Fireball Chemicals and Huge Vehicle Destruction Near WTC

[Indubitably]

Were the two fireballs at WTC North and South towers composed NOT of jet fuel but other special chemicals that burned briefly as fireballs then floated as a dispersed invisible cloud on the Manhattan wind, falling down to ground level nearby, and somehow causing the destruction soon after falling to ground of some 1400 cars, trucks and other vehicles ? Some of these vehicles were parked many blocks away from the Twin Towers. The strange fact is that the cause of these vehicles being destroyed did not burn paper. This surely suggests the chemicals of this terrible weapon cannot have been jet fuel.

http://72.30.186.56/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=CARS+BURNING+WTC+&rd=r1&fr =yfp-t-501&u=janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html&w=cars+burning+ wtc&d=JSPx7-dmPm_o&icp=1&.intl=uk

Not 'beam weapons' but an unknown sort of chemical weapon dispersed on the Manhattan wind that first appeared as the fireballs from the twin towers.

[Dogsmilk]

So what invisible fireball generating floating car burning chemical do you have in mind? I reckon Talkingshitenium is the only possible culprit.

[Indubitably]

1400 vehicles on 9/11/2001 (many of them parked blocks away from the Twin Towers in Manhattan ) were destroyed on that day. How ? They were definitely NOT burned by modified kerosene fuel from the fuels tanks of any 'plane' (also known as jet fuel).

The supposed plane fuel at the WTC is already said by fools to have been the cause of weakened structural steel in both towers AND (according to your mythology) was ALSO the component of the fireballs that came out of the Twin Towers. Fantastic, yes ? Is there ANY limit to the destructive power of modified kerosene ?

So what's YOUR explanation ? Modified Kerosene again !!!???? Or something else ?

Since you don't have anything to offer isn't it better to keep quiet, right ?

Look at the damage done to these vehicles !!! Why not forget your mantra of 19 hijackers and and post on this when YOU have a suggestion as to the cause.

Come on plane huggers. Tell us how these 19 hijackers did THAT ??? No answer ? Silence. Nothing to say ? Only insults. As usual.

[Dogsmilk]

Ok - so a helicopter shaped missile released a mysterious chemical that exploded without being consumed in said explosion. This chemical then became invisible and drifted gently down to street level where its special properties caused it to set fire to cars, break their windows and cause the general damage the simple minded may attribute to debris (some of it burning) flying all over the place. This nefarious act of chemical warfare happened...for no apparent reason. Nobody knows what this chemical is and its properties are hitherto unknown to science. But if a missile can look like a helicopter, there's no reason to suggest a chemical can't set fire to cars and break their windows.
Anyone who disbelieves this startling hypothesis clearly subscribes to the OT and probably thinks it was the jet fuel from the aircraft that set fire to the cars.

Nope - I can't top that as an explanation as to how cars caught fire.

[Indubitably]

Dogsmilk,

No, I think you make a number of errors.

It wasn't the 'helicopter'/missile that released this terrible chemical. Nor has this been suggested. The substance that burned hundreds of cars/trucks (some of them far from the twin towers) came from at least one of the two fireballs that erupted earlier out of the WTC.

What sort of chemical was it ? I think it must have been a compound with the following properties -

1. Dissolved in a medium that temporarily created a fireball
2. Highly magnetic particles falling in the smoke
3. Designed to be attracted to the iron of vehicles whose engines were still running or engines which have only just been turned off.
4. The roofs of vehicles may have been burned by this substance because of sunlight already heating them.
5. Probably low intensity radioactive, since the material stuck to the cars/trucks and a chemical reaction of very short but intense energy was created.
6. A substance that fell slowly to ground level on the Manhattan wind.
7. Since winds at the base of tall buildings are often unpredictable this substance spread in a patchwork fashion.
8. Since there are cases where cars/trucks are burned which are under arches or which are hidden from sunlight we may assume this substance was blown on the wind as smoke.

Note - A detailed analysis should be made of all fireball/smoke that poured from the WTC. I am sure there is a great deal of fakery in this footage. But video and still frames will eventually show what smoke WAS created by these fireballs.

It is of course impossible to attribute this huge vehicle destruction at ground level far from the towers to the jet fuel from two 'planes'.

