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

Originally posted by gottago

Seeing as your post is entitled "No more messing around: Why weren't these cars "melted" too?" your question is disingenuous at best.
You're obviously out to disprove the mini-nukes theory based on the exceptions to all the burned out and melted cars. This is like saying cancer is not fatal because some people recover from it.
Let's have a topic reality check. The real question isn't why a few vehicles did not melt, it's why so many did.

I think you nailed it on the head. I knew some of the Ops points were bunk, just couldnt put my finger on it . Some decent points though, but not enough.
I have yet to see anyone explain how so much molten steel was left at the base of the towers... jet fuel??...please.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Unplugged]

That's a seperate issue. Molten hot spots were also under WTC7. Are you proposing micronukes also took down WTC7?

sure why not, just one of slightly lower yield for WTC7 in the basement to knock out the central supports to make it fall inwards. WTC7 was pretty damn big in its own right. Onlookers describe a shock wave ripping through the building and a sound much like a clap of thunder just a second before it collapsed. I would also speculate that WTC 1,2 and 7 all had conventional explosives too, like c4 or cutter charges. Small yet visible flashes can be seen as wtc7 falls.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

A lot of work went into all this IIB, into that apparently pro-nuke response, and I guess into the other micro-nuke whatever threads too. Sorry I've just ignored the whole issue so far. (yawns) did I miss anything? Are we winning yet? Are we getting our energy sucked out or pouring it out? Oh I know I do it too when it seems fun. They would try to keep it fun, wouldn't they...

No seriously I stick to what I know which unfortunately isn't much. I still can't take on the WTC issues directly, dunno why, but I feel a need to distance and be a skeptic with all these charges even tho there seem to be some good theories in there - but when you start talking energy beams and nukes - I'm sorry, I'll just have to wait for the movie.

Most responders agree I hear? I think this is good. IIB, whoever stays down here, lemme know if anything good bubbles up in these pits, I don't have the time.

I gotta say I agree one thousand percent, Not sure whats going on, I guess it seems like a stall in everything, like all the good investigative work has been done and looked into and ...and thats it . Theres alot of guys that I dont see postin in here no more , at least maybe this time a year or more ago guys like bsbray, I dont what do I know.

Anyways, this nuke theory which has been around for a while now (back when it was the anonymous finnish scientist, glad to hear they got his name now. I agree that misc cars are a strange thing but beams and clean nukes is pretty far out there.

Not to mention if it was a war game rigged to go wrong this is only doing exactly what they want everyone to do which is talk about everything but that.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


The melting of the cars appears to be the result of radiated heat transfer but the dispersal of the affected vehicles is very sporadic and therefore inconsistent with a single heat energy source. For comparison here are two examples whereby vehicles have been damaged by heat transfer.

Fireworks Factory Explosion (Heat Transfer)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEq3H-_3BLg (2:47)

Rocket Launch Explosion (Heat Transfer Melts Car)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=appMDzLeT_Q (1:30)

In the firework factory example the damage dispersal is consistent with a single massive heat source transfer radiating from a central location. However when the rocket explodes it produces numerous heat sources which are dispersed amongst the cars causing sporadic and localized heat radiation damage. In short the heat-damaged vehicles evident at and around ground zero are more consistent with multiple heat radiation sources, possibly the residue of whatever explosive charges were used to blast apart the steel superstructure being ejected during the demolition sequence.

I can understand the necessity of considering every possibility but it is important to separate viable mechanisms (linear shaped charges are KNOWN and PROVEN to separate steel framework) from unviable theories. The official explanation for the decimation/separation of the steel superstructure of the twin towers is that gravity driven impact generated kinetic energy transfer, which effectively caused the steel framework to simply fall apart into a heap.

What does gravity driven impact and kinetic energy transfer actually do to steel framework?

Rocket Launch Tower Demolition
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuqQHV2cg7Y (3:22)

Deformation but practically no separation.

Would a micro nuke be effective at separating and decimating the steel superstructure of the towers?

Atomic Bomb Footage
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyBzXYZPoM (0:26)

Apparently not….

Linear shaped charges are the only KNOWN and PROVEN way to deliver the intense energy required at very specific and localized points to separate steel construction.

Microwave Tower
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgE9S3bV6QM (1:58)

Steel framework does not separate on its own…

Oh wow is this an ancient thread!!

Thanks for the bump.

Have you read the entire thread?