What Melted Cars 7 Blocks Away From WTC

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


You've seen fires that melt steel and paper doesn't burn? could you source those on the net? I'd really like to see those, I'm not talking about house fires, I'm talking Steel melts and yet paper is not burned up as well, you can't have it both ways, either it's hot enough to melt steel or it's not hot enough to burn paper, you HAVE read Fahrenheit 451 right? I didn't know steel would melt at F 451, when I worked at a foundry we melted steel at F 2780 to make cam shafts for cars




posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.................


Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


The burnt-out cars are just a small piece of the overwhelming evidence that the towers were demolished using massive energy sources, most likely classified tech we don't know about.

You truth-deniers like to take one element, like a single sheep from the herd, and attack it like coyotes. I see you have absolutely no response to any of the dozen or so instances of simple physical impossibility that I or anyone else here has listed. All I read from you is that the cars burned, nothing to see here, move on...

Now, confronted with major elements of the equation you know you can't find any reasonable answer to, you use the lame excuse that the larger points of the destruction of the WTC has no bearing on the thread, which is about examining the cars as one element of proof of the nature of the destruction of the WTC.

In philosophy, it's called sophistry. In real life, it's called trying to change the subject, or trying to weasel out.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

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?


Clearly, if the heat melted the tires of cars blocks away, then thousands of people inside that radius would have received severe burns as well. Obviously, the cars were moved there, or were burnt from something else.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Bufordny, you get my vote for WATS!
The cars were moved there, imho there is no other logical explanation.
There are however many other questions that remain unanswered.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I love how when I try to stick to what the thread was about I get told that I'm only attacking one part of the story and that's how official story supporters work, but when I try to debate with someone about something that's NOT related to the thread (different thread), I get screamed at by CTers for not sticking to the thread.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by Insolubrious

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?


Clearly, if the heat melted the tires of cars blocks away, then thousands of people inside that radius would have received severe burns as well. Obviously, the cars were moved there, or were burnt from something else.


I think the majority of people would of ran away before these cars got toasted. Still there are always a few:

'Forgotten burn victims slowly recover'

475 people who were hospitalized following the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Burns covering 15% or more of the body's skin are considered severe. Bessey's center received patients with up to 100% burns, and seven of the surviving patients have burns of 70% or more.

They face excruciating skin graft operations, physical therapy and operations to reduce scarring and disfigurement.

wtc burn victims

Do a search on wtc burn victims if you must.

www.google.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

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.


Yes i have seen airplanes burn. But least time i checked the planes were over 80 stories above the ground, not near the cars.

Please explain where all the jet fuel came from to do all this destruction when most of it was burned off in the intial explosion.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yet again, who said it was jet fuel? Physical debris is known to have made it to the ground, and some of that debris would have CERTAINLY been hot enough to cause a car to catch fire.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
just wondering... they said the debris cloud was like a pyroclastic flow (The flow of the volcanic ash and dust coming off of a volcanic release, prior to the lava flow).... so here's the question being a low heat pyroclastic flow, couldn't it have burnt the lower heat threshold metals on the vehicles?


Coven



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I love how when I try to stick to what the thread was about I get told that I'm only attacking one part of the story and that's how official story supporters work, but when I try to debate with someone about something that's NOT related to the thread (different thread), I get screamed at by CTers for not sticking to the thread.


you have said it was burning debris that burned cars and tires and steel but you say paper would survive, I don't see any source that you have quoted, so you are stating opinion. Do you have any source that backs up the theory? even the Officers pictures didn't show any cars being towed away. I didn't see any and I looked at ALL the pictures in his links.
I'm not trying to say you are fabricating, I WANT this information so I can sleep at night, but I Have worked in a foundry and know what temperatures it takes to melt steel and trust me books and paper will do more then just "scorch" if it's hot enough LONG enough to melt steel. steel doesn't melt or get soft quickly, it takes a bit of time, more time then it takes for paper to burn...

If plastic and car paint will burn, then paper will burn as well as seats and fabric, you can't say the fire was discriminating or are you?

Anyone know how far away the passport was found from "ground Zero" because if it was as close as burning cars it still seems odd)



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yet again, who said it was jet fuel? Physical debris is known to have made it to the ground, and some of that debris would have CERTAINLY been hot enough to cause a car to catch fire.


But wasn't it jet fuel that started the fires, casued explosives forces in the basement, took out the lobby widows, and was still enough to set enough pieces of debris on fire to do the damage to the vehicles.

