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

Originally posted by tyranny22
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.

I was attempting to state that paper, which would create an open flame, could have easily made it into sections of a car where heat could ignite it. Didn't mean for my previous post to claim that paper to magically combust on it's own.

The only way a car can possibly ignite like u state is if it had some type of oil leak to where the oil was on some part of the engine block or manifold.

I can put a burning piece of paper inside of my 93 cutlass engine running for roughly 4 hrs and nothing will happen.

That theory is shot.

But the oil has to be heated for it to catch, a straight fire on oil wont due.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Well you can tamper with a cars carberator and once you start it that can cause a fire. But that dosn't explain all the cars that were burnt.

Like I said before watch 911 mysteries. That has allot of information if some of you will open your minds and sacrifice a hour and a half to watch it that is.

You guys still have to transfer significant heat and temperatures from the towers, to the parking lot, to start any fire. There was a lot in between that would've been burned or set on fire in the process, that wasn't.

Does anybody know what temperatures are required to begin combustion of any materials? They're temperatures that would most definitely cause third degree burns to everyone in the area, as they were running away.

here is what i find on a fast google search.

www.cqcapd.state.ny.us...
Estimated Times/Temperatures Causing a Full Thickness (third degree) Burn in Children/Adults
For Adults
If the temperature is 160 degrees fahrenheit, it would take 1 second [to cause a third degree burn];
If the temperature is 149 degrees fahrenheit [common home boiler setting], it would take 2 seconds;
If the temperature is 140 degrees, it would take 5 seconds;
If the temperature is 133 degrees, it would take 16 seconds;
If the temperature is 130 degrees [recommended setting], it would take 35 seconds;
If the temperature is 127 degrees, it would take 1 minute;
If the temperature is 125 degrees, it would take 2 minutes;
If the temperature is 124 degrees, it would take 3 minutes;
If the temperature is 120 degrees, it would take 10 minutes.
[Adult skin thickness of 2.5mm]

So if this is correct in what it says an aaverage temp for a flame is between 450 and 500+f so..

And wiki says pretty much the same thing.
en.wikipedia.org...(injury)


[edit on 4/27/2007 by ThichHeaded]

And if it was some sort of electromagnetic pulse, that caused sufficient heating, why is there all those films of people running away from the oncoming debris? Wouldn't the video cameras also not have fried? Or do we now have selective EMP, too?

Originally posted by apex
Or do we now have selective EMP, too?

You have magnetic shielding. The parking lot was in direct line-of-sight from WTC1, with nothing but air in between.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by apex
Or do we now have selective EMP, too?

You have magnetic shielding. The parking lot was in direct line-of-sight from WTC1, with nothing but air in between.

I know of that, but what about the people filming it running away, why weren't their cameras affected? Better yet, why were the firefighters caught in WTC 1 as it came down and survived, why weren't their radios EM pulsed?

Originally posted by apex
I know of that, but what about the people filming it running away, why weren't their cameras affected? Better yet, why were the firefighters caught in WTC 1 as it came down and survived, why weren't their radios EM pulsed?

It depends on how many electrons were initially released (the density of the flux), and what is in between any of the two points that can induct current. Also which direction the electrons were sent out, if shaping is possible. Even if not possible, you would essentially have the same effect just by having so many floors of building still standing below, with all kinds of things that could soak up the currents. I really don't think there would have been THAT many electrons sent out to begin with, though.

If something can induct current, it can take away from the flux density. If the density is decreased enough, it can safely be inducted into circuits without destroying components. The important thing is that the power ratings of the components have to be exceeded, that's when they fail, explode, catch on fire, etc., at least if exposed to a high enough current or over a long enough time.

There was electrical/electronic damage that had to be replaced after 9/11, for example, in the building right next door to WTC7 there was major electronic destruction, millions of dollars of repairs, in the Verizon Building (NOT physically destroyed by debris). But the more mass that can conduct electricity between these points within the buildings, and any electronics, the more the flux density will be reduced. Even within the towers there was probably plenty of conductors to induct much of the currents.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Leyla
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?

I was thinking the same thing.

Someone should map out where the cars were burned and see if it matches where the debris flew out of the building based on the direction of the planes.

Sorry, I don't have time. I would like to see if the burned cars are in all directions or local to certain spots. This might give an indication as to the cause.

