What Melted Cars 7 Blocks Away From WTC

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:49 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 wire fence still has a lot of tension on it?



EDIT- SPELLING

[edit on 24-3-2007 by SmokeyJo]


The fencing has a galvinized zink coating on it for protection. If this is not the case, then I would have to say they were towed there and parked, possibly to remove them from the streets so emergency and cleanup vechiles could pass?




posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
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?


So you have evidence that a block dropped and caused the damage to the firetruck. Maybe you might think about the differenve between a model truck and real truck, like steel.

Did a block cause the steel ladder to buckle and bend under ?





[edit on 24-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:54 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.



This is what I thought was the case.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
external source

this says it all much more clearly then I ever could thanks

What May Have Melted
The WTC Vehicles

www.rense.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
interesting note when you read the full source is that complete engines dissapeared from some of those firetrucks and cars that where standing blocks away.

i mean the whole engine gone but most of the cars undamaged.
this is quite strange.

and how could these, cars blocks away, could have been burned and engines dissapearing, without killing loads of people in its heat wave?



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
As far as I have ever learned, it is not even close to being possible to have a shaped nuclear device. A shaped charge works by funnelling the explosive reaction in a certain direction. A nuclear bomb has to have an almost perfectly circular explosion around the nuclear material, and I am not aware of anything that could contain a nuclear reaction long enough to shape it that way without being consumed. A nuclear bomb tends to vaporize the casing and everything else when it goes off due to the incredible heat and blast effect.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
A nuclear bomb tends to vaporize the casing and everything else when it goes off due to the incredible heat and blast effect.


Like this?



Or like this?



I still can't get over how anyone can look at the second image and honestly think, "Yeah, jet fuel. Of course."



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
You guys are out of your freaking minds.

1. You have a police officer telling you they were moved.
2. Have you seen NO footage of what happened that day? Where did the energy come from to destroy and burn those vehicles??? Those fire trucks and police cars are the shells of the first responders. Have a little decency.
3. mini nukes now? So, nanothermite and laser beams accompanied by holograms wasn't cutting it?
4. Look into this...
www.ksdk.com...
44000 pounds of the trade center wound up 1000 miles away..conspiracy conspiracy..


When is this going to end?



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You guys are out of your freaking minds.

1. You have a police officer telling you.
2. Have you seen NO footage of what happened that day?


Gee, sounds exactly like the people who beleive the official story. You have police and firemen telling you things that happened, you have no footage of things the official story claims but yet you stil believe the official story



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You guys are out of your freaking minds.

1. You have a police officer telling you they were moved.
2. Have you seen NO footage of what happened that day? Where did the energy come from to destroy and burn those vehicles??? Those fire trucks and police cars are the shells of the first responders. Have a little decency.
3. mini nukes now? So, nanothermite and laser beams accompanied by holograms wasn't cutting it?
4. Look into this...
www.ksdk.com...
44000 pounds of the trade center wound up 1000 miles away..conspiracy conspiracy..


When is this going to end?


I ask myself the same thing, but I still see that dancing cat avatar...


And please, don't trot out that tired, pseudo-maudlin "shut-up-because-innocents-died" argument; we aren't children and this isn't Fox News.

And also, the vehicles didn't just burn out, unless fire can melt engine blocks--ooops, sorry! My bad, we know jet fuel fires melt structural steel, so why not falling debris melting engines? Hey, I'll take another drink, is that Wild Berry Koolaid?

Those towers exploded. Look at the photos, look at the videos. Those are not collapses. Those are explosions. Since the tops disintegrated in that big flower bloom, sending all the building flying out and turning it instantaneously to dust, what is making the lower structure collapse? When, just moments before, it was able to hold up the entire structure above it?

There's no more weight bearing down on the towers--this is contrary to basic logic. Just. can't. happen.

Oh, yeah--jet fuel. I'm such a doob. Sorry.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Ultima, do you think these cars were destroyed by some other means then the collapse and fires? You are correct in the fact that I do not believe that the WTC 1,2 or 7 were demoed or anything other than natural occurance bought them down after the planes hit.

There were no mini nukes, no laser beams, although Bigfoot may have been in town with Elvis catching an off-Broadway show.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You guys are out of your freaking minds.

1. You have a police officer telling you they were moved.
2. Have you seen NO footage of what happened that day? Where did the energy come from to destroy and burn those vehicles??? Those fire trucks and police cars are the shells of the first responders. Have a little decency.


s18.photobucket.com...
these cars were 1st responders?


I guess that's North Park. It's a big green, grassy area, and there's nothing there. As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren't near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street.


janedoe0911.tripod.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
link


Yes, the FDNY, according to news reports, lost 60 vehicles when the towers collapsed. That is what I was referencing about the first responders.

Have any of you ever been to NY or lived there. I was born there, and the magnitude of the collapse, and how many cars would have been present is not a concept someone who has never been there can attain.

