Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Melted Cars 7 Blocks Away From WTC

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But i do expect people who were flagged and set off scanner to be stopped.


They WERE stopped when they set off the walkthrough. They were stopped and either went through a second walkthrough, or were screened with a handwand, afterwhich it was decided that they weren't carrying anything that couldn't go on the plane (per the FAA rules now) and they were allowed to board. Just because they were allowed to board doesn't mean that they weren't stopped and screened again. Their BAGS weren't, because that wasn't a requirement, but they were.




posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
yes they can and if "Bob smith" is connected to alquada (sp?) and "john doe" is not.............


But if Bob Smith and John Doe are the same people then they both ARE connected to Al Qaeda. Just because one isn't KNOWN to have been, and one was, it just means that he was good at keeping his identity a secret.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They WERE stopped when they set off the walkthrough. They were stopped and either went through a second walkthrough, or were screened with a handwand, afterwhich it was decided that they weren't carrying anything that couldn't go on the plane (per the FAA rules now) and they were allowed to board. Just because they were allowed to board doesn't mean that they weren't stopped and screened again. Their BAGS weren't, because that wasn't a requirement, but they were.


So people who were flagged as a possible danger and set off scanners were just aloud to get on the planes. Sounds like either very lax security or someone aloud them to pass.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
No. They weren't. Pay attention to what I'm saying here.

Passenger goes through the walkthrough. Walkthrough alarms. At the time of 9/11, there was an option. Either a secondary walkthrough, or a hand held scanner. It was up to the checkpoint, if they had enough people which they did. If they set off the secondary, then they had to be screened with the hand wand. EITHER WAY, the person was screened, and it was determined that they did not carry anything that was not allowed to board the plane. AT THAT TIME, they were allowed to continue through the checkpoint and board the plane. If we stopped everyone who set off a walkthrough then we would have had about 50 people per plane. AT NO TIME WAS A PERSON ALLOWED TO BOARD AFTER SETTING OFF A WALKTHROUGH WITHOUT BEING FURTHER SCREENED.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But if Bob Smith and John Doe are the same people then they both ARE connected to Al Qaeda. Just because one isn't KNOWN to have been, and one was, it just means that he was good at keeping his identity a secret.


Sorry you missed my point, just because the fake name was of some one connected to Al Qaeda does NOT mean the person that assumed it was......

It Does mean they could have been ANYONE they could have been Hispanic for all anyone knows, physical attributes do NOT denote country of origin any longer

Just because they had Olive skin does not mean they were from the mid east



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No. They weren't. Pay attention to what I'm saying here.

Passenger goes through the walkthrough. Walkthrough alarms. At the time of 9/11, there was an option. Either a secondary walkthrough, or a hand held scanner. It was up to the checkpoint, if they had enough people which they did. If they set off the secondary, then they had to be screened with the hand wand.


Problem is they had also been flagged as a possible danger besides setting off the scanners. So they had 2 strikes against them, but still were aloud on.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Remove, double post

[edit on 24-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It might not mean it, but that's what people are going to assume when they see certain features. Slanted eyes and dark hair, people assume that they're from Asia. Olive skin, and dark hair, people assume they're from the Middle East.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Problem is they had also been flagged as a possible danger besides setting off the scanners. So they had 2 strikes against them, but still were aloud on.


Setting off a scanner is not a strike against a passenger. Setting off a scanner and having a gun on you would be a strike and cause for not being allowed to board a plane. All it means when you set off the mag is that you have too much metal on you. That's not a threat in any way unless it turns out to be a knife longer than a certain length, or a gun, or something dangerous like that.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by thedigirati

the car you showed still looks like the engine is there and the tires and it doesn't look melted at all

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 24-3-2007 by thedigirati]


Check out the firetruck.

graphics7.nytimes.com...


OK, one at a time.

1. Of course the engine's still there, just as it is in the pictures in the OP. Are you saying that someone has a weapon that will remove an engine? Blimey, if they can refine it to do a clutch change they could make a fortune.

2. Sorry if I did not find a picture without tyres. Try doing a google image search for "burnt out cars" you'll see plenty, and not an exotic weapon in sight. Alternatively you could ask a few South Africans about necklaces, they will be happy to tell you how easily tyres burn.

