New 9/11 Destruction Video Begs The Question: What Destroyed These Vehicles?
New 9/11 Destruction Video Begs The Question: What Destroyed These Vehicles?
Recently a new video taken on 9/11/2001 has surfaced on YouTube.com. The video shows lines of cars on a street that appear to have been destroyed byintense heat.
These images were taken from that video which I've included below. The date is 9/11/2001, before the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
The reporter says he's at "West Broadway and Barkley".
So
what do you suppose caused those cars to end up like that? Are there any examples of buildings collapsing and incinerating all the vehicles
around it?
This image shows the inside of a police car that was sitting on the street. As you can see the seats are entirely burnt down to practically nothing.
It's as if a huge fireball traveled down the street and incinerated everything in its path.
demolition explosives overkill...
creating hot pyroclastic flows igniting most combustible materials within the immediate vicinity around the demolished structures?
Great video. I haven't seen that one before.
I don't think it was overkill...
Remember,the major difference in terms of the demolition itself (there have been occasions where they created "top down" demolitions in the past) was the need to destroy the concrete floors. Not only would they have gotten in the way of the falling debris in the demolition itself, but typically a controlled demo company will have to pay for the clean-up so they do what they can to minimize the dust clouds. Well, in this case, the local, state, and federal government (ie. you and I) werre to pay for it, so why not completely pulverize them?
But you are correct, all the fires were caused by molten material in the clouds. Not just steel, but other material that was vaporized due to the massive amounts of high explosives used in the demolition of the Twin Towers. In my opinion, of course.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
My guess: As we know, in a
My guess:
As we know, in a conventional demolition the inertia of the structure hitting the ground provides most of the energy required to break up the building after the supporting structure is strategically removed to induce a fall.
The elaborate hoax of explaining collapse due to the aircraft's impacts required top down collapse starting from the level of the impacts. The biggest problem with this would be collateral damage to the surrounding area / buildings/ pedestrians as it would be impossible to control the trajectory of the falling building once it was top heavy and falling apart. Therefore I would suggest the best solution was to obliterate the building into dust top down
so that massive chunks of building weren't falling unpredictably. This makes more sense to me than the economics of the clean up.
Hence the need for much more
Hence the need for much more explosives than would normally be used in a standard demolition, which could be considered "overkill" compared with a normal demolition, and which resulted in much more intense and hotter pyroclastic flows causing the unusual effects to the vehicles near by.
It's not really a "guess" .. we can all see what they did
Well, I agree with you, hense the first part of what I wrote...
"Not only would they have gotten in the way of the falling debris in the demolition itself..."
With 110 concrete sections nearly an acre each in size, the physics of the demolition process becomes much more difficult to control and therefore also more difficult to design. Therefore the obvious solution would be to get them out of the way even before the linear shaped charges "cut' the steel frame.
However, in a cost driven, privatized world, never underestimate the power of the bottom line. I doubt their contract to clean it up was "cost plus"... but you never know.
There is another aspect to consider though.
If they had to remove massive concrete sections of flooring systems, the clean-up would have taken much longer than it did. The clean up would have taken longer and thus the sifting that took place at fresh-kills would have taken longer and therefore their exposure to possible discovery would have also been greater, in my opinion again of course.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Ok I missed the meaning of
Ok I missed the meaning of your first part & thought it was referring to collapse mechanics .
I accept your secondary reason too, with the additional thought that since the buildings were asbestos ridden, there would be a huge problem trying to break up the floors after collapse with explosives etc because of the environmental impact.(The same reason given for the port authority being denied permission to demolish the out of date and dysfunctional buildings on "numerous" occasions before 911.-Allegedly.
Much better to blow it all into NYC dust before anyone got to consider public health issues,(Wheras collateral damage to buildings is of course just business!)