Originally posted by bluesquareapple

Originally posted by tyranny22
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.

I was attempting to state that paper, which would create an open flame, could have easily made it into sections of a car where heat could ignite it. Didn't mean for my previous post to claim that paper to magically combust on it's own.

I was thinking that the paper would already be on fire. But anyway it's still very unlikely, even with an oil leak. It would be similar to the "weakened steel" theory. The temperature would have be be extremely hot and burn for a decent amount of time before anything in the engine would ignite, even oil. Unless your throttle body or fuel injector (or in an older car, a carburator) was leaking gas - and it'd have to be a good leak not just a drip here or there. Most throttle bodies sit above your engine head (which is one of the hottest components on your engine) so they are designed with extreme temperatures taken into account.

You'd be better off going with the interior, or even tires starting the initial combustion rather than anything in the engine.

I'm not saying that it cannot happen. But, it's very unlikely. And the odds of it happening to a lot of cars at once are ... well, about the same as a steel building collapsing from fire. lol.

this is revolting. you people should just go the # outside. nuclear bombs? what the # is wrong with you? jesus christ. GO SEE SOMEONE. GO TALK TO SOMEONE. ATS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

[edit on 4-27-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
this is revolting. you people should just go the # outside. nuclear bombs? what the # is wrong with you? jesus christ.

You don't know what a "nuclear bomb" is.

Um...ok I do think we need to get back on topic. I did express my views that is was not a nuke and for them to watch 911 Mysteries.

Ahem and while you all are arguing- gulps- two black helicopters just flew over head.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by Leyla]

OK please dont flame me as I may be well off track. But people here are saying that the model cars are from the early 90's/01. This may be way off the mark as I dont know the full infomation but this may help. I am a windscreen tehcnition and in the early 90s they were fitting windscreens with a coil around the apature (edge of the body where the winscreen is fitted) to help fitters remove the screens quicker and easier by activating it by running power through it and then causing the eurathane to melt thus releasing the windscreen. Later models were not fitted with this due to the fact that any electrical interferance and the such would activate the coils and then due to the fact that nobody knew this was happening untill the headlining of the car was onfire it was usually too late to stop the spread of fire. Like I said this may well be way off track and only going on that these cars are suposidly build in the early 90s that I have brought this up.And there may not of been any a outside interferance that could of caused this. But hey its still a thought at a long shot.

Can you please change the title of this thread, because it's a bit misleading?

I thought it was actually about cars, not WTC. At least just refer to 9/11 in the title, you shouldn't have to trick people into reading your threads.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
this is revolting. you people should just go the # outside. nuclear bombs? what the # is wrong with you? jesus christ.

You don't know what a "nuclear bomb" is.

i dont know what the hell you were trying to say so here's my prayers.




[edit on 4-27-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]

Now that isn't nice at all. We were simply trying to figure out why the cars were burnt from two blocks away. This is why this is a conspiracy thread.
If you don't want to help then step out.

Originally posted by theukman
OK please dont flame me as I may be well off track. But people here are saying that the model cars are from the early 90's/01. This may be way off the mark as I dont know the full infomation but this may help. I am a windscreen tehcnition and in the early 90s they were fitting windscreens with a coil around the apature (edge of the body where the winscreen is fitted) to help fitters remove the screens quicker and easier by activating it by running power through it and then causing the eurathane to melt thus releasing the windscreen. Later models were not fitted with this due to the fact that any electrical interferance and the such would activate the coils and then due to the fact that nobody knew this was happening untill the headlining of the car was onfire it was usually too late to stop the spread of fire. Like I said this may well be way off track and only going on that these cars are suposidly build in the early 90s that I have brought this up.And there may not of been any a outside interferance that could of caused this. But hey its still a thought at a long shot.

windscreen? like a windsheild? I'm not being silly ... I just know people use different terms.

Originally posted by malganis
Can you please change the title of this thread, because it's a bit misleading?

I thought it was actually about cars, not WTC. At least just refer to 9/11 in the title, you shouldn't have to trick people into reading your threads.

This is in the 9/11 thread talking about wanting an answer.. hows it misleading again??

I am sure i know where to post something about cars if i wanted to... and it wouldnt be here.

Plus I cant change it.. its to long ago.


[edit on 4/27/2007 by ThichHeaded]