George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is the point . . . with all the fire comming down to burn cars and other buildings, etc . . I would have expected some burning people . . .
Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7
- Thread starter Tazmanian
- Start date
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Don't know what . . . don't know any technology or energy weapon that can selectively target hard targets but not humans . . . I know a few that work the other way . . . i.e. neutron bomb, microwave energy, EMP, Biochemical weapons, etc . . .
Yes I think they need to be viewd in time order to make proper sense of the dynamics.
Cairenn
Senior Member
Burning debris landed on the cars, nice flat surfaces, or more likely was blown underneath them. One night I ran over a bale of hay that had spilled all over the freeway, so did others. In a few minutes I started smelling scorched grass. I pulled over and used a long handle window squeegee to pull the smoldering hay from under my car. There was an SUV, that pulled over a little behind me that was already on fire from it. The folks got out and that car burned badly. Gas tanks do not always explode, in fact they seem to rarely explode. I have seen several grass fires started by catalytic converters on cars, never have seen a gas tank blow.
Folks can move away from burning debris, and most were under cover when the buildings fell. The flags would have had to have flames come in contact with them for a period of time. Polyester will melt instead of burning. One the are where the hot debris touched would be damaged.
Folks can move away from burning debris, and most were under cover when the buildings fell. The flags would have had to have flames come in contact with them for a period of time. Polyester will melt instead of burning. One the are where the hot debris touched would be damaged.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So catalytic converters started the car fires at 911?
In fact it's nearly impossible for them to explode, and certainly not in a huge fireball. Gasoline has to be atomized and mixed with air to explode, so the most it is going to do is burn.
http://automotivethinker.com/general/cars-just-dont-explode/
This fire will burn out buildings, burn out metal cars, but not the flags......
(Changed the image for a better one)
The building does not look burned, just smashed and dusted by the debris cloud. The flags are 40 feet off the ground and away from the fires.
Last edited:
lotek
Active Member
A parked running car is a much worse hazard due to the injectors and hot pipes. Even more so if ash or debris causes the fans to jam or fail. But even not running car fires are odd fires due to the nature of a combination of flammable and inert compounds. I would assume major wind involvement here too. One cannot assume a sitting car fire to catch every bit of paper that dynamically blows around it to catch on fire....
and the towing bit makes perfect sense. note the live weed right next to one car, various directions, and lack of space to have been parked.
and the towing bit makes perfect sense. note the live weed right next to one car, various directions, and lack of space to have been parked.
They are about ten seconds apart, the fire has not changed between them, just the angle. Here I combined them.
Last edited:
pseacraft
Active Member
These cars were on the other side of the island. Someone would have to load each individual car, take it down the street, and then unload it? Why not take it to the junk yard? Someone stacked these cars and left them? What, their contract ran out before they reached the junk yard? That makes no sense.
At another location
Can I just point out the obvious here? At least it is to me. Notice the Industrial Equipment tire tracks. This scene is a impound lot, whether full time or a temporary one. There also appears to be some 'fork lift' marks on a few of the hulks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Judy Woods' theory is ridiculous. But someone took the time to debunk it:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...r-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...r-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf
External Quote:
Yes, it looks like the dust is actually still on the cars and there aren't big drag marks through the dust* or even footprints in it. So it seems to me that counts as a falsification of Mick's hypothesis that they were towed there. And if that's the case, then what happened?
*Dust... or the "dustification," as Judy Wood puts it.
*Dust... or the "dustification," as Judy Wood puts it.
It would probably be best if she was here to debate it with you. I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll give it a go. With respect to the burning cars, she cites testimony that they were catching fire without burning debris falling on them here:
I had thought it would be ironic if I had begun to think that 911 was an "inside job" due to illusions.* Because you pointed out some falsifications, as there supposedly wasn't enough sound for WTC 7 to be a controlled demo and there wasn't enough seismic activity and so forth. But it would be even more ironic if there wasn't enough sound or seismic activity to support your theory either.
Was there "enough" sound? Was there "enough" seismic activity from all the tons of debris falling or steel and debris in general?
*Which is still perfectly possible, due to my mood... of course...
Cairenn
Senior Member
Why would the fact they still have dust on them mean that they hadn't been towed? Things can be moved and can still have dust on them. There was dust being kicked up all the time in the area also, so the absence of 'drag marks' seems meaningless to me.
I have yet to see a theory from you that didn't have holes in it so big that Capt Picard couldn't have flown Star Fleet through.
I have yet to see a theory from you that didn't have holes in it so big that Capt Picard couldn't have flown Star Fleet through.
