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

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In your example here, heat/explosive would have had to of caused that pressure wave. Not too good for your argument.

What kind of response is this?

Here, I have a nuclear 'pressure wave' for you.

www.serendipity.li...

Yeap, only something that could possibly of been created by a conventional explosive.

Originally posted by SteveR

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.

Wow. Bring out the ad hominem attacks in you first post. I wonder who's being irrational here?

So you're saying that a nuclear bomb at the WTC is the best hypothesis to explain the roughly 10 second "spikes" that showed up on the seismographs? Never mind that that's the approx time tha tthe buildings took to collapse.
911research.wtc7.net...

I guess there were nuclear bombs in the planes that hit the buildings too?

[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In your example here, heat/explosive would have had to of caused that pressure wave. Not too good for your argument.

Here, I have a nuclear 'pressure wave' for you.

www.serendipity.li...

His argument is that nukes went off at WTC, caused the 'pyroclastic cloud', and 'melted' the cars. If there were indeed a geometric blast down there, instead of unpredictable, that's bad for the cars argument and the proof is right in my first post.

Get it together. Stop trolling.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by bsbray11
First of all you need to define the word "bomb". A "bomb" can be anything. Are you talking about a high explosive?

Do we really need to nitpick to such gross degrees? This is borderline trolling. And you're alleging that I'm irrationaly biased?

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.

You're missing my view: That it's possible that nasty explosions inside the toweers could have ejected things that far into that lot to cause a car to explode, and then chain react. This could have happened 'naturally' is we want to get really technical, but bombs in the towers could also help explain a violentobject going that far and stirring things up.

And as I said, and keep saying, nothing flew into that parking lot.
...
There is no smoke rising from the lot at this time. There is also no debris flying towards the lot.

So you were there?

So can you count the cars in the lot there?
How do you know something hasn't already landed there underneath a car?
Actually, your image, under your analysis, "proves" that a nuke wave didn't detonate the cars there.

This photo comes from a series. If you want I can post the whole series here,

I thought you'd never ask.

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.

I argue that random chaotic pockets of heat and related 'violence' were in the 'cloud', unlike a 'nukeblast' which would be very uniform.


You can't accept much that I say, so what's your view here?

Originally posted by gottago
IIB, you're arguing from simple desperation, without any consisitent logic.

A fireman who told of his socks being melted, and another who said his jacket melted.

So then why didn't he "melt"?

building collapses don't do that.

Absolutism Terminology:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and no point arguing with those who suggest hundreds of car bombs were planted that somehow melted engine blocks.

Where's yur evidence that :
A) Hundreds of cars exploded/"melted"?
B) Engine blocks melted?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
is the best hypothesis to explain the roughly 10 second "spikes" that showed up on the seismographs? Never mind that that's the approx time tha tthe buildings took to collapse.

The hypothesis, which you haven't fully acquainted yourself with, fits perfectly with that seismiograph result. The buildings never collapsed, they were in a state of free-fall against no resistance. Free fall into what is another matter.

PS. When are you going to change your avatar and the distracting bright red?

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
is the best hypothesis to explain the roughly 10 second "spikes" that showed up on the seismographs? Never mind that that's the approx time tha tthe buildings took to collapse.

The hypothesis, which you haven't fully acquainted yourself with, fits perfectly with that seismiograph result. The buildings never collapsed, they were in a state of free-fall against no resistance. Free fall into what is another matter.

PS. When are you going to change your avatar and the distracting bright red?

How bout you acquaint me with some evidenitary links, or stop trolling my thread.
Better yet the entire issue is Red Herring. Go post about it in the "MicroNukes" thread i linked in.

Thanks for taking ad hominem trolling to unprecidented new levels in my experience here at ATS.

Trolling your thread? This is a public discussion forum. If you want an avenue of communication where only you can speak and give opinion, create a website or submit an article. Otherwise, you are in the wrong place.

I have asked why your admitted purpose of this thread is to attack the nuke theory? Would you not be better spending time furthering your own theories and presenting evidence to us?

I think that would be appreciated alot more.

If you wish to debunk, go to the nuke theory thread. I shall leave "your" thread alone now.

Thanks.

The action by WTC7:

Approx view from the bus behind WTC7:
Note: the 'burning edge' of WTC7 is actually WTC1.




