated to destroy the buildings? Could this answer your question?

The cars would have been there prior to such an incident, and therefore could have been subject to different forces unlike the paper. . .

Just a thought-

2PacSade-

[edit on 7-8-2007 by 2PacSade]

IgnoranceisntBliss,

What you see with your own eyes is not always the real truth :

www.metacafe.com...

Wow that's some damn good magic.

So what are you implying? That the photos are fake? It's all one big diversion, as is pretty much everything else to do with 911 (and even 911 itself)?

Seeing yet another 'micronuke' / 'hydrogen bomb' thread being advanced, which includes mentions or the 'melted cars' I figured it was appropriate to bump up this thread once again. I know this thread got derailed all to hell by irrational nukers/no-planers, but within it is a no holds barred demolition of the "melted cars" BY nukes & beams theories.

Its possible that the Towers and WTC 7 fell because of a new unclassified weapon, call it what ever you want but im hedging my bets that they are so confident of never being proven liable due to its exotic nature.

Sure, 'anything' is 'possible'... Please provide some evidence for whatever it is you're proposing.