It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No more messing around. Why weren't these cars "melted" too?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The new rage seems to be the WTC MicroNuke Hypothesis. Key evidence being cited are the images of the "Melted Cars" etc.


If a 'nukewave' caused the burning cars, then why weren't all of these other cars melted too?

Mailtruck in the middle:

Larger images from the above image:
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...

Copcar in the middle:
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...

Cars in the middle:


Mini-van in the middle:


Truck still drives:
i24.photobucket.com...
Why didn't we hear reports of all of the other local vehicles having their electronics zapped by the EMP?

Blue car in the middle:
i24.photobucket.com...

Destruction zone, but cars not burned:
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...
i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

i24.photobucket.com...

See the entire album:
s24.photobucket.com...


[edit on 2-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
IMHO...nukes were not involved, thermate was...what this means....well, time will tell...I hope... :/



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
P.S. ...I like your name...



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
IgnoranceIsntBlisss


These are some of the same exact questions I have had. Why are only selected cars burnt? I have yet to hear a meaningful response to this.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
What caused any of these cars to burn at all?

Falling burning debris?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The new rage seems to be the WTC MicroNuke Hypothesis. Key evidence being cited are the images of the "Melted Cars" etc.


What are you talking about? did you even read that thread? I was under the impression that around 99% of the replies rejected the MicroNuke theory. Hardly a new rage is it?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
They still persist.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
What caused any of these cars to burn at all?

Falling burning debris?


Many cases for sure. Like the mailtruck on the left looks like it got totally wasted. Chain reaction gas tank explosions could account for many as well. Gas lines. Some are quite baffling.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   
In the paper - Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects - written by Andre Gsponer, the director of the Independent Scientific Research Institute in Geneva Found at : www.citebase.org...

Page 14


In the case of nuclear explosives the situation is more complicated because the different kinds of radiations can have a variety of effects, especially if they are very penetrating, as is the case for high energy neutrons and gamma rays. The most important of these effects are as follows:

**** Heat the volume of a material. Penetrating high energy radiations neutrons, pions,15 or high energy gamma rays)will easily cross a low density intervening medium such as air and deposit their energy deep into any high density material. As a result, a substantial (i.e., centimeter to meter thick) layer of a bomb irradiated material can be brought to a temperature sufficiently high for it to melt, vaporize, or even explode. ****


That is a very very good explanation of why car engine blocks were catching fire, while the backs of the cars were not (not enough metal mass to absorb the high energy radiations.

Why the one truck ignited, and the others did not - the only reasonable explanation I would surmise is that it may have been sheltered by the mass of the building right beside it, note the little ticket writing vehicle directly behind it was not affected as well. To support that claim you would have to know a down-looking line of site. Did the one buildings mass 'shadow' and protect that truck??

Secondly you also have to note 'rope tricks' which were photographed by a Rapatronics Camera in a Nuclear detonation. If you observer the blast wave it is highly unsymmetrical. It would lend reason why some cars were untouched while others beside them were melted.

en.wikipedia.org...:Tumbler_Snapper_rope_tricks.jpg

I would also high suspect that as cars burned they usually just plain burn up the cars around them too.

The other thing I would note is that there is a bus directly behind the photos which half melted as well, which would work against the 'line of sight' theory.

I can only surmise that clearly thermate would NOT have melted a bus at huge distance of 200 yards from the crash site, and possibly this is just a theory that postal truck maybe was driven there AFTER the detonation. In the one photo you can see what looks like a a police vehicle that is in front of the leading burned up postal vehicle.

Other than that I would have to seriously toss in the towel, maybe look back in the direction of 'space beam weapons' or something like that.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
One of the things that I noted is the line of site of that postal truck. One of the things that really stands out for me is not so much the vehicles, but rather the skyline in the photograph



In that photo the entire skyline is on fire where WTC5,6 are sitting...

The other really big thing I noted is this.


In that photograph do you notice that the fire raging on the right is HIGHER than the height of the building in front of it (in relation to the line of site towards where WTC1 and 2 stood). It means that WTC5 or 6 or which ever one is in the foreground shielded the lower floors of that building from the fire.

That one postal truck seems to have been shielded by WTC5,6 AND the building beside it.

i24.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Note the bus that is farther back in this photo clearly sits in a much more direct line of site towards the crack between the two buildings. If you look at the postal vehicle it is JUST shielded somewhat from a line of site. A lot of the other vehicles possibly burned up simply by spreading fire.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
That's an interesting observation, but at the same time it appears the mail truck is in line of site, and the vehicles behind would seem to further demonstrate that.

