IgnoranceIsntBlisss


You linked to a very interesting set of quotes.

This is the one I thought to be quite interesting.

Paul Curran Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) 12/18/01

"At that time I went back to the north tower again, and they were stretching a line. A lot of car fires erupted. All of a sudden cars were blowing up everywhere.

I went back and I helped a guy stretch a line. The guy was all by himself. I helped him stretch a line and started putting water on the car fires. I remember distinctly walking past -- I saw 118 Truck. 118 Truck was parked right on West Street right past Vesey.

Q. Everybody tells me all these vehicles were on fire. What do you attribute all these vehicles being on fire to?
A. I believe it must have been from the debris falling and the heat just started hitting the cars and starting cars on fire. There were an awful lot of cars burning, an awful lot. It had to be radiated heat or just stuff falling on cars and setting them on fire. There were numerous cars burning, numerous."

Does this really explain the phenomena? This is very strange, I do think a GAS leak would be the most obvious explanation with fireball's, or even dense dust clogging up the gass pipes in the car, causing overheating.

The phenomena we are talking about seems selective in the cars it chooses, which is all very unusual.

Another question.

Were there any cars that had anyone in them when they exploded into flames?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You guys are completely sidestepping the gas pipeline post above.

Sidestepping what? You presented another theory, which still amounts to speculation. So what?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Internal Circuitry: Random incidents setting of car to car chain reactions, that under chaotic conditions didn't set them all off. Gas pipeline explosions accounting for many of them, and reports of it being like an earthquake accounting for the broken pipes.

I suppose high explosives cause earthquakes? That's why the US uses seismographs to pick up high-explosive technology, right?

Firefighters could have stopped the spread in many cases, leaving the unburned cars, which is damaging to the nuke wave argument.

Leaving them on fire damages the "nuke wave argument"? So what set them on fire in the first place? You're not using logic consistently.

Your first image shows the dust wave much further than the super high res 2nd image.

Unless you think the dust wave was packing enormous heat, this is a moot point.


Look man, I don't have any hard and fast answer to what set those cars on fire. I have a best answer, which is nothing more than a vague idea. You're getting your underwear in a bundle over nothing.

Regardless of what set those cars on fire, there was tremendous amounts of tritium, debris was ejected laterally in a way that high explosives or thermite could never do, and it was even spewing fine dust all the way down as if sublimating. Even the spire did this in WTC1. Enormous heat was left over and remained, there were enormous seismic spikes, and steel was evaporated.

And you post all these videos about people trying to develop technology where all our brains are plugged into some supernetwork, and yet you can't entertain the idea of a pure fusion device that gives off very little radiation, even though such devices have been the target of military research for decades?


If you're going to raise such hell about it, at least try to make consistent use of logic. You know something's up when you're saying car fires can spread from car to car and that this is somehow evidence against the fires being started in the first place from neutrons or electrical activity. That's not unbiased thinking. You getting a rush too?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Wow you guys are persistent.
I originally thought I'd use this thread to shut down the nuke hypothesis, and then highlight the reality that something big and hot flew a very long way into the WFC, which would have shed new light on the typical contro9lled demolitions argument... But that's not even the case it would seem as I noticed this:



[edit on 2-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Elaboration?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I originally thought I'd use this thread to shut down the nuke hypothesis, and then highlight the reality that something big and hot flew a very long way

Again, high explosives did this? Something big and hot flew a very long way? Sound like RDX and thermite? Do you know how high explosives work? They impart NO lateral velocity.


Btw, the parking lot there is the same one shown here circled in red:






If you can at least read over my last post, I'd appreciate that, too. There are several things in it I'd rather not have hand-waved away and ignored simply because you think I'm wrong.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Elaboration?

Again, high explosives did this? Something big and hot flew a very long way? Sound like RDX and thermite? Do you know how high explosives work? They impart NO lateral velocity.

Like very hot flaming things couldn't have been launched from massive explosive blasts inside the towers from bombs? Like the bomb itself hitting the cars is the only way a bomb could influence things over in that lot?

Btw, the parking lot there is the same one shown here circled in red:

Your image is from a later time than mine and the trench appears to be covered.

If you can at least read over my last post, I'd appreciate that, too. There are several things in it I'd rather not have hand-waved away and ignored simply because you think I'm wrong.

I did and I'll have to go digging back thru those testamonies to answer it. If you'd read thru all of those you'd see that at least 2 of them were themselve sin flames from whatever was happening down there. Why werent' they vaporized?

I have to go to work. I'll take a better look tomarrow.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Like very hot flaming things couldn't have been launched from massive explosive blasts inside the towers from bombs? Like the bomb itself hitting the cars is the only way a bomb could influence things over in that lot?

First of all you need to define the word "bomb". A "bomb" can be anything. Are you talking about a high explosive?

A high explosive will not fly through the air and then detonate when it hits a car. Aside from the fact that nothing even went into that parking lot, that isn't how they detonate.

And as I said, and keep saying, nothing flew into that parking lot.

Btw, the parking lot there is the same one shown here circled in red:

Your image is from a later time than mine and the trench appears to be covered.

The one with the lot in red was most obviously taken when WTC1 was collapsing.

There is no smoke rising from the lot at this time. There is also no debris flying towards the lot. This photo comes from a series. If you want I can post the whole series here, I think it's three photos, one can get an idea very quickly of how far away this lot was from where any debris landed.

I did and I'll have to go digging back thru those testamonies to answer it.

Why dig through testimonies? I'm talking about sublimating steel, evaporated steel, 600-foot lateral ejections of 20-ton sections of perimeter columns, and massive seismic spikes. I don't think witness testimonies are the right angle to approach those sorts of problems. The car issue is one issue here, not the whole issue.

If you'd read thru all of those you'd see that at least 2 of them were themselve sin flames from whatever was happening down there. Why werent' they vaporized.

There were already car fires at the bases before either tower fell. There were many things that happened that day. Distinctions have to be made.


I'll also reiterate the fact that if the dust cloud itself was packing so much heat, as you've insinuated, then everyone around would have been roasted like that. The temperatures and heat required to kill someone are much lower than those required to flash-ignite a vehicle.

That debris does not have to be sent up for it to arc down like that: sending it out perfectly laterally would result in the same thing. I think 9/11 Eyewitness makes a moot point there, and you can't even verify what they're saying. It's probably false anyway because this all happened over time, and there used to be solid structure where that thing came from, when it was sent out.


I just came across this and figured I would throw it in, too, though:



Another thing thermites and high explosives don't do.

Came back to check in on things here.

bsbray11 has got it wrapped up perfectly.

IIB, you're arguing from simple desperation, without any consisitent logic. And BTW, you reference the firefighter's quotes from that day. I quoted them too, about a month ago in the melting spire thread I started, and I remember a few in particular:

A fireman who told of his socks being melted, and another who said his jacket melted. And a good half-dozen who mentioned cars exploding like popcorn.

Building collapses don't do that.

Thanks for the thread, just confirms again that 4G pure fusion micro nukes were used.

Outta here, as your position is untenable, all the relevant points have yet again been made, and no point arguing with those who suggest hundreds of car bombs were planted that somehow melted engine blocks.

Remember, willful ignorance isn't bliss, either.

some really smart cookies here.
I am impressed.
thanks for doing the leg work.
I was not sure of a micronuke, that is new to me so I researched it a bit last night...now I am not so sure they did not do that.
but clearly a collapsing building does not melt cars





[edit on 3-5-2007 by junglelord]

Wow, Red Herring overkill! Way to go guys When your arguments are spreading thin, throw in some new unrelated materials. Go back and see the title of this topic. Just beneath it see where i linked in the broad issue thread, where that OP is now Red herring my thread. O, and the spires didnt turn to dust. Do your homework, and come back, but don't red herring my thread with it try yours. That's doesnt even help your argument even if they did.

I'll be wiping up this issue in here later today or tonight. Was just stopping back at the house to grab a quick shower and go back for another work'shift'. Had alot to get done (my own hours) to make ends this week. Don't intend to do any big posting on this from work today.


[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by gottago


A fireman who told of his socks being melted, and another who said his jacket melted. And a good half-dozen who mentioned cars exploding like popcorn.

Building collapses don't do that.

So you actually think that you can be in enough neutron or gamma flux that your turnout jacket will melt, and the firemen don't die from it right on the spot? I think you need to go do a little research on how little radiation it takes to kill people compared to having gross physical effects like that on other objects.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Wow, Red Herring overkill! Way to go guys When your arguments are spreading thin, throw in some new unrelated materials. Go back and see the title of this topic.

You said yourself the whole point of this thread was "to shut down the nuke hypothesis".

I'll be the first to tell you I don't know what happened to those cars, but it isn't so hard to figure out what didn't do it, and you have a lot more to address and consider before throwing the baby out with the bath water.

O, and the spires didnt turn to dust. Do your homework

Never said they did. Don't assume. I said they appeared to give off dusty material, ie they appeared to sublimate, thus the whole misconception of them "turning to dust" in the first place.


And you don't "wipe up" a discussion if you're being sincere. You're going "dark side" on me, IIB. Don't make this into a chess game. You're the one that showed us the reports that debates in which one defends their political bias causes a sort of high in the brain. So drop taking sides and look at the information. You say red herring, I say look at the goddamned steel spewing dust, the evaporated steel, the 600-foot ejections of 20-ton debris. If you talk about 'wiping up', or 'winning' or anything along those lines, you're a lost cause here. You're doing nothing but promoting your own agenda.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Wow you guys are persistent.
I originally thought I'd use this thread to shut down the nuke hypothesis,

I've tried doing the same thing with threads before but it doesn't work too well. Such efforts are based on the reasonability of those pushing theories, their willingness to respond to evidence. Why some refuse to alter course ever is a matter to be guessed at - some are just clingy, some may be deliberate fraudsters trying to weaken the movement with silliness.

Good luck either way.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You presented another theory, which still amounts to speculation. So what?

Plausible and remarkably possible theories, instead of a case hypothesis that barely qualifies as conjecture.

I suppose high explosives cause earthquakes? That's why the US uses seismographs to pick up high-explosive technology, right?

When in the ground yes. Perhaps bombs in the basements / coupled to the support columns, but the problem is the spires were both seen standing for a short time after each collapse.
1. Seismologists can pick up explosions.
2. WTC had seismograph activity.
3. Therefore, WTC was caused by bombs.
A. Nuke bombs cause blast waves and emp waves.
B. Cars lit on fire at WTC.
C. Therefore, Nuke blasts caused the cars to catch on fire.
Z. Nuke Hypothess trumps all others.

Couldn't the massive towers crumbling cause seismograph spikes / the ground to shake-rupture?

Firefighters could have stopped the spread in many cases, leaving the unburned cars, which is damaging to the nuke wave argument.

Leaving them on fire damages the "nuke wave argument"? So what set them on fire in the first place? You're not using logic consistently.

Yeah that was hastily written sloppy.
Powerword: Spread. Car Fires spreading, instead of all igniting at the same time, as a scenario damages your argument.

Your first image shows the dust wave much further than the super high res 2nd image.

Unless you think the dust wave was packing enormous heat, this is a moot point.

It has all sorts of room for random pockets of heat from the grossly chaotic anture of the collapses, unlike a "MicroNuke" which is drippng with connotations of geometric wave blast patterns that expand / radiate outwards exponentially.

Regardless of what set those cars on fire, there was tremendous amounts of tritium,

That's one sketchy aspect that isn't of concern at this juncture. This was meant to be a focus on testing the plausibility of using the cars (burned doesnt mean melted either BTW everyone) as primary evidence of a nuke blast.

debris was ejected laterally in a way that high explosives or thermite could never do,

I'd like to see that math. Not only is it not possible that massive kinetic energy from the "official version" collapses have caused the ejections, but not even high explosives could have?

and it was even spewing fine dust all the way down as if sublimating. Even the spire did this in WTC1.

Ah, now I see where you mentioned the spire. My comment in the other post was talking towards the other XR500 guy; it was a blanket post; was in a hurry.
It looks much different from the better camera angle i seen, than the 'turns to dust' claim video.

And you post all these videos about people trying to develop technology where all our brains are plugged into some supernetwork, and yet you can't entertain the idea of a pure fusion device that gives off very little radiation, even though such devices have been the target of military research for decades?

The difference between my TECH works and virtually anything to do with 911 being a conspiracy is that my works are built off of actual citations and manifesto's that I get directly from government websites. If I could find a manifesto better than PNAC I'd post it, especailly if it were a manifesto about blowing down the towers with micronukes. I covered PNAC rather well about a year ago in my blog I must add.

You getting a rush too?

It's called I started asking about the unburned vehicle. Noone answered. Couldn't get over how the WFC parking lot was 'hit'. Looked through my thousands of 911 images archive and started finding all sorts of choice bits, and vast majority of them showed the inconsistency of half burned and half non-burned cars. In my view, that basically destroyed the nuke wave burned the cars scenario. Call me biased if you wish, but at some point you have to decide how outlandish a theory may be, and this nuke op is top notch. In any case, you must examine all of the possiblities and this thread was to focus on this key line of evidence in a rather specific manner instead of in an unscientific Self-Serving Bias / Peripheral Route environment. The key part to my self-deception bias-model is the level of irrationality. Do you belive that I'm being irrational?

[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I originally thought I'd use this thread to shut down the nuke hypothesis

Now why would you want to do that? Can you not focus on your own theories and set about proving them to us?

Your avatar is the most annoying I've ever seen on ATS, and your attitude matches to boot.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Couldn't the massive towers crumbling cause seismograph spikes / the ground to shake-rupture?

Couldn't this.. couldn't that.. your posts are entirely speculation. The "spike" as you call it has the profile of a nuclear detonation. Hardly in the same range as a kinetic fall.

Give it up.