Swamp gas from a weather balloon refracted the light from Venus, which got focused on the cars, and set them on fire.

Nah.....

I'm thinking more like either hot debris landed on them (quite possible unless they are UPWIND), or they were torched (thugs only need a remote excuse to commit a crime).

Would the insurance even cover acts of terrorism? e.g. I deliberately torch my car, then blame it on 9/11. I just blamed it on a terrorist incident.

No arson is ruled out with some images.. Remember we have bus, EMS, Fire, and police cars in this mix to.. I can almost bet that arson isnt part of this... If it is a very very small percentage is.

Dear Thickheaded:

Since you’re so emphatic about finding an answer for what set cars on fire on 9-11, I’ll offer you one.
It’s called HIGH ENERGY NEUTRONS. A neutron is essentially a hydrogen atom (a proton and an electron) with a neutrino.

A possible hydrogen fusion (bomb) reaction is formally shown as:
D (deuterium) + T (tritium) => He4 (Helium atom ‘missing two electrons’ a.k.a. ‘alpha particle’ at 3 MeV) + n (Neutron at 14 MeV).

MeV=mega or million electron Volt
eV=1.602 x 10^-19 joule

It’s obvious why openly parked cars burst into flames on 9-11. They were a dense hard target for neutrons to smash into but still had much less thermal mass than their surrounding buildings, i.e they heated up quickly to incendiary temperatures. What I do find odd though, and it’s morbid of me to mention this is, but why don’t we see any pictures of people hurt/killed by the hydrogen bomb’s neutron shower. However, truthfully, I really don’t want to view such images if they exist, and they must. That’s the one thing I’m glad someone is censoring.

Hope that stills your hunger for an answer.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
What I do find odd though, and it’s morbid of me to mention this is, but why don’t we see any pictures of people hurt/killed by the hydrogen bomb’s neutron shower. However, truthfully, I really don’t want to view such images if they exist, and they must. That’s the one thing I’m glad someone is censoring.

Originally posted by Forsakenwayfarer's idiot alert system
you make statements that seem to disprove your own case? censorship? why do you have to censor something that doesn't exist? strange none of these "censored" radiation victims showed up at a hospital for treatment.

You stupid fool! You wore a regular suit to space and not a spacesuit! That tie won't save you!



On a serious note, LOLZ.



HYDROGEN BOMBS IN THE BASEMENT AND SNAKES ON THE PLANES. CONSPIRACY SOLVED, THREAD DELIVERS.





[edit on 4-27-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
You stupid fool! You wore a regular suit to space and not a spacesuit! That tie won't save you!

On a serious note, LOLZ.

HYDROGEN BOMBS IN THE BASEMENT AND SNAKES ON THE PLANES. CONSPIRACY SOLVED, THREAD DELIVERS.

forsakenwayfarer: People are offering ideas as to the origin of the burnt cars in this thread. If you don't agree with them, do you have any evidence to argue against these ideas? So far I've just seen you bashing posts as they are written in this thread, is that your sole purpose?

Originally posted by greatlakes

forsakenwayfarer: People are offering ideas as to the origin of the burnt cars in this thread. If you don't agree with them, do you have any evidence to argue against these ideas? So far I've just seen you bashing posts as they are written in this thread, is that your sole purpose?

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer

you make statements that seem to disprove your own case? censorship? why do you have to censor something that doesn't exist? strange none of these "censored" radiation victims showed up at a hospital for treatment.

he simultaneously attempted to make a case for his hydrogen bombs with a bunch of irrelevant formula, and also disproved his own attempt by noting the fact that there is NO proof to support any type of nuclear bomb scenario. the fact that i found this laughable at best is reasonable. so yea. i guess if trolling gets attention brought to gross hypocrisy, then yes that's my sole purpose.

[edit on 4-28-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]

Originally posted by Hal9000
If you notice it shows a landing gear near Park Pl. where I believe some of the cars were burning. I'm sure there was other debris that fell there as well. This leads me to believe the burning cars may have been from falling debris.

