The Reson Why the WTC Steel was Molten

[Fallious]

So you are saying that the fires in these pictures SHOULD catch the tree and paper on fire?

What's a nuke or energy weapons got to do with that?

I'm having trouble following your thought process here..

BTW I think your debris comments might be regarding a different thread. I'll deal with them if you want to post that over there.

[rodin]

[rodin]

I should explain

There is a reason to get to the bottom of this beyond simply solving the challenge posed. If, as I think, there can be no doubt a nuclear device was used, this pre-empts what I see as a possible defence from MOSSAD.

Their agents blundered twice

1) They got caught filming WTC collapse (not denied and a matter of public record)

2) Three of them went on Israeli TV to smooth the thing over and during the interview blurted out that 'their purpose was to document the event'

At some stage this information may become mainstream (it is already all over youtube). What will they say - well we knew they were going to fly into the towers but we thought it was in the best interests of the US and Israel if te ME got sorted out'

OK - they would get a lot of flak, but in the end the MSM could come up with a ' well we understand where they are coming from' routine.

Now try that routine on the victims of a nuclear bomb. The nuclear issue could break the MSM's hold over the sitch.

JMO

[rodin]

Car photos are a big part of the evidence for the use of unconventional weaponry, whether micronuke, microwave bomb, or beam weapon. This is an attempt to organise and evaluate this photographic evidence.

Provenance and classification

These fall into 3 groups

1) cars on fire under dark sky - obviously part of the actual 911 event. Striking in that other combustibles seem to be unaffected. Supportive of non-thermal ignition.



2) cars not on fire under clear sky but burned and sitting in piles of WTC dust - unlikely to have been moved. Probably not obstructing primary access to the site



3) cars burned but not in WTC dust - these must have been moved. In this 3rd category come the vehicles along the Hudson (FDR drive?). These were probably towed away from roads around WTC to enable access for construction/emergency vehicles and dumped in the nearest available free space.



IMO toasted cars all came from within line-of-sight of one of the demolished towers. Can this be verified?

[neilkeeler]

Interested in your theory on the cars burning, in all the photos many seem to be burning yet some are not.

Some could have pulled up/parked after the event maybe? Not a very likely place to leave your car next to another burning vehicle, but hey there was a lot going on people could just have abandoned them.

Or is there something in the design or manufacture of the different makes that explains why some ignited but others did not? Some with alloy engine blocks or electronic components etc?

[rodin]

There is a distance effect. Radiation like all waves falls of with distance squared. In the trees picture the car nearest us is furthest from the source. Also cars in front will to some extent screen those behind.

[Fallious]

And the firetruck that William Rodriguez dived under, just outside the WTC? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of cars which were very close but didn't burn.

[Patrick Brown]

[rodin]

[rodin]

[Fallious]

Here's a section from the Nadet documentary where they are running from the second towers demolition.



http://www.terrorize.dk/911/naudet/911.wtc.1.demolition.naudet.wmv

Here's an image of the second tower about half way through it's destruction.



Cars right up to it are undamaged. No sign of any kind of radiation starting fires or melting anything. As you can imagine, this scene would look considerably different a few moments later.

These vehicles are directly in the 'line of sight' for whatever exotic weapon you are suggesting, so why aren't they bursting into flames?

There are reams and reams of film and photos of undamaged cars near ground zero after the destruction, covered in inches of dust. How do you explain how some burst into flames and some didn't?

I've got a suggestion for you.. plain old fire. Hundreds of cars in the underground carparks all got burnt, cars on the surface which had heavy debris land on them would likely have ruptured their fuel tanks, unlit and burning petrol would have spilled out over the streets and spread to other cars.

[rodin]

The Naudet clip is some distance from the tower. The other pic is closer. The cars in both pieces of evidence seem unaffected. There are a number of possible reasons for this.

1) I posted earlier that there was not meant to be radiation leakage. Perhaps on this collapse there wasn't.

