• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker

Banned
D
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
742
Has anyone explained the mysterious burns of these cars? Some are "fused" and welded. In., one case the front half is burned and the back untouched.

"WMD at the WTC" claims its proof of thermonuclear devices, but I hasten to add I dont agree with that.

Image8.jpg


Image9.jpg

Image11.jpg







Pictures from Judy Woods new paper: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html​
 
Yes, i would be curious as to how they find that partially burned cars equates to proof of Thermonuclear Explosion. How do they say this is so?

TAM
 
Docker said:

"WMD at the WTC" claims its proof of thermonuclear devices, but I hasten to add I dont agree with that.
Click to expand...

I'm interested to hear how they decided it was a thermonuclear device. Most specifically, how they ruled out normal fission weapons.
 
T.A.M. said:
Yes, i would be curious as to how they find that partially burned cars equates to proof of Thermonuclear Explosion. How do they say this is so?

TAM
Click to expand...

Well the point is that these cars were not near the towers, they werent hit by anything and didn't catch fire.
 
There is no mystery. The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 all caused numerous car and truck fires. Some of those were extinguished by the FDNY. Cars are not always totally consumed when they burn. Keep in mind that you've been getting information from the site of a woman who thinks "Star Wars Beams" were involved in the destruction of the towers.

Docker, you're way ahead of yourself. You've started three other threads in which you have not provided evidence for your claims. Why not get those resolved before moving on to other issues?

Still waiting for those north tower elevator/basement explosion witness accounts.
 
Huge burning towers fell over.

Burning wreckage thrown all over the place.

More stuff got burned.

How can twoofers miss such blatantly obvious explanations?
 
Anti-sophist said:
I'm interested to hear how they decided it was a thermonuclear device. Most specifically, how they ruled out normal fission weapons.
Click to expand...

I would be interested too, i'll watch the film when it surfaces on google.

They say thermonuclear because the burning of the cars show intense heat but no massive blast, something like a mini neutron bomb. I'm just paraphrasing them, they are talking garbage in my opinion
 
Yes the question is were the cars near the towers, then the wreckage of the cars moved to another locale, and hence where these picks were taken?

TAM
 
Docker said:
Well the point is that these cars were not near the towers, they werent hit by anything and didn't catch fire.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the accounts of the first responders. Several specifically mention the fires in that parking lot across West Street. And yes, many of those cars were hit with debris. See the damage? You do realize that fire can easily spread between vehicles that are parked next to each other, right?
 
Gravy said:
There is no mystery. The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 all caused numerous car and truck fires. Some of those were extinguished by the FDNY. Cars are not always totally consumed when they burn. Keep in mind that you've been getting information from the site of a woman who thinks "Star Wars Beams" were involved in the destruction of the towers.

Docker, you're way ahead of yourself. You've started three other threads in which you have not provided evidence for your claims. Why not get those resolved before moving on to other issues?

Still waiting for those north tower elevator/basement explosion witness accounts.
Click to expand...

Not true. I just got the pictures from Judy woods site. I don't endorse her work.

These pictures have been knocking around for ages.

Would you care to debunk Jowenko's quote, boss?
 
Docker said:
They say thermonuclear because the burning of the cars show intense heat but no massive blast, something like a mini neutron bomb.
Click to expand...
The thing is, hundreds of people were right there when it happened, particularly by the parking lot, and unless they were hit with debris, they survived.

Let's try to take this seriously, okay?
 
Docker said:
They say thermonuclear because the burning of the cars show intense heat but no massive blast, something like a mini neutron bomb. I'm just paraphrasing them, they are talking garbage in my opinion
Click to expand...


That's one of the more retarded things I have ever heard.

Of course, the presence of digital video footage of the WTC impacts and collapses proves it was not a nuclear device, but never mind.


It's also worth mentioning nuclear blasts have enormously massive shockwaves. Neutron warheads are significant because the actual fireball and blast area is much smaller, with higher radiation levels destroying electronics and killing people. I'm not aware that radiation alone from a nuclear blast will set cars outside the blast area alight.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
Please stop misrepresenting me. I have asked you several times now.

Is none of this sinking in yet?
Click to expand...
Docker, in bold print, you declared some of those cars "fused and welded." You asked about the "mystery." You said they were not hit with debris. I'm not misrepresenting you. You're behaving like a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom