ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th October 2010, 12:18 AM   #1
OneShotKi11
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 788
What was the reason for cars being melted at Ground Zero?

Im sure this has been beaten to death, but im looking for the reason cars around ground zero are burnt to a crisp. The tires have been completely melted away.

I am providing a video to show exactly what i mean. From the looks of the film these cars were located somewhere near WTC7.
(First time i have seen this exact footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

4:41-5:30 is a perfect example of what i mean when i say melted away, but im sure you guys have seen all this a million times.

I dont believe in the conspiracy, but i am honestly looking for a reasonable explanation for those vehicles looking like that.
OneShotKi11 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 12:25 AM   #2
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
what melted cars? I see cars burnt by fires caused by the burning debris after the collapse of WTC 2 (as can tell by the fact that WTC 1 is still standing and WTC 7 is on fire)

You are seeing things that aren't there.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 12:41 AM   #3
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,279
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
I dont believe in the conspiracy, but i am honestly looking for a reasonable explanation for those vehicles looking like that.

They look like that because the stupid fire, it burns.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 12:49 AM   #4
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
There were several vehicles burning before the south tower collapsed. They were pretty much a low priority at the time. Some of them had glass blown out by falling debris from the aircraft strikes and had burning paper falling around them. Some were ignited by fuel flowing out from under other burning vehicles. Several of them were hit by debris falling from the collapsing towers or by airborn materials carried along in the dust flow. If you have seen the Naudet film, you should be aware that the wind created in the collapses was rather over powering. Few windows of any sort survived in line of sight of the collapses

To a veteran fire fighter, all looks pretty much as you would expect.

You may have noted a few isolated spots where paper half-buried in the fust is burning. That dust is what kept the fires from spreading much further than they did. So be wary of pictures taken from a low angle and offered as proof of...erm...something or other. The lalrge group of burned-out vehicles stands out from the isolated charred hulk because all of the paper seems to have been burned along with the vehicles. There was probably enough fuel in that area to seep through the crud to ignite on the surface.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 12:50 AM   #5
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
Im sure this has been beaten to death, but im looking for the reason cars around ground zero are burnt to a crisp. The tires have been completely melted away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

4:41-5:30 is a perfect example of what i mean when i say melted away, but im sure you guys have seen all this a million times.

I dont believe in the conspiracy, but i am honestly looking for a reasonable explanation for those vehicles looking like that.
Al alloy wheels melt. End of story. The cars look like that because of fire. If you have not see Al wheel melt, means you have not seen a car fire; better get out of the house more. This was beat to death here, with photos and more.

You just posted proof fire destroyed WTC 7.

Tires burn, wheels melt, fire burns car to crisp.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th October 2010 at 01:22 AM. Reason: Anechoic
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 01:34 AM   #6
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,266
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
Im sure this has been beaten to death, but im looking for the reason cars around ground zero are burnt to a crisp. The tires have been completely melted away.
The cars haven't been 'melted', so it was a poor choice of thread title really.

The scene you highlight was Barclay St after WTC1's collapse, so no surprise that falling debris started fires. Burning cars ... petrol ...

As mentioned, tyres have burned and possibly alloy wheels have been melted. The steel bodies remain, charred. No surprises there either.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 02:25 AM   #7
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Bear in mind, too, that a lot of the burned-out vehicles seen in some of the videos and photo galleries related to conspiracy theories, especially those of Killtown and whacky old Judy W are US Postal Service vehicles and ambulances. Most of them have aluminum bodies. They tend to melt.

Sooner or later, you will be shown pics of vehicles which have, supposedly, had their engine blocks burned away. Of those that I could identify, one was a Seagraves fire truck. The engine is located between the rear crew seats, leaving the driver a better view of the street immediately in front of the truck. One of them is a Porsche. DUH!

A favorite of the woo-woo crowd is a clip of a reporter on the street sahowing us a car missing its hood, with a melted glop of something on top of the engige block. I believe a lot of modern carburators and other fittings are made of aluminum. It tends not to survive even moderate engine compartment fires well.

Tires melt readily when they burn.

They also tend to explode. Bear that in mind when you are asked to read the oral histories given by Karin Deshore and Patricia Ondrovic. Deshore ascribes a lot of the "explosions" heard around the area to these car fires. Ondrovic was already freaked out and the predictable behavior of the burning cars took on a whole new and dire signifcance to her mind.

We have also discussed at some length here why the door handles seem to have disappeared. They are usually made of pot metal with a very low melting point, and are often set into wells formed of aluminum or high-tech, but fuseable plastic.

It is also of no significance that some vehicles are burnt only at the front or only at the rear. Most car fires are in the interior or in the engine compartment. I have ben involved in three vehicle fires while driving, and all were engine fires. Two in the pump engine of an O-11-A crash truck and one in my private vehicle. (Bloody inept mechanics!)

The only fire I ever saw in the fuel tank of a vehicle involved a high-speed reaer-ender.

Most of the interior fires I saw did not grow to involved the fuel tank or fuel lines. Three of them were from fireworks that someone was throwing out the window at cruising speed and two involved cigarettes dropped in flamables inside the vehicles.

And then there was the time one of our guys forgot to properly torque the fuel line to the carburator while working on his own car right in front of the station.

There really IS nothing to see here.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 02:39 AM   #8
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
You really couldn't just Google "Car Fires" and figure this out on your own?
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:00 AM   #9
OneShotKi11
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 788
Obviously fire burned the cars, i was more curious as to some of the explanations for how the cars might have caught fire.

Since i am no expert on the physics of collapsing buildings and the forces exerted i was curious. Also, i was unaware of the time-frame inwhich the video was taken, nor of the location. For all i know WTC2 could have been right next door, or 5 blocks away.

I assumed as much as what some of you had said, but realistically my assumptions are worth pennies on a topic such as this. Thanks to those (Lefty Sergeant) who gave some thought out responses.

Last edited by OneShotKi11; 20th October 2010 at 03:02 AM.
OneShotKi11 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:15 AM   #10
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
OneShotKi11, why do you think you see anything melted (or previously molten) in the video? Can you point out a specific object, by referring to the time (minutes:seconds) and describing the object?

When things melt, they lose their shape. By and large, I findf that all the vehicles in the video, and their metal parts, retained their shape fully. There is the one exception of the car in front of the bus (around 5:22) that seems to be missing its hood. We can speculate now how that happened - if it melted, got unhooked and slid to the ground, was blast off by some sort of explosion, or arrived hoodless to start with. Edited to add: Seeing the videos below, my best guess would be that the hood was opened during the first tower collapse or the ensuing fire, and got ripped away like a sail when the second collapse stormed through. I see nothing melted in its place. Even the wheels, as far as I can see them, are still round.


At 5:12, the reporter says "We're West Broadway and Barclay". The cars and the bus shown in that video segment are on West Broadway, between Barclay St. and Park Place. You can locate this here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Site_Plan.svg
To get an idea of what happened there when the towers collapsed, look at
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Between 0:26 and 0:39 you can see the dust cloud racing through West Broadway: WTC7 is the dark building directly below the main dust column of the collapsing tower, and W. Broadway is the street immediately to its left. So the dust cloud racing at you just left of center in the video is the one that would have "toasted" the cars seen in the OP video.

More impressive view even, from street level: The following video was taken from Chambers Street looking down W. Broadway (click here for google streetview):
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Any more questions?

Last edited by Oystein; 20th October 2010 at 03:27 AM. Reason: ETA in RoyalBlue
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:16 AM   #11
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Seriously though, you needed to ask how, out of hundreds of cars parked or otherwise situated underneath not one but two massive explosions that rained down fiery debris over more than a dozen square blocks, some of them might have caught on fire? There are at least 5 car fires out here (SF Bay Area) on the major highways every single day of the week (going by the radio reports I hear during the rush hours alone) and not one of them involve a plane crashing anywhere near them. Cars are in part made out of flammable materials and carry several gallons of flammable liquid fuel. What would be surprising to me would be if there were no car fires on that Tuesday morning.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:17 AM   #12
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,266
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
Since i am no expert on the physics of collapsing buildings and the forces exerted i was curious. Also, i was unaware of the time-frame inwhich the video was taken, nor of the location. For all i know WTC2 could have been right next door, or 5 blocks away.
"We're at West Broadway and Barclay" plus the view of the "Barclay St" road sign, plus WTC5 blazing in the background and WTC7 in the foreground should add up to enough clues.