The ejected debris was photographed where it landed, and these photos are in the FEMA report among other places. I can post some images if you'd like.

If you're talking about the actual collapses, that debris didn't make it that far, and you can show this with collapse photos as well.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Hal9000
If you notice it shows a landing gear near Park Pl. where I believe some of the cars were burning. I'm sure there was other debris that fell there as well. This leads me to believe the burning cars may have been from falling debris.

The ejected debris was photographed where it landed, and these photos are in the FEMA report among other places. I can post some images if you'd like.

I think I've seen those too, but what I'm saying is the cars that were on fire were from falling debris from when the plane hit. It only explains the cars on Park Pl. but not the other parking lot. It is certainly more plausible than the other explainations I have seen.

Originally posted by Hal9000
I think I've seen those too, but what I'm saying is the cars that were on fire were from falling debris from when the plane hit. It only explains the cars on Park Pl. but not the other parking lot. It is certainly more plausible than the other explanations I have seen.

So did they then leave the cars burning, while people would have been evacuating the entire area? Seems strange that no one would have thought to get a fire extinguisher or something. Even if it was one of the jet engines that caused the fire, that wouldn't burn for long when all the fuel is in a fireball 90 floors up. Fair enough all the firefighters were going up the WTC, but did no one think to try and put out the fire?

Originally posted by selfless
Yeah...

Cars on fire, why?

What could possibly be the reason why there are cars on fire 2 blocks away?

I know it's not the dust of the collapse that caused cars to caught on fire, that wouldn't make sense.

Anyone care to explain this?

This is simple, when the planes crashed in the buildings with all that fuel in them it resulted in that massive inferno you see in every video of the WTC. The stress from the fire was so hot it caused the buildings to collapse. In turn when the buildings fell some of the burning pecies' fell on near by cars (2 blocks away) and lit them up like a lamp.

Either that or a #load of explosives were used. But that's all in theory.

^The size of a fire has no relation on how hot it gets. The fuel that's burning determines the temperature of the fire. Jet fuel burns up extremely quickly (it's a liquid and it evaporates when ignited), and all that's left is an office fire that will not ever get hot enough to cause construction steel to fail. It will sag, it will bend, but in no way will telecope down upon itself.

Yes this is simple...

@wayfairer

I get you're points, you seem intelligent then act like it.
Your attitude and capping aren't helping anyone.

About the bombs.
Personally I only mentioned them relating to the pyroclastic flow/surge, because you need more energy then a building collapse to creat one.
The cars selective burning depending on the cause can disprove or prove the flow and therefor also if there was a high energy event to stay neutral and not mention the n word.

The official story has been sufficiently debunked i.o.w. we still don't have an explanation of what happened so we're completely free and right to think and bring up idea's.

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
"Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt."
translation:
"Imagination is more important then knowing, knowing is limited"

I don't actually mind what you are doing, but you're doing it in the wrong way. You're not discussing, disproving or proving, you're just capping and being an a... nevermind. Bring your info in a decent manner and someone might pay attention and believe your idea's on 9-11.

[edit on 28/4/2007 by David2012]

Well I find it hard to believe the extent of damage done to these vehicles is caused by falling burning debris.
I mean come on, steering wheels, car tires, gone engines burned up. The damage to the door on this truck I think is interesting, what buckled the door in so smoothly. It must have been very hot, and there must have been an enormous pressure wave that followed?

Just my opinion

Here's some pictures of results from bombs aftermaths on cars, maybe we can analyze the differences or resemblances.

There are some very interesting images of these vehicles after they caught fire.. I haven't posted any cause I have no clue where tf they were before the point of the image. I have only concentrated on those few cause I know the where abouts of where they were. But we can go and show a lot more interesting images if you want... Then you can show me what kinda bomb does that...

Deal??

They are just various pictures of cars that were caught in explosions.

I just posted them up to see the characteristics of the cars to see if they indicate the possibility that the cars that were 2 blocks away that got destroyed were the results of the shock wave of a bomb.

They do look like the aftermath of a shock wave.