JRBids
Senior Member
[off topic gish gallop removed]
.
In any event, as far as the evidence brought up here goes... either the cars were moved there or they were not. So if you're going to falsify part of Wood's evidence then someone should probably research a way of investigating that instead of merely imagining things about seeing forklift marks on the cars and so forth. I may when I have time. In the meantime I would note that even if her "theory" is supposedly more fantastical than office fires caused by incendiary donuts causing a magical column to "buckle" and other elements of the official story, at least it's subject to possible falsifications here and there too. I'd say that both theories are pretty fantastical. But that's probably because having three steel frame buildings collapse at free fall speeds due to "fire" or whatever the cause was... was indeed a fantastic event, no matter what one might imagine of it. It seems to me that everyone should at least agree on that. But they probably won't as soon as someone from the wrong "tribe" says it.
.
In any event, as far as the evidence brought up here goes... either the cars were moved there or they were not. So if you're going to falsify part of Wood's evidence then someone should probably research a way of investigating that instead of merely imagining things about seeing forklift marks on the cars and so forth. I may when I have time. In the meantime I would note that even if her "theory" is supposedly more fantastical than office fires caused by incendiary donuts causing a magical column to "buckle" and other elements of the official story, at least it's subject to possible falsifications here and there too. I'd say that both theories are pretty fantastical. But that's probably because having three steel frame buildings collapse at free fall speeds due to "fire" or whatever the cause was... was indeed a fantastic event, no matter what one might imagine of it. It seems to me that everyone should at least agree on that. But they probably won't as soon as someone from the wrong "tribe" says it.
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC
Closed Account
Or maybe that is days later and they were just shoved to the side of the road ASAP and are waiting to be cleaned up? Or perhaps there were so many cars to move they just took them to the nearest clear space and dumped them before going back for more?
How about you use Mick's examples of research to do some sleuthing yourself or try thinking up some real world reasons why things might not conform to your particular interpretation??
How about you use Mick's examples of research to do some sleuthing yourself or try thinking up some real world reasons why things might not conform to your particular interpretation??
EMP discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-nuclear-demolition-theory.1786/page-7
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-nuclear-demolition-theory.1786/page-7
Last edited:
Admiral Biscuit
Member
The burned cars near the scene look consistent with what I've seen of car fires back in that era (I was driving wrecker in Michigan back in 2000/2001).
I expect that the cars were moved off-scene to facilitate an emergency response, and getting the roads open as quickly as possible. At some point, before they could be disposed of, they'd have to be identified. Their owners would have to be notified, and I would imagine in many cases an insurance adjuster would have to come out and look at them before they would be scrapped.
In Michigan, at least, there's a process to dispose of an abandoned car. The registered owner of the vehicle has to be notified, and allowed to claim the car if he so desires. He can also waive his claim to it, but he is allowed to get personal belongings from the vehicle.
If a certain time period passes and that is not done, the car goes to auction. No matter what condition the car is in, it's auctioned. Junkyards and private individuals can bid on the cars; if there are no bids, then the cars are taken to a scrapyard.
I expect that the cars were moved off-scene to facilitate an emergency response, and getting the roads open as quickly as possible. At some point, before they could be disposed of, they'd have to be identified. Their owners would have to be notified, and I would imagine in many cases an insurance adjuster would have to come out and look at them before they would be scrapped.
In Michigan, at least, there's a process to dispose of an abandoned car. The registered owner of the vehicle has to be notified, and allowed to claim the car if he so desires. He can also waive his claim to it, but he is allowed to get personal belongings from the vehicle.
If a certain time period passes and that is not done, the car goes to auction. No matter what condition the car is in, it's auctioned. Junkyards and private individuals can bid on the cars; if there are no bids, then the cars are taken to a scrapyard.
Gamolon
Active Member
Information about cars being moved from their original location.
Here is a police car (car 2723) in it's original location. Notice the red oval and red arrow showing key aspects of the location such as the bend in the tree branch and the name of the hotel and stop light.
This car originally sat by the Millenium Hilton Hotel on Church street. Notice the red oval around the same tree branch bend and hotel name/stop light matching that in the previous photo.
Here is that same car (2723) now under the bridge after being moved.
Just another photo of the same car.
Here is a police car (car 2723) in it's original location. Notice the red oval and red arrow showing key aspects of the location such as the bend in the tree branch and the name of the hotel and stop light.
This car originally sat by the Millenium Hilton Hotel on Church street. Notice the red oval around the same tree branch bend and hotel name/stop light matching that in the previous photo.