Sorry for any snarky responses, but your approach resembled the typical Truther jaq intro. Looking at some previous posts this doesn't seem to be the case.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 04:02 AM   #13
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
The second video in my previous post above apparently captured the collapse of the North Tower (WTC1), which fell second, and stood closer to WTC7. Notice that the cars blow up loads of dust while driving.

Here is a street level clip of the first collapse (South Tower, WTC2). Notice that the streets are still clean:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Camera position is initially (after 0:04) Murray Street looking down West Broadway - two blocks closer to GZ than the video above. As the camera person notices the dust cloud bill, he runs away one block and then retreats sideways into Warren Street. It seems that this first dust cloud was a lot less violent down West Broadway than the second. It may still have sent some flaming debris down to where your (later) burned cars were.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 05:40 AM   #14
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
laser beams
__________________
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 05:46 AM   #15
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
It was the giant orbiting dustification machine, of course.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 07:04 AM   #16
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,703
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It was the giant orbiting dustification machine, of course.
That's right! But I believe the scientific term is "toasted" cars.
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 10:00 AM   #17
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
Obviously fire burned the cars, i was more curious as to some of the explanations for how the cars might have caught fire.

Since i am no expert on the physics of collapsing buildings and the forces exerted i was curious. Also, i was unaware of the time-frame inwhich the video was taken, nor of the location. For all i know WTC2 could have been right next door, or 5 blocks away.

I assumed as much as what some of you had said, but realistically my assumptions are worth pennies on a topic such as this. Thanks to those (Lefty Sergeant) who gave some thought out responses.
The biggest office fires in history just collapsed and burning debris, some over 500 degree dropped on stuff, and started fires, because the debris was on fire. Go ahead take the largest office fires in history and drop them in a 130 TONs of TNT KE collapse put your car next to it.

You are serious? The reasons the fires on 911 looked small, was the SUN was up, it washes out the scary glow, the bight light of flames. Don't believe me, start a fire during the day, film it, then start a fire at night, the same size. Which looks bigger. The fire in bright clear day sun, or the fire in the dark night. Brighter looks bigger.

Two WTC towers with over 30 acres of office fires fall down, and you wonder why cars are on fire? For Judy Wood a beam weapon did it, if you like that insane claim, you may be crazy.

The car fires, started because fire rained down. 30 acres of fire!

No one left gasoline and tires on their cars did they? Did they have fire proof interiors? How they did not have paint on them, it kind of burns when it gets hot. No one left books or papers in their cars, because hot piece of WTC tower could auto-ignite paper at a special secret temperature. Did you know tires burn? More heat energy than thermite! Did you know paper burns with more heat energy than thermite?

Better not let Jones pick up some unburned paint from the cars, it will be more thermite for him if it has Fe and Al in it.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th October 2010 at 10:05 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 10:15 AM   #18
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
Obviously fire burned the cars, i was more curious as to some of the explanations for how the cars might have caught fire.
So, OneShotKi11, have you you gotten out of the first responses to your query?

Do you accept that the cars were set afire by flaming debris or jet fuel even if none of the many thousands of people that were eyewitnesses think that anything out of the ordinary started those fires and there is nothing on YouTube that proves this explanation to your satisfaction?

If not, why?
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 02:37 PM   #19
OneShotKi11
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
So, OneShotKi11, have you you gotten out of the first responses to your query?

Do you accept that the cars were set afire by flaming debris or jet fuel even if none of the many thousands of people that were eyewitnesses think that anything out of the ordinary started those fires and there is nothing on YouTube that proves this explanation to your satisfaction?

If not, why?
No, the explanations i received are sound enough. I never said i believed any crazy theories on the subject, i just lacked info on exactly how they all caught fire.

In my brain i was questioning whether the fires would have stayed a blaze as the towers collapsed. I thought that much force from the collapsing tower would have put them out, but then i quickly remembered the events of that day. The fires would not have gone out during the collapse, and evidence of such is the several pools/pockets of fire and debris burning below the WTC for weeks after 9/11. So the explanation of burning debris from a collapsing WTC2 burnt the cars to a crisp is a perfect explanation.
OneShotKi11 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:14 PM   #20
SRW
Master Poster
 
SRW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,902
Look at the 3.15 mark on the video, you can clearly see that there is burning debris on the ground. I would guess a lot of that type of burning debris was in the dust cloud.
__________________
Monterey Skeptics
Tales from a dyslexic heathen
Rationalization may be defined as self-deception by reasoning.— Karen Horney
SRW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:25 PM   #21
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
No, the explanations i received are sound enough. I never said i believed any crazy theories on the subject, i just lacked info on exactly how they all caught fire.
And now you know what to tell people when they wave this "evidence in your face. Glad to have been of service.

Quote:
In my brain i was questioning whether the fires would have stayed a blaze as the towers collapsed. I thought that much force from the collapsing tower would have put them out, but then i quickly remembered the events of that day.
To some extent, your reasoning is sound. The dust would have smothered most Class A fires in the piles of paper, even some of the smaller Class B fires in the vehicles. Trouble is, a burning car gets really, really hot, even red hot. This can lead to re-ignition once the dust settles enough to let in the air and the fuel vapors reach sufficient levels to sustain combustion.

The larger vehicle fires would probably not have been extinguished unless they were completely buried in dust with no paper inclusions. (Not a highly likely scenario.)
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 03:46 PM   #22
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
You need only to have a large burning piece of debris land near one of the tires of a stationary vehicle, or get blown into an open window. As for multiple cars on fire in one area, all you need is for one vehicle in a snarled traffic situation or a parking lot , or in the parking lane, no vehicle will be able to move away from one that is on fire and you get several, dozens even, that will potentially catch fire.

Within minutes of the first impact traffic nearby would be hopelessly gridlocked as the NYFD and NYPD shut down streets and took up lanes in the streets with their own vehicles.

Personally if I were in my car with no hope of being able to move it and looking up at a huge fire in a nearby building I would choose to abandon my car and clear out of the area, especially if the car in front of me is hit by burning debris. Some people might chose to instead lean on the horn in the hopes that the sound would transport them and their vehicle out of harm's way though.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 04:12 PM   #23
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
No, the explanations i received are sound enough. I never said i believed any crazy theories on the subject, i just lacked info on exactly how they all caught fire.

In my brain i was questioning whether the fires would have stayed a blaze as the towers collapsed. I thought that much force from the collapsing tower would have put them out, but then i quickly remembered the events of that day. The fires would not have gone out during the collapse, and evidence of such is the several pools/pockets of fire and debris burning below the WTC for weeks after 9/11. So the explanation of burning debris from a collapsing WTC2 burnt the cars to a crisp is a perfect explanation.
You can rest easy now that it is all explained away.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:18 PM   #24
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Oh, I misread that. I thought he was totally kidding.

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
In my brain i was questioning whether the fires would have stayed a blaze as the towers collapsed. I thought that much force from the collapsing tower would have put them out, but then i quickly remembered the events of that day. The fires would not have gone out during the collapse, and evidence of such is the several pools/pockets of fire and debris burning below the WTC for weeks after 9/11. So the explanation of burning debris from a collapsing WTC2 burnt the cars to a crisp is a perfect explanation.
The fires in the towers weren't that significant and would not have created the burning for weeks on end in what should have been a much larger debris pile.

It's correct to question whether flying, burning bits of debris can torch cars while torching precious little else.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:42 PM   #25
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, I misread that. I thought he was totally kidding.



The fires in the towers weren't that significant and would not have created the burning for weeks on end in what should have been a much larger debris pile.

It's correct to question whether flying, burning bits of debris can torch cars while torching precious little else.
Troll much?
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:57 PM   #26
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
steel falling from 110 stories might make cars blow the **** up.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 09:30 PM   #27
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, I misread that. I thought he was totally kidding.



The fires in the towers weren't that significant and would not have created the burning for weeks on end in what should have been a much larger debris pile.
,,,and I at first thought you were kidding with that. Then I recalled what other ridiculousness you have posted in the past.