That 'dust' on those cars did not have 'therminte' residue, but it did contain human bone particles and other organics from the remainsof the 1400 or so bodies that were never recovered. Show some respect.









posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:55 AM
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.


So then you believe in spontaneous combustion?

Heated debris and even friction from collapse ain't gonna do it for ya. Sorry.

...And don't forget those amazing heat sinks in the sub-basements, captured from space.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by gottago]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Have any of you ever been to NY or lived there. I was born there, and the magnitude of the collapse, and how many cars would have been present is not a concept someone who has never been there can attain.

That 'dust' on those cars did not have 'therminte' residue, but it did contain human bone particles and other organics from the remainsof the 1400 or so bodies that were never recovered. Show some respect.


I lived in Manhattan for 9 years. I had dinner in Windows on the World as a kid. Yes, Manhattan has terrible traffic--point being?

And please, let's cut that "show some respect" line. What does that have to do with the discussion here?

Why don't you just send a u2u to the 3 Amigos to pull this entire board, if you are so outraged? Why do you post here?



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
No, I won't back off from the show some respect *SNIP*. 3000 people died that day and you people talk about it like it is a science fiction movie.

As far as the traffic comment, I am trying to point out that 100's of cars were damaged or destroyed in the collpase. That is what is seen in those pictures. Large object fall on car. Car explode or catch on fire. How hard is this to understand.

I post hear mainly becuase it gives me some good debate on issues with some folks.

I am not outraged as you say, jsut annoyed. There is a big difference. What is your theory please gottogo on the oringal posts pictures. Humor me please.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Offical story this..offical story that...Where IS the "official Story" located exactly?

Are you referring to the NIST report?

Are you referring to the 9/11 Commission?

Articles in Time? Newsweek? Popular Mechanics? NY Times? Boston Globe? A multitude of other media sources?

Programs on PBS? The History Channel?

Eyewitness testimony?

The perpetrator's repeated confessions?

Bottom line-- there is no Official story. There is what most people believe just because it makes sense to them, and they move on with life.

THEN there are the legions of experts in the areas of law enforcement, disaster relief, fire supression, structural engineering, civil engineering, controlled demolition, avionics et. al.. that have studied the events of 9/11 AT LENGTH-in tremendous detail-And 99% of them still come to the same conclusion.

Off to the side you have people that --for whatever reason cannot compute. Cannot do the proper research, be it due to lack of know-how or lack of want-to. The information is all there for anyone who truely wants to can find it. From a multitude of different souces, a multitude of expert analyses. Yet it seems more comfortable for some to continue with only a fraction of information concerning 9/11, and often that fraction is peppered with fallacy, intentional deception, and myth.

-- ok enough with all of that--

What was going on at ground zero after the towers fell on 9/11? Were WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 just sitting there?

Was there nothing much going on in and around those buildings?

Do any of you remember what the firefighters were doing after the towers fell?

Were they trying to put out fires all over the area? I kinda remember sumthin' about that.

Why do the vehicles on the street get an exemption from fire, when WTC 5,6, and 7 do not? Did you see the fires raging in the two towers before they fell? Do you think the collapse just cooled all that debris immediately?

I don't really understand why common sense didn't prevail on page 1 of this thread.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, the FDNY, according to news reports, lost 60 vehicles when the towers collapsed. That is what I was referencing about the first responders.


I'm sorry I didn't know those 60 vehicles were civilian vehicles, I was under the impression they were firetrucks and police cars and such, I didn't know they took their OWN cars to the sight, I guess I missed that in the reports, can you post a link for that

and I'm NOT disrespecting ANY of the Victims, quite the Opposite in fact, I want to make certain the people responsible pay for the crime, who ever it may be, but the fires seem awfully selective as to what got burnt and what didn't and after all this time the Government has not been very forth coming



bbc edit




[

[edit on 25-3-2007 by thedigirati]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Nice try guys, some great debunking posts here but I still think there were bombs in the building. Its the most logical conclusion.

a few thousand dollars worth of jet fuel did this much damage? Someone needs to tell controlled demolition they are wasting their money on explosives. Next time they want to demolish a building, why don't they just smack a big hole into the upper floors then fill it with jet fuel?


Controlled demolitions takes months to bring down buildings much smaller than WTC 1 & 2. Yet here we have 3 buildings completely and utterly demolished in a matter of hours.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Ultima, do you think these cars were destroyed by some other means then the collapse and fires? You are correct in the fact that I do not believe that the WTC 1,2 or 7 were demoed or anything other than natural occurance bought them down after the planes hit.



I am only going by the facts and evidence i find by doing research.



Originally posted by esdad71
No, I won't back off from the show some respect *SNIP*. 3000 people died that day and you people talk about it like it is a science fiction movie.
[edit on 25/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]


I am showing my respect for the dead by trying to find the truth about what happened that day.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]





top topics
 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join