2) Radiation damage would be specific to whatever caused the leak. If it was a crack in the 'shape' of the shape charge, it might squirt out in that direction only.

3) Another explanation is there never was any radiation, but other 'smoking gun' pictures suggest otherwise. Then there are the cancers which apparently indicate a nuclear event.

[Stefan]

I think Fallicious hit the money here- the cars were simply moved.

Do any "storm troopers" have any reason to believe the cars were all in positions they were photographed in during the collapses of the towers.

The "end of the argument" line here is a name- Willie Rodriguez.

He got burns on his back side from the dust cloud- of course it; was recently pulverised concrete from extremely hot explosions and was expanding with heat. But he was not cooked- his lives to tell his incredible story today thank god.

And I am fairly sure you can cook meat in a microwave can't you (vegetarian here)?

[rodin]

You mentioned cars may have come from underground car parks. Obviously this would not include those actually on fire in the street scenes. But what about



I see cars that look to be parked, not dumped. Also, if you look at the rears of the cars in the foreground it appears the burning stopped just before here. Looks like the cars were affected en masse

[Stefan]

[rodin]

[rodin]

'I'm sorry rodin- they clearly aren't parked. '

You haven't been to my Sainsbury's then...

I think they are parked because

1) Unburned paint region in similar place on nearest cars suggesting global heating event

2) Cars in neat parallel rows. Looks like just enough space between each car to exit. And just about enough to turn out too. I imagine parking space in Manhatten would be premium.

Compare with cars dumped on FDR drive - much more higglety-pigglety

Plus - how else would you get cars into that neat array OTHER than by parking?

More dense parking...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Patrick Brown]

Why hasn't "THETRUTHWILLSETU3" been banned? Well there are rumours about "it" and B-NPT Andrew!

[Fallious]

The cars aren't just burnt. There's also dents and big bends in some of them. In fact, three of the six cars near enough to accurately study have visible damage..



This could mean a couple of things.

1. A lot of debris fell on them right here. The chances of a fuel tank rupture and fire consuming one, and spreading to all the other densely packed vehicles is therefore very real.

2. They are random cars from all around ground zero, including the basement car park and they have been moved to here as part of the clearing operation. Same burning scenario as above.

[rodin]

Let's hypothesise that the cars were ignited by hot concrete dust. The flashpoint of petrol is I am sure lower than paper. However, many vehicles (trucks?) would be deisel. Deisel is actually damn hard to ignite. Paper would certainly go first.

Then there is the fact that cars present melted steel - whole engine blocks have melted in some cases. We already know hydrocarbon fuel can't do that. Yet in heat that melted (not just scorched) steel, paper survived.

The Rodriguez story.

Some possibilities

1) He was not caught in the radiation flux, just hot dust.

2) The radiation flux was targetting steel not water. Tuned to Fe. Designer made for the job of bringing down supertall steel structures. A munition like that would find a lot of business as city skylines get renewed.

[Patrick Brown]

[rodin]

[Stefan]

I don't see the correlation between unburned and burt parts of cars as this image demonstrates:



And why not a SINGLE fried body? Surely someone got caught in this death ray?

[rodin]

[Stefan]

[rodin]

What I mean about the wider angle shot is that if cars were being dumped there they would be side by side, not placed on a rectangular parking grid with many car-sized vacant spaces. Plus they would never be manhandled into such neat parallel parked rows.

Car park. Slam dunk.

This is probably not a deal-breaking issue, but we might as well get it right.

[rodin]

[rodin]

[quote="Koheleth"]you've shown us your vehicles from here there and everywhere. Yet not a single burned body?[quote]

And that means what? That people were either not there, or were not affected in the same way as cars? Please explain what you are driving at(pardon the pun)?

[Fallious]

None of the cars closest to the camera have been burnt, but ALL the cars a few meters away from them have. This is more evidence of one or two vehicles initialy igniting and other close by vehicles also catching. Perfectly normal. No exotic weapons required to produce this scene.