Quote:
It's correct to question whether flying, burning bits of debris can torch cars while torching precious little else.
Hmm, interesting point. What 'else' was there in the near vicinity of the towers that could be 'torched' in the numbers and size of road vehicles?

IOW, what else would you have expected to have seen burned in the same numbers as vehicles?

BTW the OP asked the question and I see neither you or bill offered a suggestion.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 09:32 PM   #28
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
The fires in the towers weren't that significant
...
An estimated 200 people (source) jumped to horrific death.
You must explain why, if the fires were not so significant.

Did this man, too, think the fires weren't that significant?


(I predict that ergo will be a coward and avoid answering this question, or rather trample on the dignity of these poor men and women rather than admitting he told a dirty lie for cheap effect.)
(ETA: I messaged ergo and asked him to please reply, so he can't claim he did not see this post.)

Last edited by Oystein; 20th October 2010 at 09:38 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 09:33 PM   #29
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
You can rest easy now that it is all explained away.
IIRC you favour something along the lines of;

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It was the giant orbiting dustification machine, of course.
,,,however you don't offer a suggestion for the question in the OP.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 11:45 PM   #30
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,266
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The fires in the towers weren't that significant and would not have created the burning for weeks on end in what should have been a much larger debris pile.
'Should' relative to what ?
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:26 AM   #31
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
(I predict that ergo will be a coward)
Ergo, ergo.
Mince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:57 AM   #32
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,319
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
There is the one exception of the car in front of the bus (around 5:22) that seems to be missing its hood. We can speculate now how that happened - if it melted, got unhooked and slid to the ground, was blast off by some sort of explosion, or arrived hoodless to start with. Edited to add: Seeing the videos below, my best guess would be that the hood was opened during the first tower collapse or the ensuing fire, and got ripped away like a sail when the second collapse stormed through. I see nothing melted in its place. Even the wheels, as far as I can see them, are still round.
About hoods: A number of European and Japanese car models have hoods and boot covers made of a plastic material (saves weight in a component that plays little part in the strenght of the body). Also, fenders on modern cars are huge, forming a considerable part if the recognizable outer shape of the car. When such cars burn, fenders and hoods tend to burn/melt away, and leave the wreck with a curiously 'demolished' appearance.

Also a great many modern car parts, like handles, looking like metal, are really metalized plasic (lighter, cheaper, corrosion proof, more pleasant to touch).

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:14 AM   #33
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The fires in the towers weren't that significant and would not have created the burning for weeks on end in what should have been a much larger debris pile.
Not a word of that is true. You are parroting the stupidity of an array of dimbulbs with no clue as to how ground fires progress. Do learn some basic fire science.

Quote:
It's correct to question whether flying, burning bits of debris can torch cars while torching precious little else.
True, someone with no fire fighting experience mifght well not grasp that immediately, but it is really as simple as what those of us with such experience laid out in the response to the OP.

A lot of the cars that burned that day were torched directly by jet fuel cascading from the down-range side of the north tower. This will start random fires, and a vehicle fire in a parking lot, would probably seem unimportant once a sweep has been made to ensure that nobody is trapped in one of the burning vehicles. FDNY hit the ground short-handed to deal with the situation they faced and it did not get a bit better as the day progressed. I would expect the protocol in that case to be to cover exposures with minimal equipment and let them burn.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:19 AM   #34
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
About hoods: A number of European and Japanese car models have hoods and boot covers made of a plastic material (saves weight in a component that plays little part in the strenght of the body).
Would that include Porsche? There is one vehicle that really caught whacky old Judy's attention that I am rather sure was a Porsche with a big empty pocket at the front end, and she was quite exercised about there being no engine there.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:21 AM   #35
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Viewing this from the conspiracist perspective, I suppose setting fire to cars must be a vitally important component of the 9/11 psyop, based on a realistic understanding of the American psyche. Killing nearly 3,000 people, destroying major landmarks, crashing airliners and shattering the illusion of a safe, protected homeland is, to New Yorkers, merely an insect bite. But torch their cars, and they'll invade your country and kick your ass no matter where in the world you live. Of course, a bunch of cave-dwelling, illiterate camel jockeys could never understand Americans this well, thus proving that 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave

PS. Calm down, beachnut. Joking.
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:23 AM   #36
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,319
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Would that include Porsche? There is one vehicle that really caught whacky old Judy's attention that I am rather sure was a Porsche with a big empty pocket at the front end, and she was quite exercised about there being no engine there.
Quite possibly. Being a sports-car, they would be concerned about weight. But there are many models.