Here is that same car (2723) now under the bridge after being moved.
Just another photo of the same car.
izz
New Member
So just to be sure what your saying is understood correctly..., there were no melted cars on 9/11, and all the cars that were clearly damaged on 9/11 were simply caused by regular ol normal fire...? (and, just google "car fire" backs it up)?The cars are not melted. There was just a big fire in that location, the combustible parts of the cars burned. That's all. Google "car fire"
Are we including all the cars up to 7 blocks away with vaporized engines? (Yes, that happened. Yes, it's confirmed. Yes, it's absolutely true and 100% fact.)
I'm not a car fire expert, but I can't seem to find a single incident of regular car fires that completely vaporize engine blocks and/or door handles. If you have a rational theory about what caused cars up to 7 blocks away to catch fire, without burning tons of easily flammable paper laying on and around them, I'm certainly intrigued to hear it.
How something could be hot enough to cause handles and engines to vanish, and even gut interiors but not the paper around it, is not logical. It may be a lot things, but a normal car fire is certainly not one of them.
As far as I know, collapsed buildings do not cause car fires (whether 10 blocks or 1), as sure as fire does not collapse high rise buildings made of 100's of tons of steel (whether regular gas or kerosene).
There's nothing normal or regular about anything that happened on 9/11. Things like that don't just happen. not all the time or even sometimes. They just don't. Trying to pretend they do goes beyond logic and reasoning.
Also, the notion that hundreds of cars were moved within minutes of the initial attack is absurd. Rest assure that was not the case, as they were hardly the main concern of focus for the day. That type of pulverized dust on those cars would have mostly come off during the lift & tilt, and the actual towing would have taken care of the rest. Especially if they were being hurried out the way that quickly. It's illogical to think so much of it could have remained throughout the actual process, even without rushing it.
Last edited:
izz
New Member
Notice the cars behind the fence under the bridge haven't moved (except for the white truck). Taking in to account the dust on the hoods to have reached that far, along with the extensive damage to cars as far as 9 blocks away, [off topic gish gallop removed]These cars were on the other side of the island. Someone would have to load each individual car, take it down the street, and then unload it? Why not take it to the junk yard? Someone stacked these cars and left them? What, their contract ran out before they reached the junk yard? That makes no sense.
At another location
Last edited by a moderator:
izz
New Member
Interesting. So which one of these car fires were caused by an unrelated incident that happened blocks away from it? Surely there must be something odd about them, like spontaneously combusting due to a building fire 7 blocks away, otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of comparison. Obviously "just fire" didn't turn a car upside down and wasn't the cause for those with the engines missing..., or maybe it was, I don't really know. Only you would know since your using them for comparison.Or "burned out car"
It's just fire.
What specific relations of "just fire" compares to the cars strangely damaged on 9/11 which were parked blocks away from the incident? Were papers in or surrounding them also left untouched? Is there one them without an engine due to "just fire?"
I have to ask or I'll be left utterly confused without the back stories and explanation of why these are being used in the first place.
EricL
Member
Here is a police car (car 2723) in it's original location. Notice the red oval and red arrow showing key aspects of the location such as the bend in the tree branch and the name of the hotel and stop light.
This car originally sat by the Millenium Hilton Hotel on Church street. Notice the red oval around the same tree branch bend and hotel name/stop light matching that in the previous photo.
Here is that same car (2723) now under the bridge after being moved.
Just another photo of the same car.
I see that there's been much discussion in the past about how there was *supposedly* no reasonable evidence that burned cars were hauled to a convenient location to quickly get them out of the way (though that whole notion makes perfect sense to me), so I'll take a moment and point out something else here. Note that in the first photo, the driver's door of this police car is virtually undamaged (except for a missing mirror and the fact that the plastic door handle has apparently been burned away). In the final photo of that car, the driver's door is severely mangled, and it has a big hole in the side. I'd say it makes perfect sense that this is forklift damage. Many laypersons are not aware that the "forklifts" most commonly used for crudely moving really large objects in a hurry are, in fact, big, front-end loaders with a forklift attachment in place of the bucket that people are used to seeing.
Here's a car with two "stab marks" in the back, a feature which is most-logically explained by the notion that this car has been impaled by one of these gigantic and speedy "forklifts" (again, simply a big front-end loader equipped with load forks) and carried to this site. Hey, when the operator is in a hurry and the car is already junk, it can be a lot quicker to just stab the car with the forks than to fiddle around trying to lift it from underneath and then needing to be careful that it doesn't tumble off when running down the street with it at 20 or 30 miles per hour.
