Question about cars, I want an answer. No more messing around.

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
i bet $100 us dollars that the only cars that caught on fire were those with their windows down and/or running

All of these vehicles had their windows down and/or were running?



Looks like at least two were parked. Would you leave your windows down in New York City?
How would air filters catch on fire? What flaming debris would do that? I don't buy it. Do you have any evidence for this flaming debris? I'm not saying there wasn't any, but from what we can see there doesn't seem to be much. I think the collapses themselves would have extinguished most of the fires, seeing as everything inside the buildings was reduced to dust.

Originally posted by selfless
Sorry badwolf,

That really doesn't give a definitive answer to the questions asked.

Nothing will. Im confused, what exactly is the range of belief youre targeting ?

A: Modern Cheap Things will burn under sufficient and slack circumstance, and
B: Green leafy trees are hard to ignite.

Thats all I'm contributing, and I'm querying it further incase I missed the question quite right.

Crikey, Id never offer a 'defintive' answer unless I had definitive Proof.

I think that some of the cars might have been set on fire by vandals (it is NYC afterall), some by debris and some were set a blaze by the 'terrorists'.

I believe we came up with the term 'Shock and Awe' to describe our devistating strike on Iraq.

The fires and chaos were just another part of the mind $#@! that was 9-11. The idea is to create so much stimuli for eyewitnesses that they are too confused and scared to pay attention to anything but fleeing the scene.

After the attacks, clearing the area of on lookers was the next goal(Imminent collapse of Building 7 anyone?).

Originally posted by MINDoverFAITH

what is that?

Do those shoes come in one size bigger?

Looks like a firetruck on left side
- Some foam on the ground -
And two burned out trees in the center.
can hardly see it.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by Ram]
added some daylight contrast and brightness - just a tiny bit.

Maybe it's not Foam - molten Iron perhaps?.
Anyone recognize that area?

Maybe the planes was full of Thermate afterall. And not passengers.

chill out - only speculations.
Here - Added autolevels.

Foam or Lava?

[edit on 27-4-2007 by Ram]

Aaahh ! It's the sun!
Again my sun trip does it every time.
it must be - the sun-shine on ground..
Sorry - im so - out of this thread now..Cya.
(because it follows the sidewalk)

[edit on 27-4-2007 by Ram]

My answer: Pyroclastic flow. You've all seen the collapse footage with the thick plumes of downward-heading 'smoke'.

"Pyroclastic flows can only occur when a dense slurry of fine dust is suspended in air or volcanic gasses and is concentrated in a defined area. The suspension will then act as a separate, denser fluid that remains distinct as it moves through the less dense medium. Because of their density such flows can reach speeds of hundreds of miles an hour and do tremendous damage, especially with the high temperatures seen in volcanic events."

from:
www.plaguepuppy.net...

So, bearing in mind the fact that immediately following the collapse Ground Zero and the surrounding area was enveloped in a cloud of fine pulverised concrete dust (this is all the debris around the burned out cars seems to consist of), which should have deprived the initial jet fuel fires of oxygen, there were enough SUPER-heated gasses still present to incinerate these vehicles.

The lack of heat damage to the surrounding buildings in the shot with the burned out bus can easily be explained by the channeling effect of these buildings. Pyroclastic flows behave more as a liquid than a gas, and any liquid flowing through a defined channel loses velocity toward the edges of the channel, to the point where the liquid at the very edge is hardly moving at all. In the case of the pyroclastic flow the air would have been far hotter in the middle of that street than at the edge, and there may have been relatively little heat transferred. The cars would have been completely surrounded by the hot gas.

All this, even if accurate (I'm no vulcanologist), still begs the question: how was there enough chemical energy in in two planeloads of jet fuel to bring down two massive skyscrapers and turn the resultant debris into a super-heated slurry?

I don't feel that an EMP could have started the fires.

"...the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, “the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.”
from: www.fas.org...

The reason that a lot of the photos are so remeniscent of a nuclear ground zero, is that is generally the only man-made phenomenon that produces a super-heated-shock wave.

Fortunately, building of this size don't fall down very often, so it is impossible to compare the situation like-for-like with another collapse or demolition. Without that the official line is just as valid, but certainly not more-so, as the alternative theories.

Personally I feel that we are looking at some kind of bomb, and not simply jet-fuel fires. Does anybody remember the bomb they talked about mid-nineties that destroyed buildings without affecting organic matter? It made the news and was never mentioned much after that.

There is a video or a photo I saw a lil while ago before the towers collapsed there was a car burning in the area.

I am trying to hunt that image down, so in theory that would throw out the collapse as a starting point for these cars burning.


:: EDIT ::

Nix this post, I realized the thing I was thinking about was totally different from this post.. so I don't have anything before the collapse of the towers.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by Karilla
My answer: Pyroclastic flow. You've all seen the collapse footage with the thick plumes of downward-heading 'smoke'.