Mailtruck in the middle:

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












Bus view, opposite angle:
911research.com...

Aftermath:

WTC7 pile at top.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by SteveR
Trolling your thread? This is a public discussion forum. If you want an avenue of communication where only you can speak and give opinion, create a website or submit an article. Otherwise, you are in the wrong place.

I'd call you out on your rhetoric / troll behavior in any thread.

I have asked why your admitted purpose of this thread is to attack the nuke theory?

I've answered that tonight and i'm not going to again.

Would you not be better spending time furthering your own theories and presenting evidence to us?

Red Herring.

If you wish to debunk, go to the nuke theory thread.

This specifc key element of the 'nuke evidence' desrves it's own thread as proven here.

No, thank you for trolling my thread and then finally saying you're done. That's right, I said "my thread". Others don't seem to do much about their threads going way off into other directions making their threads useless and irrelevent; low quality; non-topic-specific; etc (maybe they like alll of the free points?). I don't play that game.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

RED CIRCLE: Large Debris
GREEN CIRCLE: Car may have been running and abandoned
BLUE ARROW: Firehose




THICK RED CIRCLE: Wasted mailtruck
GREEN ARROW: Mailtruck in the middle


RED ARROWS: Burned vehicles


[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

It's probably your thread title thats caused some of the responses here. Man, I didn't think the nuke theory held any water, but I could be wrong. How come no radiation burns reported? And what of the helicopter hovering near the first collapsing tower, shouldn't the electrical fail if a nuke was used? It just flew away from the building, in a hurry I might add!!

Deathblow:


Note the sign on the right.




Why weren't the other cars found burnt if a nukewave lit that parking lot on fire?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're missing my view: That it's possible that nasty explosions inside the toweers could have ejected things that far into that lot to cause a car to explode, and then chain react.

It's not possible for high explosives to shoot large sections of structural steel out sideways. There are plenty of implosion videos online, prove me wrong.

And yet again, we aren't seeing any debris fly into that parking lot.

How do you know something hasn't already landed there underneath a car?

Because you can see heavy debris didn't go down that street. You even have pictures showing this. The dust cloud doesn't count as "heavy debris". That would more likely be a "the dust cloud was tremendously hot!" argument.

This photo comes from a series. If you want I can post the whole series here,

I thought you'd never ask.

That series of collapse images and many others:

www.studyof911.com...

I argue that random chaotic pockets of heat and related 'violence' were in the 'cloud', unlike a 'nukeblast' which would be very uniform.

That argument doesn't hold water because thermite and high explosives don't create large dust clouds of sufficient temperature and heat to flash-ignite a car in any case. If you can't grasp this, then try to grasp the fact that everyone even on the streets around the bases would have burned to death within seconds.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
No, thank you for trolling my thread and then finally saying you're done. That's right, I said "my thread". Others don't seem to do much about their threads going way off into other directions making their threads useless and irrelevent; low quality; non-topic-specific; etc (maybe they like alll of the free points?). I don't play that game.
[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

No offense IIB but that sounds like a dictatorship to me.

You can believe your theories all you want IIB but please don't get all mad and accuse people of red herring when they say something that contradicts your views.

You are not a dictator.... and just because you started this thread does not give you the right to set restrictions on people to only talk if they agree with you....

Especially when they are 100% on topic.

This is ridiculous.





[edit on 4-5-2007 by selfless]

BSBRAY:
1st and foremost:
What did these things that you absolutely reject all of my explainations of??????

It seems like your taking more than a mere devils advocate role here, however you don't seem to offer any dichotomies to trump mine. Saying that mine aren't possible is like an ongoing False Dichotomy as you don't offer anything better.

It's not possible for high explosives to shoot large sections of structural steel out sideways.

I didn't say 'large sections of structural steel", did I? Where? I said "things". For all we know, the seat part of a flaming office chair was spit out into that direction, and the metal shaft on the underside of the chair smashed its way thru a car window as it was projecting at hundred mile sper hour (or whatever, humans can pitch baseballs that fast), and then the burning foam in the seat cusion dripped down and lit the inside of the car on fire, which then led to total vehicular destruction. This is an example of a thing, and examples liek that could account for all of the other cars which weren't "melted" by things like structural steel, gas line fires/explosions etc.

It's not possible?? You mean there's absolutely no way that the violent catastrophic destruction that was occuring could have ejected debris that far? NOT even if there were also explosives inside of thst monster as it was happening, adding even more explosive force to the already monolithic extreme kinetic energy?

You're talking as if core columns had to make it over there to cause a boom:

And they weren't too far off.

You might want to check out:
Absolutism Terminology

There are plenty of implosion videos online, prove me wrong.

It wasn't a typical "implosion" as the ground-impact-point was several hundred feet up in the air, most of the way up each tower.
You're basically proving your own arguments wrong, as i'm saying that something could be possible (potentially, maybe), and you're going to the extreme of saying it's impossible (can't happen, cars cant self-propel into outer space, trees cant walk, etc). That sort of language is riddled with fallacies.
In trth that event was the most violent and incredible and chaotic single event (besides maybe the tsunami) that will hopefully ever happen in our lifetimes, and it's rather absurd to make statements like that as if the parking lot was 3 miles away.

Since we are still talking about the parking lot, I've fully demonstrated that gas lines exploded there, and you're welcoem to answer that challenge:
SEE POST ABOVE YOUR LAST
Don't forget to explain how the nukewave didnt affect the cars in front of the lot.

And yet again, we aren't seeing any debris fly into that parking lot.

I wasn't aware we had high quality images and videos of what was happening inside that lot during the collapse????

Sure looks like some debris ended up in there. No large sections of structual steel, sure, but there was plenty of chaotic action and debris down there:
WFC Lot Cloud
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...

And here's some more WTC7 cloud shots from your source:
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...

That argument doesn't hold water because thermite and high explosives don't create large dust clouds of sufficient temperature and heat to flash-ignite a car in any case. If you can't grasp this, then try to grasp the fact that everyone even on the streets around the bases would have burned to death within seconds.

Notice how I said, over and over, random pockets of heat; flaming random bits of debris. And so on. Also add in there sparks and things from all of the chaos.

Unless, I'm mistaken, your argument is that a nuke blast did it. If that's the case, you're counterarguments don't hold any water as a nuke wave blast would be geometric and predictable; There's no evidence showing that to be the case.
The last part of your argument is the most damaging to... itself, as the nuke blast would have blasted people, because such an event leaves very little room for random chaotic heat and burning debris as the dust cloud does. Please go watch soem of the live videos from inside the cloud.


[edit on 4-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

SELFLESS:
Show me where what you allege was the case. Show some examples. Look at the topic first. Read the first post.

I was tempted to bite on this RH, but I'll not foul up this topic with unrelated drudge.

Please post your massive examples of fouls on me over in the right place:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's open game in there.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
SELFLESS:
Show me where what you allege was the case. Show some examples. Look at the topic first. Read the first post.

It's simple, just read back page 4 and see for your self.

All you do when someone says something that doesn't fit your views is you accuse them of being off topic or you are rude to them or you accuse them of trolling. While i do see some trolling going around on this board some times, it's not considered trolling when a person is on topic and doesn't insult you.

People have been saying valid points and you just dismiss them because they don't support your views on things.... in this thread you don't look like you care about finding the truth but it seems like you just want to be right for the sake of being right.

And what's with constantly linking your own threads into every threads you participate in, are you just doing all this for ats points?

So please instead of dismissing peoples comments when they offer valid points just because they don't suggest no nukes were involved, don't just go high horse on them. Listen to others some times, instead of just listening to your own self.

Here and now America. Never mind how it got that way. Read all of SteveR's posts from the begininng.

Then show me how I did whatver you claim.

People were trying to use info nonrelevant to the cars were dismissed. This is a discussion about what did what to what cars, and if a nuke was used then why didn't it "melt" the other cars around them??

I actually took many semiunrelated issues brought up and showed how even they make the nuke argument even harder. How dare I debunk something.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How dare I debunk something.

Well that remains in your mind, doesn't mean everyone will agree with you.

I for once don't think you debunked anything.

Steve was not off topic by suggesting nukes, it's one of the infinite possibilities.

We all have the right to keep open minded about a subject, just because in your head you think you debunked something doesn't mean that the rest of the people here will just accept your view and not question nukes as a possibility.