3. I see the fire truck. Try a little experiment. Buy yourself a model firetruck, stand on a ladder and drop a breeze block, (that's a cinder block to you colonial types) onto the back end of it. What happens?

If you don't have a breeze block you'll just have to take my word for it that if you park youir fire truck under a collapsing 110 storey building it will get damaged, honestly.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Looks like the cars were moved there. If it was a front-end loader, they could easily have dumped one on top of another. Those cars burned, and not there. That's why no tires -- they burned off. Rubber burns.

They were most likely moved out of the way to clear paths for emergency traffic.

I don't see any inconsistencies there. Unless someone has proof of those cars burning there, in place, I say they look like they were moved there after the fact. They burned, that much is obvious, and there's no charring around them. That means they didn't burn THERE.

Sometimes, you need to look for the most obvious answer, not the most outlandish.

Lesli.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
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.


...which was the pre-cursor to their aborted attempt to take over our world, before they realized American Idle (intentional misspelling) was a hit, decided we were too stupid to enslave, and left us alone.

Why would they attack us in the first place?

Heck, we ALL know that MARS NEEDS WOMEN!!!



Lesli.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
madmumbler, no one I think on this thread disputes that there are pictures posted of vehicles moved, there are also pic,s of vehicles not moved.
The point is what caused the amount of damage to them.

[edit on 24/3/2007 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
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...


Wha? Have you ever tried to use the search function? All of these flimsy claims you speak of have been established at baseless..ad nauseum.




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


On a messageboard it is called "posting off-topic" or "De-railing the thread"

Make your own broadbrush topic if you don't like the specifics of this one. sheeze!



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SauronThe point is what caused the amount of damage to them.
[edit on 24/3/2007 by Sauron]


1. Fire
2. Very heavy things falling on to them from 110 storeys up



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Yes jet fuel was the reason for the steel in the building liquifying.
However, it was not directly responsible. I'm betting that the whole thing was a chain reaction, therefore by the time the buildings came to collapse there was a significant amount of debris, molten metal, "unburnt paper from any one of the hundred and ten stories being blown out", and more than likely a pyroplastic dust cloud that may have even burned things within the building.

All in all, Yes the planes were responsible for the cars being burned, wheter it was direct or non direct. F%^% IT COULD HAVE BEEN BURNING SEATS THAT FELL OUT OF THE AIRPLANES SOAKED IN JET FUEL>



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
There are always psycho people taking advantage of situations.. Someone probably just set them on fire...



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midwest Agenda

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!





i wish i had posted that ! ive never voted for anyone here for wats , but you get one ! a.d.d is a nail on the head . and when i look at the list of
" causes " that brought down the towers , it's so laughable .

i wish these people could see how sad they really do look .

[edit on 24-3-2007 by gen.disaray]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bufordny
I was a Police Officer there, One the Main staging area was on Pike st and the FDR Drive. The cars there where put there by NYPD and DOT Tow Trucks to move them away from the scene. The Best place to put them was under the FDR Drive to help make room.

i129.photobucket.com...
i129.photobucket.com...
i129.photobucket.com...
i129.photobucket.com...
i129.photobucket.com...
Look at my other pictures for more views. These were not published Myself and my coworkers took them.

s129.photobucket.com...


first , thank you and god bless you for all that you went through on that
terrible day . you work there will never be forgoten by me for the rest of my life . and im sorry that you have to be subject to all the really bad
" hologram " and " pre-planted bombs " conspiracy bs that comes from the below average thought process that thinks that crap up . thank you for telling what most thinking people already knew , that those cars had been moved from the wtc .


[edit on 24-3-2007 by gen.disaray]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Which is what I found out from a video with Prof. Jones, which seems to be a logical explaination. There is a new video in which this was discussed.
I have not read all the posts here so maybe someone had already brought this up, I don't know, however there could be other explainations also which I have yet to hear, so if anyone wishes me to post that video just ask and I will.
It is a interesting aspect, this thread which is relevant and deserves discussion.

Good find and good subject!






top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join