I would have bought this up as well, the flow of debris from the WTC does look a lot like it, and I have actually heard it described as such at a lecture open to the public as well. It does match the expected damage from this sort of thing, the destroyed structure is in the middle of the flow, from ANOK's post:



The destroyed vehicles are in the middle of the flow, while the buildings windows are perfectly intact, even at ground level. The heavier elements of the flow will have gone down the middle, along with it possibly the objects causing the fire in those vehicles. It is a type of Gravity current, which is driven by a difference in density. Such a flow can go a long way, for example those from Krakatoa went 40 km across sea. Naturally those from the WTC would not be quite so energetic, but the distance involved is definitely possible.


Rather than a pyroclastic flow, it could of been a Pyroclastic surge sort of system, as these consist more of gases and light particles than heavy objects. In nature they can flow over hills, rather than always downhill, and so could likely spread down side streets to cause this sort of damage.


This may be interesting to read:
plus.maths.org...


[edit on 27-4-2007 by apex]

Well I think it looked and acted like a pyroclastic flow.
But I have a real hard time accepting that.
If you want to nearly atomize a building into a superheated pyroclastic flow you're talking in the realm of a nuke inside the buildings I think. As for the energy needed to make one.

There is a reason pyroclastic flows are a symptom of vulanic eruptions, the amount of energy needed to create one.

just my 0.01 eurocents

Edit. and pyroclastic flows are not the same as just a dense mass of dust.
If there aren't many burns and even burnt to death people amongst the ones caught up in the cloud then it couldn't have been a pyroclastic flow I think..
To get pyroclastic you need it superheated as far as I know, at least above 100 celsius.

[edit on 27/4/2007 by David2012]

Edit. actually between 100-800 celsius 'usually' according to wiki.

[edit on 27/4/2007 by David2012]

Isn't it true that the only other times this occurs is when a volcano erupts and spills ash all over the place? And in most cases is really hot?? Where it melts flashburns everything in site??

Think Mount Vesuvius, Pompeii 79 or so AD..

Someone stated earlier in this thread that when the towers collapsed that the fires were put out.. I think we can all agree on this considering the collapse killed the fires.. We seen this in the 10 million videos out there.

So.. What would make the cloud that hot to burn selected cars and not others??

Remember most cars they show that have burned are late 90 01's.

Pyroclastic flow isn't the answer. Think about it.

Why didn't any building hoardings, or people in the downflow also catch fire?

Was it "selective" pyroclastic flow?

Originally posted by badw0lf
?? We've nothing to compare the devastation to, but what are you saying.. it was a secret heat ray or something ??

No my name isn't Whackjob Judy Wood or whatever her name is..

I just want a straight answer to a simple question.. Remember everyone keeps telling the CT freaks that 9/11 was on the up and up..

In this case I beg to differ.. Probably because of my knowledge of cars and so on But who knows.. Like physics that day maybe mechanics and such ran out the window also.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by neformore
Pyroclastic flow isn't the answer. Think about it.
Why didn't any building hoardings, or people in the downflow also catch fire?
Was it "selective" pyroclastic flow?

Well, it is more like a "cold" pyroclastic flow, as it is the best way to describe it's motion, rather than actually being one.

That said, where else would the cause of this burning come from? In most cases it was near to these flows of debris. From what I assume if there was any actual hot part, it would have been near the middle, while most people were trying to get into buildings on the sides.

of course, whatever did this was selective flammability anyway.

(Thinking very hard)

Here goes nothin now this is just a guess- When the planes hit the towers I did see debris flying out the other side flaming that is would that explain on some of the cars at least on why they were burnt?

And on a video thats on another thread a witness said that was not American Airlines but the plane that went in another person said it had no windows. Perhaps a military plane?

video.google.com...

Oh. this is scary
www.onenationundersiege.us...

[edit on 4/27/2007 by Leyla]

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
i bet $100 us dollars that the only cars that caught on fire were those with their windows down and/or running causing the air filter to catch fire from flaming debris etc. but i really think quite a few will be those with their windows down.

It would be very difficult for an air filter to catch fire. They're contained in a very air tight surrounding and if they're running the air flowing through the filter wouldn't allow an open flame to ignite for simple air pressure. Also, air filters are designed to function in a hot environment (an engine). I doubt it was the air filter. Maybe in 1 or 2 incidents, but not a mass air filter failure that lead to fire.

It would seem to me that most of the fires that were burning from jet fuel (given that A LOT of the jet fuel would have been burned off in the initial crash) would have been put out by the dust and debris after the towers fell. Whether it was jet fuel that was still burning or various office furniture/building materials.

Get a good campfire going, let it burn for an hour or so and stoke it to make sure it's hot. Now take a pound of flour, baking soda, concrete or sand and dump it directly on the hot embers. Most of the fire would be put out. And I believe if you were to do a ratio of the tower's debris that could have put out the fire and the baking soda/concrete/whatever that would put out the camp fire - you'd probably be dumping 5 pounds or more onto the camp fire.

You guys gotta see this

This is 911 Plane site DC

911 IN PLANE SITE:

*Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole. Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until almost 30 minutes after the initial impact. See these astonishing photographs and video footage for the first time.

*Given that the outer wall of the Pentagon had not yet collapsed and the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - how does a jetliner over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon? Furthermore, can physics explain why there is no damage to the Pentagon's upper floors where the tail section would have hit?

*“I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast – it sounded nothing like an airplane.” Lon Rains - editor for Space News (Pentagon eyewitness)

*In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources that a giant 100 ft. crater was plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash? Why does photographic evidence overwhelmingly show that this was absolutely not the case? Why no crater? Why no skid marks? Why no burn marks? Why was the entire world deliberately mislead? Examine the video and photographic evidence for yourself.

*How does a Boeing 757, constructed from lightweight aluminum, penetrate over 9 ft. of steel reinforced concrete? Photographs and recently discovered computer animations help shed light on this unexplained feat of physics.

*At the World Trade Center, why did firefighters, reporters and other on the scene eyewitnesses describe a demolition-like, pancake collapse of buildings One, Two & Seven? Hear the outrageous admissions made by the building lease owner recorded on video, plus shocking new video evidence helps to answer some of these important questions.

*What is the bright flash on the right side of the Boeing 767, seen just before impact on both the North Tower & the South Tower, captured on video by 5 separate cameramen including CNN and ABC? Slow motion analysis reveals startling verification of this extraordinary event and begs the question, "What is it?"

Find out what former military personnel think this could be.

*Why were there numerous reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings had collapsed? Hear & see the testimony of the reporters, rescue teams and eyewitnesses who tell a different story of potential demolition charges, unexplained explosions, and vehicles loaded with explosives as reported on live television the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

*Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on “Flight 175” a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Why did another eyewitness report that United Airlines Flight 175 was not a commercial airliner? What kind of plane hit the second tower?

*Is there some type of exterior swelling protruding from the undercarriage of “Flight 175” ? An independently conducted computerized digital analysis says yes. Where was this "instrument" attached? How could it have departed from a commercial airport without being noticed? What purpose did it serve in the attacks? Full-screen television blow-ups directly from CNN and other mainstream sources reveal the intricate details of this strange anomaly.

-------------------
LOL Now I'm gonna sit back and polish my nails. I told you it was a bomb.


And heres the link for that Flight 93 story.

www.911inplanesite.com...

Archives
web.archive.org...://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

[edit on 4/27/2007 by Leyla]

Nefermore: I explained how the flow would be hottest in the middle of the street, at least by enough to explain the state of the buildings compared to the vehicles. Although it is hard to say what heat the buildings were exposed to, there are intact panes of glass.

And many firefighters described catching fire and dodging exploding cars as they headed away from ground zero.

Besides, you can see the pyroclastic flows in any video of either collapse. As far as I know there is no way for a pyroclastic flow to result from a collapse alone, not to mention the ablated steel core that can be seen vapourising as it falls.

There was a lot of flammable material being distributed through the immediate vicinity. Wouldn't have been uncommon in that situation for paper to slip under the hood of a car and get stuck in a compartment of the engine where it would be exposed to the heat and friction of working engine parts. I wouldn't doubt that many of these people just jumped out of their cars, leaving cars running unchecked. Also there are cars that are not even charred not even a meter from twisted husks of vehicles. Not living far from NYC myself, I know it's not uncommon to be in a parked position but leaving the engine running.

But, regardless of any scenario, pictures aren't telling the whole story here.

Originally posted by bluesquareapple
There was a lot of flammable material being distributed through the immediate vicinity. Wouldn't have been uncommon in that situation for paper to slip under the hood of a car and get stuck in a compartment of the engine where it would be exposed to the heat and friction of working engine parts. I wouldn't doubt that many of these people just jumped out of their cars, leaving cars running unchecked. Also there are cars that are not even charred not even a meter from twisted husks of vehicles. Not living far from NYC myself, I know it's not uncommon to be in a parked position but leaving the engine running.

But, regardless of any scenario, pictures aren't telling the whole story here.

again, it's an engine. after running your car for 30 mins. get out and put your hand on the engine head - then go to the hospital and have them fix you up.

engine are designed to run hot. a peice of paper is not going to set an engine on fire.

If it was external heat applied to the cars, where did it come from? Why wasn't everything in between the towers and the parking lot set on fire, from what HAD to have been extreme temperatures and heat required to flash-ignite a car?

Everyone in the cloud would have been roasted alive in seconds. This does not match witness testimonies.


The heating was internal, affecting electronic components or anything that can conduct current.