Those 767s must have been tankers.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
No, I'm not saying that the fire was discriminating, but it could have been that the passport was thrown clear before or after a fireball went through, or the paper was sucked out before it caught fire... Being that Atta was sitting in the front of the plane it most likely was sucked out through the exit hole from the debris and wasn't in the fire long enough for it to catch fire. The buildings were essentially pressurised from what I've heard and read, and when the planes punched holes a lot of things were blown right out of the windows pretty quickly.

As for the cars being moved, there are drag marks under them in some of the pictures, and we have a member just a few posts back that says he was there and they moved the cars out of the way. IIRC there were also pictures of them moving cars that were floating around not long afterwards.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But wasn't it jet fuel that started the fires, casued explosives forces in the basement, took out the lobby widows, and was still enough to set enough pieces of debris on fire to do the damage to the vehicles.

Those 767s must have been tankers.


So jet fuel is the only thing there that could POSSIBLY burn right? All the offices and materials in the buildings were fire proof? The jet fuel might have started the fires and caused damage, but there was plenty else around there that burned quite nicely.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So jet fuel is the only thing there that could POSSIBLY burn right? All the offices and materials in the buildings were fire proof? The jet fuel might have started the fires and caused damage, but there was plenty else around there that burned quite nicely.


Well all the people who believe the offical story sure believe everything was caused by jet fuel. Where it all came from i am still trying to figure out.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
... Being that Atta was sitting in the front of the plane it most likely was sucked out through the exit hole from the debris and wasn't in the fire long enough for it to catch fire........



Source Please?

That sounds like a Supposition; Who told you were Atta was sitting, and wasn't Atta allegedly found alive AFTER 9/11.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just want the source for the information

Debris from the WTC hot enough to soften steel ( and burn up car engines ) and paper that doesn't burn and Towers that fall straight down 90 degrees from the angle of impact and beam weapons sound far fetched?

the more I think about this the more Beam weapons are sounding plausible please help me



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Most of the hijackers had first class seats on the planes they took over.


Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B." [1]. Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport and described them as Middle Eastern[1]. She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card info of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta al-Sayed[2].

en.wikipedia.org...


The information came from two cell phone calls made by flight attendants, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney, to Americal Airlines ground controllers. Ong, who was in the first class compartment— and the only witness to the assault on the cockpit. She reported that she had seen four hijackers come from first-class seats, kill a passenger seated behind them, and use a chemical weapon which she described as "some sort of spray" that made her eyes burn and made it difficult for her to breathe."

www.edwardjayepstein.com...

As for Atta being alive, his father claims that he is. There was a lot of confusion over hijackers being alive after 9/11. There was one person that was an airline pilot that came forward and said that his uniform and passport were stolen before a flight (he had the same name as a hijacker), and some other things like that.




[edit on 3/24/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for Atta being alive, his father claims that he is. There was a lot of confusion over hijackers being alive after 9/11. There was one person that was an airline pilot that came forward and said that his uniform and passport were stolen before a flight (he had the same name as a hijacker), and some other things like that.
[edit on 3/24/2007 by Zaphod58]


So strange how, if the terrorist had fake IDs how did the FBI come up with a list of the 19 terrorist so fast. It was almost right after the flight 93 crash they said they had a list of the terrorist.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Maybe because they were going by the names on the manifests? They had tickets, therefore they were listed on the manifests, and they could identify them by that. They had eyewitnesses from most of the flights saying they were middle eastern, so the chances were good that if it was a middle eastern male it was one of them. It's not like they were starting from "He was 5'6 with dark hair and a beard" and suddenly coming up with a name in a matter of hours. They HAD the names that were used already from the airlines.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Most of the hijackers had first class seats on the planes they took over.


Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B." [1]. Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport and described them as Middle Eastern[1].


Called? as in Cell phone call? why has there Never been ANY records Shown of these calls, I didn't know they had in plane cell phones the flight attendants could use, and how close to the cell towers and how long were these calls, the phones require a Credit card Before you can get a dial tone, and that would surely leave a PAPER TRAIL yet oddly enough, no one I know nor any where on the net can I find that.

there should be records of the calls either with the providing cell towers and or the Credit car companies that were used, yet in all this time, they have Never been shown by ANYONE. these are not "matters of national security" so there should be no problem publishing them

PS I don't trust wikki as a source, I can put anything up I want to, I'm more into Vetted sources





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join