Can you find a picture?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:23 AM   #37
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 View Post
Im sure this has been beaten to death, but im looking for the reason cars around ground zero are burnt to a crisp. The tires have been completely melted away.

I am providing a video to show exactly what i mean. From the looks of the film these cars were located somewhere near WTC7.
(First time i have seen this exact footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

4:41-5:30 is a perfect example of what i mean when i say melted away, but im sure you guys have seen all this a million times.

I dont believe in the conspiracy, but i am honestly looking for a reasonable explanation for those vehicles looking like that.
Greetings OneShot,

So far in this thread, only one poster, Beachnut, has provided you with the only correct, documented, authenticated and proven reason for the burnt cars; or, as Dr. Judy Wood calls them: "toasted cars."

Your source for proof can be found at:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

Beachnut put it perjoratively and therefore improperly this way:

"Two WTC towers with over 30 acres of office fires fall down, and you wonder why cars are on fire? For Judy Wood a beam weapon did it, if you like that insane claim, you may be crazy." http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&postcount=17

Had Beachnut shut up, so to speak, after saying "...[per]...[Dr.]Judy Wood a beam weapon did it..." Beachnut would have made a good and correct statement. Unfortunately, Beachnut babbled on and almost ruined his whole post, save for the part I have just quoted.

Please take the necessary time to review Dr. Wood's assertions on "toasted cars" and feel free to post up your observations and claims.

all the best

Last edited by jammonius; 21st October 2010 at 02:25 AM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:31 AM   #38
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,136
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Greetings OneShot,
...
Your source for proof can be found at:
...
Please take the necessary time to review Dr. Wood's assertions on "toasted cars" and feel free to post up your observations and claims.

all the best
I suggest we all keep quiet, even beachnut, let OneShotKi11 read Mrs. Wood's page, and then come back with an assessment
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:43 AM   #39
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
So far in this thread, only one poster, Beachnut, has provided you with the only correct, documented, authenticated and proven reason for the burnt cars; or, as Dr. Judy Wood calls them: "toasted cars."
Good news. Your perfect record for wrongness remains unblemished by being right.

Quote:
Your source for proof can be found at:
That URL is incorrect I will better define the source for you.

Quote:
[url]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html[/url]The pronouncements of Judy's ear crickets.
Much more accurate now.

Quote:
Beachnut put it perjoratively and therefore improperly this way:

"Two WTC towers with over 30 acres of office fires fall down, and you wonder why cars are on fire? For Judy Wood a beam weapon did it, if you like that insane claim, you may be crazy." http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&postcount=17
Excuse me, but you need not continue in this line. You already have the forum record for wrongness. Beachnut was spot on in his assessment of what sort of person believes that Judy has a clue.

Quote:
Had Beachnut shut up, so to speak, after saying "...[per]...[Dr.]Judy Wood a beam weapon did it..." Beachnut would have made a good and correct statement. Unfortunately, Beachnut babbled on and almost ruined his whole post, save for the part I have just quoted.
Well, Beachnut is not a fire fighter, but, as a veteran fire fighter, I assure you, he is spot on.

Quote:
Please take the necessary time to review Dr. Wood's assertions on "toasted cars" and feel free to post up your observations and claims.
"Neccessary" seems an oxymoron here. Nobody ever became more knowledgeable about the mechanics of the destruction of the buildings, aircraft and buildings by reading Judy's crap, so it is hard to call any amount of time devoted to analysing it "neccessary."
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:44 AM   #40
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,012
I wonder why the death ray only set some of the cars on fire, but not others. Also, I thought the death ray was designed to turn steel to dust, so did the cars' steel shells turn to dust, or did they just burn like conventional fires instead? Did any steel street furniture, like streetlights or signposts, turn to dust?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.