The mistaken idea of 'planes' at WTC was designed to be an obstacle to genuine 9/11 research. Those who believe in planes have no answer to the obvious fact that these vehicles were not destroyed by 'planes'.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Mr Chek, it's clear to me and to growing numbers of people everywhere that because of an inane fixation on 'planes' hitting the WTC (regardless of the hundreds of examples of their fakery, false witness, editing and retouching of broadcast material) you are 'up the creek without a paddle' on the fact of the wholesale destruction of some 1,400 vehicles on that day, some of them parked literally blocks from the World Trade Centre at the time of their destruction.

Since these previously unknown properties of modified kerosene (alias 'jet fuel') are believed by you and a significant number within the 'truth movement' to include its ability to cause the toppling of large steel framed buildings, to vapourise large parts of planes after having already created giant external fireballs, and to still have enough destructive power to cause damage in stairwells and entrance lobbies we must assume you're not very knowledgable of what kerosene in sheet steel heaters does (and what it does not). Perhaps you will submit a patent for your modified kerosene being the new 'tank busting' weapon of the future, and will retire rich and famous having reinvented the laws of physics ? The wonder weapon of the future - modified kerosene, right ?

Chek, honest confession is good for the soul. Can't you confess that here, with some 1400 vehicles of all sorts being burned (many of them blocks from the WTC) not even your 'planes' nor their modified kerosene can come to your rescue as an explanation for their destruction.

In short, your 'plane' theory, always dubious for a thousand reasons, is here shown to be totally ridiculous as a possible cause.

What accounts, Chek, for this wholesale destruction by fire of these vehicles ? We note that so far you can't say a word on it. But that's the cost of plane hugging.

[Dogsmilk]

[Indubitably]

Since the facts are not disputed (the destruction of some 1400 vehicles by fire) the issue is simple. Does your 'plane' theory account for such destruction ?

Tell, us, simply, yes or no.

Thank You

[chek]

[Dogsmilk]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

We will shortly see from police, port authority and other reports when these vehicles (amongst them fire trucks) were combusted on such a huge scale.

As far as burning jet fuel is concerned, it of course creates heat. And heat rises. We cannot see in burning jet fuel the cause of such widespread vehicle destruction. Besides, the fireballs at the towers were extinguished high above ground level.

Dust was a huge factor, for sure. But that, of course, is mostly true at the time when the towers finally collapsed.

If it can be shown hundreds of cars and trucks were burning at street level (often far from the towers) early after these fireballs burst from the tower/s, then, I think, this issue will move on.

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

You still haven't explained in any way at all how the fireballs could possibly have burned fire trucks and vehicles, many of them far from the WTC.

Any suggestions ?

[gruts]

rational explanations have already been offered but, what's the point when you will run away from any truth that conflicts with your fantasies?

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the following:

1. how were the external columns on 4 of the occupied floors of the wtc rigged with the explosives required to produce the impact holes without anybody noticing.

2. how could the perps have been sure that the explosives they planted would produce the desired size and shape of impact hole?

3. how were the exposives positioned on the external columns in order to create plane shaped holes, while simultaneously bending steel girders inwards?

4. how did these exposives also propel large amounts of debris at high speed in the same direction as the "fake" plane?

5. if you watch videos of the second impact carefully (eg the check out the 8 slo-mo frames shown towards the end of this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=H6m8KOchYok) you'll see that there is almost no noticeable sign of an explosion at the impact site until after the plane has fully entered the building. so how did the explosives create the hole without actually exploding until it had already been created?

6. where did all the jetfuel that is seen crashing through the windows of the adjacent and opposite sides of the south tower before exploding into a fireball, come from?

7. if you don't think that it was the several thousand gallons of jetfuel that would have been in the wings of the plane, then what exactly was it and how did such huge quantities of it get to the upper floors of both towers without anybody noticing? where on earth was it stored (especially in view of its highly corrosive nature)?

8. and how did it acquire the necessary momentum to come crashing through the windows of the towers of the adjacent and opposite sides of the wtc?

[Indubitably]

The spontaneous combustion of over a thousand vehicles (many of them parked far from the towers). When has such an event ever happened before ? Can you give an example from the entire history of demolition worldwide or from any known building collapse ?

This is unique. And yet it was hardly covered on 9/11. In fact, streets where this was occurring were often sealed off.

