|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:17 PM by Insolubrious
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
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. 
Sure, but some of these cars do not appear to off been hit by large chunks of debris, unless you mean coated with 'nanodust' as snoopy pointed out.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:20 PM by Zaphod58
|
They don't have to be hit by large chunks of debris. They could have been sitting next to another car or vehicle that was hit and the fire spread to
them, or it could have been SMALL chunks of debris that were on fire. There are hundreds of thousands of things on planes that burn when they crash
that could have easily hit the car and set it on fire without causing large amounts of damage.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:25 PM by Insolubrious
|
Originally posted by firepilot
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! 
I was with you all the way up until you said no.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:37 PM by shrunkensimon
|
Why were they burnt?..
Probably caused by the same thing that caused the lakes of molten metal in the depths of the WTC basements..
A micro hydrogen device, the only thing capable of creating certain pieces of evidence observed on 9/11 which thermite/mate can not do.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:44 PM by gottago
|
So the mocking/jet fuel contingent thinks that whole parking lot of cars was burned out by the same jet fuel that:
blew up the towers,
took out the elevators,
smashed the lobby,
destroyed the sub-basements,
dropped the steel cores like a stack of oreos,
scooped out holes in the ancillary buildings like a paring knife had got at them, and sent a chrysanthemum bloom of sublimating tower streaming to
earth--the debris of which didn't reach the ground before the tower was pulverized, leaving 2+ inches of micronized dust across lower Manhattan?
So, where do I get me some of that? I want to go to Mars next week in my Subaru.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:44 PM by Zaphod58
|
Oh right. The minihydrogen bomb that had no radiation and caused no cancer in anybody, or any of the heat, or flash effects from a nuclear device,
and ONLY caused damage to that one single tower. I forgot about that one.
gottago, you DO realize that jet fuel is not the ONLY thing that burns in an airplane and that debris was found as far as 7 blocks away from the plane
right? Or is it that since jet fuel is all that burns none of that could POSSIBLY have caused damage when it landed?
[edit on 3/24/2007 by Zaphod58]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:50 PM by Sauron
|
Some interesting comments here at any rate. I agree a lot of those car look moved as this one below some have not, the site even says the same.
Anyway thats not really the point, where did the energy come from to cause that much damage to the vehicles. Seeing the towers collapsed from the jets
and it's fuel/weakened structure, as the government claims.
image source: photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image166ee7jpg.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:53 PM by Zaphod58
|
Uh, I'm gonna have to go with massive piles of flaming debris for 500 please Alex. What does energy have to do with whether that large pile of
flaming debris sets a car on fire or not, considering that the car is flammable and the debris is on fire?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:58 PM by bufordny
|
The vehicles where moved there on purpose.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 02:59 PM by thedigirati
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
gottago, you DO realize that jet fuel is not the ONLY thing that burns in an airplane and that debris was found as far as 7 blocks away from the plane
right? Or is it that since jet fuel is all that burns none of that could POSSIBLY have caused damage when it landed?
Let me guess it was the unburnt passport right, cars can catch on fire 7 blocks away but a passport will remain unburnt and and "just happen" to
belong to one of the Hijackers.
and Beam weapons sound preposterous..................... 
I don't cotton to most of the theories, but the Governments is as outlandish as any of the others.....................
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:01 PM by Insolubrious
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh right. The minihydrogen bomb that had no radiation and caused no cancer in anybody, or any of the heat, or flash effects from a nuclear device,
and ONLY caused damage to that one single tower. I forgot about that one.
No cancer?
WTC Cancer Cluster Like Hiroshima
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
No radiation?
repositories.cdlib.org...
Bearing in mind pure fusion bombs are clean and much lower yields are obtainable. Radiation half life is measured in days rather than hundreds of
years and is easily dealt with. I believe its mostly made up of helium and tritium.
Do underground nuke tests give off the same blinding flash? So would one expect it to if encased in a massive solid concrete and steel skyscraper?
[edit on 24-3-2007 by Insolubrious]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:08 PM by Sauron
|
Originally posted by bufordny
I don't think anyone is saying they where not moved bufordny, at lest I am not,
I agree some of them in the pictures are moved.
I just wounder about where the heat/energy came from, some here say they think from the burning debris, I don't know.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:09 PM by Zaphod58
|
And where was the radiation sickness? Even a so called "clean" device is going to cause radiation sickness. There WERE things in the planes and in
the building that give off radiation, but you woud have seen a MUCH bigger spike in radiation if a mini nuclear device went off. And you would have
had an aboveground spike in gamma radiation along with other types. And there would have been other bits of evidence even with a "clean low yield
device" that you don't see at the WTC.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:11 PM by gottago
|
Zaphod,
Let's get real here. No way those planes could bring down those towers without lots of help. Even if they had weakened the cores in the impact
area, the result should have been the tops falling off.
Period. End of story.
Instead they blow up like roman candles, gutting even the sub-basements and leaving hot spots that NASA satellites could record.
So the little mini-bar sized Jack Daniel's & Beefeaters helped. got it.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:14 PM by Zaphod58
|
Ever seen an airplane burn? Even the aluminum skin goes up. It's a HUGE fire that burns hot. But you're right, that CERTAINLY wouldn't set
something like a CAR on fire. It must have had help to burn.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:17 PM by Zaphod58
|
Originally posted by thedigirati
Let me guess it was the unburnt passport right, cars can catch on fire 7 blocks away but a passport will remain unburnt and and "just happen" to
belong to one of the Hijackers.
and Beam weapons sound preposterous.....................
I don't cotton to most of the theories, but the Governments is as outlandish as any of the others.....................
Who said the cars were seven blocks away? I said that debris landed 7 blocks away. We don't know WHERE the cars were moved from. And I've seen
pictures of fires where paper things have survived, or a couch or something that you would think should have burst into flame right away didn't burn,
or hardly burned at all.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:18 PM by thedigirati
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Ever seen an airplane burn? Even the aluminum skin goes up. It's a HUGE fire that burns hot. But you're right, that CERTAINLY wouldn't set
something like a CAR on fire. It must have had help to burn.
what would be enough to make a car burn and not a passport? sounds weird to me, I never heard of anything that could do that, But I know metal in a
microwave makes a lot of sparks, but paper doesn't burn.................
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:22 PM by Zaphod58
|
Who knows why a lot of that paper in the buildings from the floors on fire didn't burn. There have been a lot of house fires where things didn't
burn that should have or only partially burned. Who knows why it survived but it's entirely possible that it did.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:23 PM by gottago
|
Yeah, airplanes burn when they crash. See them every now and then on teevee (sadly). Lots of stuff left over, but they don't go all crispy like the
english muffin stuck in your toaster.
But they don't do all that damage. all that weird, catastrophic damage.
You can say jet fuel like a mantra, but that just doesn't even begin to address
the energy and forces necessary to take down those towers and do all that damage. Just no way with the physics and statics we use on this earth.
it's a huge steaming pile, and I don't mean the WTC site, I mean the official story.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-3-2007 @ 03:26 PM by Zaphod58
|
And the last time I checked this thread was talking about cars that burned around the WTC not why the WTC collapsed or if the official story is BS or
not.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