[/QUOTE]
A poster from back when this portion of the discussion was initially active said something to the effect that the idea that forklift marks were present was some kind of wishful fantasy, but to me, having seen these things in action, the idea that these cars were put here in a hurry by a front-end loader equipped with forks fits perfectly with the visual evidence. Incidentally, it also fits with the lack of drag marks (previously used to dispute this idea) and the fact that one car is even stacked on top of another. The fact that the "stab holes" are more square could likely be explained by the forks being specialized for the job (such as could be the case for a loader recruited from a salvage yard), rather than forks that are specialized for lifting parcels off the ground.
I'm still a little shaky on posting photos from outside sites. This one's just a model, but it's a replica of the real thing.
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/larrys_model_railway/9655044700/
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
I'm not. I imagine most photographers living through the 9/11 situation would be ok with their photos being used to debunk people calling them all 'crisis actors'
If not they can ask their photos are removed.http://johnmuggenborg.photoshelter.com/image/I0000M41DqLwXy20
deirdre
Senior Member.
the only two I can find where Truthers are asking "where did the engine go?" are thee two.
In the big rig.. obviously we cant see the engine. as it is behind the door.
And the little hazmat milk truck thing... I'm not sure what they don't see, as I see engine parts there.
1.
2.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/7-9-11-01-wtc-terrorist-attack-steven-spak.html
jaydeehess
Senior Member
Are we supposed to believe that a space-a-beam vaporized engine blocks, large dense pieces of the vehicles, while not vaporizing wheel rims or bumpers?
That makes no sene.
That makes no sene.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
There are no car junk yards in Manhattan... all bridges and tunnels were closed.
Admiral Biscuit
Member
I have an Impala of that vintage (02), and those square holes in the decklid are for the taillights. They're not forklift marks.
Generally, cars are lifted from the side and underneath, since that's the strongest and most stable way to do it. I can't think of any reason (other than fun) for stabbing a car with the forks, at least as a general practice.
Generally, cars are lifted from the side and underneath, since that's the strongest and most stable way to do it. I can't think of any reason (other than fun) for stabbing a car with the forks, at least as a general practice.
NoParty
Senior Member.
[/QUOTE]
I hadn't been following this thread, but when I saw the pic, I bust out laughing.
Any (other) poor warehouse slob who's got stuck driving the forklift would also bust out laughing
at those square-ish holes: forks on a forklift are generally like spatulas
Hevach
Senior Member.
I used to be a forklift operator, mostly the counterbalance type from NoParty's post but I was also certified in the boom-arm style.
Two things: first, the precision needed to get the forks in such small holes just isn't happening. Especially with a big enough lift to get a car from the end like that. There's a reason pallets are basically open cages of wood, metal, or plastic. You can get them from almost any angle on either open end (or all four sides for most plastic ones) and give them a little nudge to square them.
That's assuming they're prepared holes, which they'd have to be. They're not spear holes, those would have a lot of denting and twisting around them and would be slots instead of square, and they're evenly centered so lack of precision still applies.
More importantly, the holes are above the frame of the car. I saw a guy spear the rear of a car that high and it just ripped the trunk and part of the roof off. There's nothing there to support the weight of the car.
When you pick up a car with a forklift, you do it from the side, between the wheels and under the cabin, closer to the front than the back, so the frame rests on the forks. From either end is a bad idea, but from the rear is the worst, because it leaves most of the weight in the engine hanging off the end of the forks.
Two things: first, the precision needed to get the forks in such small holes just isn't happening. Especially with a big enough lift to get a car from the end like that. There's a reason pallets are basically open cages of wood, metal, or plastic. You can get them from almost any angle on either open end (or all four sides for most plastic ones) and give them a little nudge to square them.
That's assuming they're prepared holes, which they'd have to be. They're not spear holes, those would have a lot of denting and twisting around them and would be slots instead of square, and they're evenly centered so lack of precision still applies.
More importantly, the holes are above the frame of the car. I saw a guy spear the rear of a car that high and it just ripped the trunk and part of the roof off. There's nothing there to support the weight of the car.
When you pick up a car with a forklift, you do it from the side, between the wheels and under the cabin, closer to the front than the back, so the frame rests on the forks. From either end is a bad idea, but from the rear is the worst, because it leaves most of the weight in the engine hanging off the end of the forks.
Last edited:
Here's a video showing some cars being moved with a forklift.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y9Icv8MSqc
However it's got an attachment:
Which allows for loading from the front.
Stabbing a car does not seem like it would work, for the reasons outlined in the two previous posts.
Similar threads