Why not let the facts speak for themselves. Cars and trucks destroyed by fire. They ignite spontaneously. Over 1000 of them. No argument.

Unless it can be shown from science that such events can and have occurred at building collapses then, I say, we are in need of an explanation of HOW such things could have happened.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

OK yes, the evidence is clearly that 19 Arabs armed with boxcutters, 'hating our freedoms' and surrendering their lives, kept a few bottles of modified kerosene ready, and threw them out the planes as they entered the twin towers. Amazing stuff, jet fuel, right ? The windows of the fuselage, falling on the tower roof opposite have no glass in them. This proves how they did it.

[marky 54]

[chek]

[Indubitably]

1400 cars and trucks, some parked city blocks from the Twin Towers, were mysteriously destroyed by fire on the morning of 9/11/2001. Those who believe planes hit the WTC are invited to say when any such similar event happened in the entire history of mankind. It never did.

Analysis of the wreckage from these vehicles shows they were destroyed by heat so intense that in some cases whole engines were buckled and twisted. In other cases substances in these vehicles that would normally have burned did not.

'Plane huggers' having convinced themselves of previously unknown destructive power of modified kerosene (in weakening massive structural steelwork at the Twin Towers) have even suggested that modified kerosene was involved.

When it is pointed out that the fireballs at WTC North and South Towers could not possibly have caused this vehicle destruction one realises that, in fact, 'plane huggers' have no explanation to offer for such mass vehicle destruction. Better that the subject is 'edited out' of 9/11 research (as it was from mainstream media coverage of that tragedy).

For, as said, there is NO precedent for such things in the entire history of collapses and demolitions.

Puzzling, right ?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Chek,

I've asked repeatedly whether anyone can show a similar example of vehicles being burned/destroyed at the time of building collapses or demolitions.

If you agree this is unknown then I will present witness testimony to the spontaneous burning of many vehicles on 9/11 in Manhattan. #

Fair request, right ?

[gruts]

indubitably - you have failed to answer numerous questions on multiple threads (presumably because you can't answer them).

is there one rule for you and another rule for everybody else?

[Indubitably]

Yes, we now all publicly agree there is NO precedent for this burning of some 1400 vehicles.

It begs an explanation. A scientific explanation.

1. Dust from building collapses does NOT cause cars and trucks to catch fire
2. Exploded jet fuel does NOT cause anything to catch fire
3. The caustic effects of dust from falling buildings does not cause cars and trucks to catch fire

None of the above are cause of mass vehicle burning (much of it happening blocks from the Twin Towers) on 9/11.

That forces us to consider another possibility. That the vehicles were burned by some substance being attracted to them. A substance that was contained within smoke. One that was specially attracted to vehicles but which, we see, left ordinary combustible material alone.

This leads me to believe that iron in these vehicles was somehow what attacted this mysterious airbourne substance to be attracted to it. Magnetically.

Not all vehicles were burned, further suggesting that the substance was attracted to engines or metal parts that were (I suggest) still warm or hot.

Such a substance (not to be confused to Napalm) stuck to warm metal surfaces which contain iron. But not to others.

On sticking to the surface it (somehow) chemically and physically reacted with these surfaces and created huge heat whose effects can be seen in many of the photographs from that day.

That's my suggestion. An invisible weapon that somehow was dispersed on the wind in Manhattan, coming from the Twin Towers and slowly falling to ground level.

[Dogsmilk]

[chek]

[Bushwacker]

[Indubitably]

If a single reader of this thread considers the photographic evidence of this huge destruction of vehicles (many of them far from the Twin Towers and many others unaffected), and see also that flammable material was often not burned within these same vehicles (as happened many times in the same photographs) then, they will see the cause of such unique vehicle destruction is itself unique. If one person, even one, considers this subject open mindedly my post has been worthwhile.

The uniqueness of the event is not disputed by anyone here. It's cause is similarly unique.

That is the best that I can achieve here on this forum given the attitudes of most who have posted here.

The day will finally arrive when genuine attempts to deal with these issues will be rewarded even against bitter and cynical opposition of some forum members here. At the end of the day, the truth movement is much more than a forum. It's most of mankind. And truth WILL finally be revealed - even here amongst agents of misinformation. I hope it does not shame you.

[John White]