9/11- Something just occurred to me...

Photos You Cannot Deny

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b4099d23e14.jpg[/atsimg]

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

You guys don't get it. The dust cloud on 9/11 was not a cloud of super heated deadly gas moving at high speeds. If the only criteria for "pyroclastic like" is visual then every dust cloud should be deemed a pyroclastic flow.

For one to support the OS, one must ignore credible evidence. Many cars parked safely away from the WTC were burned from these "pyroclastic flow, and the fact is the "pyroclastic flow" was so hot, it melted many car and firetruck engines, while leaving the rear ends of some of these vehicles unscathed. These photos are all over the internet. The only thing that could have melted those car engines like that, had to be some kind of heated chemical pyroclastic flow that was recorded on all the News Media that morning.

No, there were no melted car engines from a pyroclastic flow.

No, it was not a pyroclastic flow, even Architects and Engineers had to back away from that nonsense.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Photos You Cannot Deny

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b4099d23e14.jpg[/atsimg]

This is one thing I could never truly wrap my head around

and coincidentally one thing the OS never touched with a ten-foot pole

a reply to: D8Tee

No, there were no melted car engines from a pyroclastic flow.

Wrong.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/acb3f5d583f3.jpg[/atsimg]

Try and do some real research instead of parroting the OS.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ccf3ab7430d.jpg[/atsimg]

As everyone can see in this above photo on 911, all these cars in this parking lot were not hit by any WTC falling debris, except a highly heated pyroclastic flow.

a reply to: Informer1958

Jesus, cars burned that day everyone knows that, so what?

You know thats not the first day that cars were proven to be combustible right?

You ever seen a vehicle fire?

They burn HOT.

You attribute this to a pyroclastic flow caused by explosives planted at the WTC's?

You also said that car engines melted from a pyroclastic flow, where is the evidence for this?

You guys change the goalposts so many times.

Try and do some real research instead of parroting the OS.

Why don't you try to engage your critical thinking skills?

a reply to: Informer1958

It requires explosive energy to generate the necessary heat, dust, and debris. Turbulence and fluidization of debris are characteristic.

The cloud is 10x the size and height of the original building and vents for hours. find one example of a conventional demoltion that produces comparably massive mushrooming clouds such as this.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

originally posted by: D8Tee

Why don't you try to engage your critical thinking skills?

okay.

what burned the cars?

Where did the potential energy come from, regarding the law of conservation of energy?

Was it Allah's little helpers?

a reply to: D8Tee

Jesus, cars burned that day everyone knows that, so what?

No use getting all emotional now.

You know thats not the first day that cars were proven to be combustible right?

I could except a few cars and trucks burning near the WTC, but we are not talking about a few cars and trucks burning are we?

How about over 1400 vehicle all together. Then you have a parking lot full of park car engulfed in flames from the WTC dust, care to prove me wrong?

Why don't you try to engage your critical thinking skills?

Something you are clearly lacking.

a reply to: Iconic

You are correct, this is one thing the OS supporters do not like to talk about, because you cannot have 3 WTC just falling down all by themselves from some office fires, when you have around hundred cars parked safely away from the WTC and nothing fell on these cars to cause them to burn.

This is a very big problem that cannot stand up to the OS of the WTC.

I've seen more than enough people with more technical knowledge than I possess talk about a nuclear event.

A nuclear event could have all the same parameters we saw there, including the damage to the vehicles, the long lasting health concerns and cancer levels, pulverization to the concrete, and everything else..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The maximum temperature that thermite can burn at is:
QUOTE
The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)

en.wikipedia.org...

The boiling point of iron is:
QUOTE
Boiling point 3134 K,  2862 °C,  5182 °F

en.wikipedia.org...


So, what vaporized the iron?
it must have been be something hotter than the thermite reaction!

This proves that nuclear devices must have been used at the wtc on 9/11.
There is no other known way to boil steel, into the wind.

www.veteranstoday.com...

Fallout (Uranium, Strontium, Barium, Zinc, and More) Detected by USGS

Measurements of chemical and mineralogical elements in dust samples gathered in and around Ground Zero were initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey six days after 9/11. Its airborne team photographed the thermal hotspots. Both missions used state-of-the-art equipment and agency facilities.

The ground team gathered samples during the evenings of September 17-18 from 35 sites in Lower Manhattan within a mile of the WTC’s circumference. Two were indoors samples, two from beams. Samples were taken from undisturbed places: window ledges, windshields, flower pots, and protected areas in entryways and stairs. Indoor samples came from a gymnasium and a 30th floor apartment. Tests revealed 42 elements.

a reply to: Iconic

The cloud is 10x the size and height of the original building and vents for hours. find one example of a conventional demoltion that produces comparably massive mushrooming clouds such as this.

I have never seen one yet.

The massive mushrooming clouds is something no one see's when a building just falls down on it's own without any help.

a reply to: Informer1958

I feel like anyone, even a career demolitionist would be hardpressed to come up with one outside of that day.

a reply to: Iconic

I know, right.

originally posted by: Iconic

originally posted by: D8Tee

Why don't you try to engage your critical thinking skills?

okay.

what burned the cars?

Where did the potential energy come from, regarding the law of conservation of energy?

Was it Allah's little helpers?

Whats burning cars lit on fire by debris got to do with the law of conservation of energy?
Geesh, you are certainly reaching with that one...

As everyone can see in this above photo on 911, all these cars in this parking lot were not hit by any WTC falling debris, except a highly heated pyroclastic flow.

From that height you cannot tell what has fallen onto that parking lot, it's inconclusive.

Burning debris from the towers hit the cars that caught fire.
It was not a pyroclastic flow.
Look at the following images, why did the flags survive this oh so hot pyroclastic flow that combusted cars?
Why did the tree leaves stay on?
What about all the paper?
Why did not all the cars in your parking lot image catch fire?
Do you guys even engage your brains before you start parroting this stuff?

a reply to: D8Tee

not sure TBH it is hard to tell how much of that debris isn't just heavy dust

a reply to: D8Tee

a. flags are made to be flame retardant, so they cannot be burned in protests without the use of kerosene. Also, the flags are high up, and the massive heat of this flow is hotter toward the ground, because in the time the massive heat rises to that height, the mass of the flow has moved on, not allowing enough energy in the "raised" heat.

b. That tree is 75% burned. an incomplete burn doesn't really disprove the case, just says that the burn was incomplete, which would be more evident of an event of massive heat being flushed through the area, instead of a "Burning piece of debris" falling on only most of the tree, burning most of it, and not all, or destroying the tree

originally posted by: dilly83
a reply to: D8Tee

not sure TBH it is hard to tell how much of that debris isn't just heavy dust

Most of the debris was just dust. Pulverized concrete, iron, steel, office furnishings. People. Asbestos.

A very high percentage of literally everything inside the towers turned to dust in the collapse. It's insane to think about.

a reply to: Informer1958

Think about it Informer, engage your brain.

If the cloud you theorize was so hot that it combusted cars, why did it only combust a couple cars and not the whole lot of them?

You will just avoid and deflect from that question as you do with any rational question presented to you.

I know how you operate and it's not with reason or logic.

You have previously made a claim of melted car engines, are you going to prove that?

a reply to: D8Tee

From that height you cannot tell what has fallen onto that parking lot, it's inconclusive.

Here, same parking lot. Do you see WTC debris on any of these car? No you don't.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b4099d23e14.jpg[/atsimg]

Ignoring it will not make it go away.

Multiple reports and evident photos of cars that have the same damage and burns all the way on FDR Drive, which is 1/2 mile away from the towers.

www.librariansfor911truth.org...