What Melted Cars 7 Blocks Away From WTC

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
What would have done this, if it was only jet fuel induced fires at WTC

The site hosting these pictures propose Star Wars Beam Weapons, what ever that is.

Well that aside, I don't know what would have done this, any ideas.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...




s18.photobucket.com...



i18.photobucket.com...


s18.photobucket.com...

notice mostly all the vehicles have no tires, strange?


[edit on 24/3/2007 by Sauron]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
In short I would say its a proximity effect or a side effect of the 'sophisticated' explosive devices used to annihilate the towers. They have been exposed to extreme temperatures.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
In short I would say its a proximity effect or a side effect of the 'sophisticated' explosive devices used to annihilate the towers. They have been exposed to extreme temperatures.


If by 'sophisticated', you mean Boeing aircraft then, yeah thats exactly what it was.

The thruth-goofers should stop claiming so many things brought down the towers and try to focus on one fantasy at a time.

They have put forward:

-explosives
-holograms
-space beams
-remote controlled airplanes
- pilots under hipnotic transes
-missiles

Talk about a conspiracy with A.D.D....focus people...F O C U S.

M.Agenda!


+4 more 
posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Why don't you give your opinion on what caused this instead of taking cheap shots at other members.
This thread is about ideas of what would cause this. Not what you or others think of any of the 911 truth movements. If you have nothing constructive to say about these pictures then don't post here. I will not let this thread be derailed by any side of the coin. Stick to the topic.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
so your saying a boeing aircraft melted those cars? Now why didn't i think of that.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Are you sure those cars weren't dragged there at a later time?

If not, how exactly did that car in the second picture end up parked on top of the other car?

Looks like they were burnt up closer to the towers, and then moved to the farther away location during the clean up.

Dates and times?

[edit on 24-3-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Are you sure those cars weren't dragged there at a later time?

If not, how exactly did that car in the second picture end up parked on top of the other car?

Looks like they were burnt up closer to the towers, and then moved to the farther away location during the clean up.

Dates and times?

[edit on 24-3-2007 by LeftBehind]


Some of them most likely were moved away from the site so rescue workers had better access, nobody is saying they weren't.

Still, these cars probably hadn't been moved before the photo was taken.




[edit on 24-3-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
A couple of questions I would be asking is.

1. Why is the wire mesh fencing behind the cars not effected? The doors on the patrol car are clearly melted, yet the wire fence still has a lot of tension on it?

2. Why is the bridges frame structures paint clearly unaffected by the inferno? If you look closely the paint is still clearly gray. I see no smoke stain, discoloring, darkening

3. Why is there no ash under where the vehicles are parked. In fact the roads surface is clearly unaffected. If the fire was to melt the car doors, tiers, bonnets surely a tar rock surface would melt

EDIT- SPELLING

[edit on 24-3-2007 by SmokeyJo]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Some of them most likely were moved away from the site so rescue workers had better access, nobody is saying they weren't.



Actually, that's exactly what the OP's source is claiming, that the cars were found burnt like that in their pictured location on FDR.

Those cars you pictured were much closer to the towers.

The cars on FDR were not burnt there, so the original claim is obviously false.



[edit on 24-3-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Were those pictures taken on 9/11? I find it very possible that that was an accident on the FDR. Maybe people were too concerned with what was going on that they werent paying attention to driving, there was an accident, a fire errupted and burnt the cars to a crisp.... NYFD had enough on their plates at this time. If thats not the case, then i have no explanation whatsoever.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by hikix]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo
A couple of questions I would be asking is.

1. Why is the wire mesh fencing behind the cars not effected? The doors on the patrol car are clearly melted, yet the fence is still has alot of tension on it?

2. Why is the bridge frame structure's pain clearly unaffected by the inferno? If you look closely the paint is still clearly gray. I see no smoke stain, discoloring

3. Why is there no ash under where the vehicles. In fact the roads surface is clearly unaffected. If the fire was to melt the car doors, tiers, doors, bonnets surely a tar rock surface would melt


I have a few suspicions, one of them being a blast of heat/radiation was extremely short lived yet very hot and some what focused or compressed from pressure changes during the collapse and/or forces in the massive debris cloud.

Perhaps also there were pockets of extreme heat in those clouds somehow trapped and carried in its vacuum.

Thats just a guess though, basically it looks like a proximity effect of a bomb to me.

Bali Bombing.






posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
If it was so hot to melt tires that far away, I'm sure a lot of people would have been burned as well. I doubt that what ever happened at the towers had anything to do with these cars.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
If it was so hot to melt tires that far away, I'm sure a lot of people would have been burned as well.


So your saying lots of people didn't get burnt?



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Where to start?


What could have caused the damage seen in these photos?
In a word: Heat.

Intense heat, like from a fire, or from being on fire, or having something that is on fire impact the the vehicle.

Just something as simple as that.

Whoever posted the series of photos Sauron referenced in his post either does not know or, (for the sake of furthing a sensationalistic agenda, for puposes unknown) hopes his/her audience does not know, that modern vehicles are no longer made of simply of metal, glass and paint.

In fact:


What appears to be metal may in fact be thin steel sheet, or aluminum, or fiberglass, or plastic, or a high-strength resin composite, or even carbon fiber. For some applications even resin impregnated paper (known as Phenolic) is used.

What appears to be glass may actually be glass, or it could be Plexiglas, or high-strength Lexan, both of which are actually plastic products, or it could be a combination of plastic and glass (ie.: "Bullet=Proof glass is a 'sandwich', often of Lexan between two sheets of glass.)

And paint isn't always paint.

Nowadays, the markings and insignias one sees on commercial and emergency vehicles are acheived with thin, self-adhesive, semi-permantent vinyls. Intended to enhance the re-sale value of such vehicles at the end of their "service" lives, these materials allow a police car, for example, to shed its department markings, thus allowing it to be offered as a more marketable "solid-color" vehicle.

A Heat-gun is used to de-laminate what appears to be painted-on markings. Heat, like from a fire. No mysterious "Space Ray" gun!

The poster also seems unaware that different metals have different melting points.

Exposure to a fire that might just scorch a cast iron engine block could reduce an aluminum alloy block to a molten puddle on the street.

In short, the multitude of materials used in modern vehicles react to differnt tempuratures in a multitude of different ways. Nothing "exotic", or even "unusual" is evident in any of the photos presented, once this simple fact is considered.

As to why would the officials would resort to moving the vehicles blocks away from the WTC site, but leave the steel beams in place?

Again, a simple explaination is readily available:

The WTC's steel beams were part of the original "crime scene", They were Evidence considered vital to investigation of the crime. Evidence is not removed from the scene of the crime until it's role in the crime is judged to have been fully documented.

The vehicles damaged and destroyed by the collapse of the WTC, are "after the fact"; they are not considered to have been part of the original crime scene and were moved from the scene to facilitate the investigation of the scene itself.

(Edit: Spelling)

[edit on 24-3-2007 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The pictures in the first post are cars that were moved from ground zero, and the other is a lot that contained cars that were destroyed on 9/11. The fisrt post is police car, tha I am sure if we could identify was a fist responder.

Laser beams, that is a good one. However, all it was were planes.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I don't know...Look at the dustification on those cars. Clearly nanodust in there...



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
I don't know...Look at the dustification on those cars. Clearly nanodust in there...


lol.. clearly a plane melted all these cars.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Because we all know that flaming debris and large chunks of metal falling on them would NEVER cause all that damage to a car! It HAS to be something insidious like a death ray.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Some of you I think didn't look at ALL the pictures on FDR, you can see that the pavement is scared up from pushing the cars sideways, also a few of the pics of the cars were taken BEFORE WTC2 fell, (you DID look at ALL the pics right?) I found these pics while ATS was down and was wondering how long it would take to get them posted

also how Odd the MOST of the cars have engines that are missing. but the gas tanks didn't explode, and some were external fires that didn't burn the interiors, and also cars burnt up surrounded by paper, THAT looked weird


and why put cars on the FDR in the 1st place, seems like an awful long way to take them just to have to Move them again, why only auto's why is there no other debris in that same area seems really strange

does anyone know what HARRP was doing on 9/11? I wonder if they were "on" that day, it just strikes me as quite odd none the less, go back and LOOK at ALL the pics. I'm not sure it was a beam weapon, but I'm also NOT sure that it wasn't.

Spend some time LOOKING at the photo's you don't have to read Judy's take on it to see there is something strange going on



[edit on 24-3-2007 by thedigirati]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
No, you have it all wrong. The reptilians were on a chemtrail mission, flying an orb with mind control and hologram technology, that made people thing it was an airliner, so the aliens could fly around at low level spraying bariums, viruses, and chemgoo, were shot at my the magical sylphs that live in clouds, who shot bolts of lightning at the reptilian orbs.

The reptilian orbs crashed into WTC, and the secret nuclear warheads in the WTC towers, placed there by Israeli agents, accidentally went off too early, and the heat pulse is what set those cars on fire.

Hows that? I tried to get as many conspiracies as I could into it!





new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join