EDIT: Can you just link those in here? They're huge. It would have taken even more time for me to resize all 45+ of them, after cropping most of them and adding arrows to many.

EDIT II: You could have done this particular angle in your thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
A lot of work went into all this IIB, into that apparently pro-nuke response, and I guess into the other micro-nuke whatever threads too. Sorry I've just ignored the whole issue so far. (yawns) did I miss anything? Are we winning yet? Are we getting our energy sucked out or pouring it out? Oh I know I do it too when it seems fun. They would try to keep it fun, wouldn't they...

No seriously I stick to what I know which unfortunately isn't much. I still can't take on the WTC issues directly, dunno why, but I feel a need to distance and be a skeptic with all these charges even tho there seem to be some good theories in there - but when you start talking energy beams and nukes - I'm sorry, I'll just have to wait for the movie.

Most responders agree I hear? I think this is good. IIB, whoever stays down here, lemme know if anything good bubbles up in these pits, I don't have the time.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Those are some tough trajectories:


Don't forget about the vehicles behind the Mailtruck in the Middle.

Here goes another image with nonmelted cars:



[edit on 2-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
the truthers have a new bandwagon to jump on to help make their "case".
and for those with a little less sense than others , the reason one car got burn't up and the one next to it did'nt , well that's because some rubble
falls here and some falls there . nothing conspiratoral about it .



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gen.disaray
well that's because some rubble
falls here and some falls there . nothing conspiratoral about it .


Given the mass of the towers, and the considerably small amount of this mass that was actually burning, how did so much "stuff" catch fire... especially things (WTC 7) that was 200m away?

Just a question.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gen.disaray
the truthers have a new bandwagon to jump on to help make their "case".
and for those with a little less sense than others , the reason one car got burn't up and the one next to it did'nt , well that's because some rubble
falls here and some falls there . nothing conspiratoral about it .



And why would they remove the debris and not remove the cars? Seems to me like if they removed the debris from the cars (Had to be big ones to do damage like this), the cars would have been towed a long time ago before the pictures were even taken.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Sure we see some dust here and there but where is the debris that caused all these vehicles to catch on a big blaze of fire?

I don't see any debris on top of the cars in these photo's that would indicate debris caused the cars to catch on fire, maybe I am missing something?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
The MO for me just does not fit, you have cars with melted engine blocks, and intact rear ends, maybe some molten thermate majically landed right onto them, and then burned their way in, but if there was molten thermate around why didn't the paper get burned up through it. If the behaviour of a intense X-Ray Gamma ray passes through paper but burns up a engine block it seems to be very fitting.

I guess Steve Jones actually has a paper dismissing that micro-nukes were used do to the lack of residual radioactivity at the site. The only thing I can surmise is the one link to 4th generation micro-nukes suggests it is quite possible to build one that has next to NO residual radioactivity to detect.

His rebuttal (and he is actually asking for a academic paper to challenge him on if micro-nukes were used or not) can be viewed here

en.wikipedia.org...
journalof911studies.com...

But once again the whole paper premise is that there would HAVE to be a lot of residual radioactivity. With all the styles of micronukes suggested by those who are writing up on 4th generation micronukes which is actually a very broad term (antimatter, magnetic compression etc etc) It does point that it could be plausible (as they say on mythbusters).

Hey maybe mythbusters could rebuild the towers on a miniscale and then try to figure out ways to confirm or deny the whole thing...??



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
IIB

Looking at your pics I'm stunned by that bus melted out a block further from the site of the WTC and your pristine postal van.

How'd that happen?


Falling debris?...

The evidence you present is not working in your favor to quench the nuke theory. That bus only makes me even more suspicious.

As for the postal van, I think it sits in a special blind spot, shielded both by the mass of WTC7 immediately to its right, and the concrete retaining wall in front of it. The north tower stood relatively to the right of WTC7 and WTC7 acted as a shield, but then the neutron wave fanned out behind its southeast corner to hit the bus behind.

The vehicles in front of it are not shielded by WTC 7, and the bus behind was hit by the wider spread afforded by its open position, not immediately near a building mass.

Excellent photos and post, though not the desired conclusion. For me this is further confirmation of the mini-nukes theory.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by XR500Final
The only thing I can surmise is the one link to 4th generation micro-nukes suggests it is quite possible to build one that has next to NO residual radioactivity to detect.


There is more than one link regarding the lack of residual radiation from a fure fusion device...


The radiation emitted from the blast, particularly in the middle of the X-ray band where most of the fusion bomb's radiation is concentrated, stops on impact with atoms, thus they have a short life and leave nominal residual radiation"




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join