I wish there was more concrete documentation to back up these alleged applications for demolition of the towers pre 911 but all mentions seem to relate back to an unsupported
news article. The whole question of the asbestos abatement problem in the towers seems to me to be critical to the fate of the buildings but "records were lost in the collapse" etc and then Haliburton & others claim the problem was only lower floors in one tower etc, and had been extracted successfully, wheras other stuff I read said they were riddled with asbestos top down and it was also in the partition walls etc ?(From memory - no links)
It always seems to be the case (Like the culpability of others outside the frame (This site -Keenan recently vis Kevin Ryan etc)that the most interesting aspects are those where there is the least noise and least available evidence
(Asbestos)
Also I noticed after the hysterical recriminations against BP over the gulf spill that Haliburton seemed to have a knack of escaping due scrutiny (AS BP now suggest the whole problem including all fail safes failing was largely due to a bad cement job by Haliburton) They have good PR people working for them(or something) keeping them out of Fox news and Obama's rhetoric etc....
As I understand it Haliburton made a "Suicidal" ill advised deal to take over the firm responsible for asbestos abatement of the buildings and elswhere, in a deal which could potentially have bacfired and ruined the company.
Obviously just venting speculation,---- I have no Thesis to put under scrutiny here.
absolutely
I remember writing an article about how 'Lucky" Larry got off big-time because, from what I remember, there had been an estimate to demo the towers at somewhere around a billion dollars and 5 years of work. I think, if I am not mistaken, that estimate was done sometime in 1998 or so, but again, that is just from memory.
Of course the cost of that process was so high because they couldn't just demo the building for several reasons.. one being it's height and the other being the asbestos. They knew the cloud would poison thousands of New Yorkers and they would be open to lawsuits out the ying-yang.
But, like you said, in this case, the "terrorists" are to blame and the federal government (you and me and our grandkids) pick up the tab.
"Lucky" Larry didn't even have to shell out the cash for the demo.. my guess is that came from the missing 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld announced was "missing" from the Pentagon budget on Sept. 10th 2001. But that is only a guess.
But you are correct. The asbestos had to factor into the decision to use the "overkill" Keenan is talking about.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
This is exactly the (Brick
This is exactly the (Brick by Brick)scenario I have been interested in for ages but from time to time I try to find paper trails to the applications & denials for demolition & required dismantling & the extent of the asbestos problem and it all seems to have disappeared with the buildings,- other than an often repeated allegation from a web news article without sources.!
I'm Jack
Hey all my name is Jack or Jack A Lope as I go by. I just stumbled on this and thought I would point out few things that haven't been widely disseminated.
To begin with I really doubt that these vehicles where incinerated by any classical means such as fire or extremely hot gasses from the use of conventional explosives. The reason I say this is because the evidence doesn't support it. There where a few instances where rivers of molten metal where flowing down the gutters nearest to the collapsed buildings and caught the tires of vehicles parked there on fire but then one has to ask what melted the metal.
Not just melted it but melted it to such a degree that it was able to flow down the street and in such a volume that it formed rivers. Kerosene based jet fuel does not have that capability. So what does? Conventional demolitions? Not the kind used in controlled demolitions. They use primer cords and shaped charges that are relatively small and if conventional explosives where used to pulverize the floor spans we would have still found the rather thick gaged corrugated steal floor pans that the concrete was poured on top of some where in the debris pile. I have yet to find any photos showing any thing close to what would be expected. They are just absent.
To cause spontaneous combustion by way of thermal radiation alone, those dust clouds would need to be in the range of a thousand degrees or better and they certainly weren't that hot. I doubt that the pyroclastic looking flows where even hot enough to singe peoples hair as many people where interviewed as they emerged from these clouds. All of which where coughing, gasping, covered from head to toe and choking on mouth fulls of god knows what, but to my recollection, no body was smoldering or on fire. Many of those interviewed said the dust cloud swept them off their feet and carried them down the street and that it was warm, but warm doesn't cause cars to spontaneously combust. So what does?
I am going to come back and add more to this but I think it deserves more than just my opinion so let me gather together my references and research materials so I can validate my argument a little better. There is a lot more to add to this. I have barely scratched the surface so far.
If There is an image host here that I can upload to it would make things easier and a document server would really make it easier as I have most of the pertinent documents on my PC. It is my first time here so I have to ask. I'll poke around a bit and see if I can't answer these questions my self.
Cheers for now
Jack
hi Jack...
I accidentally deleted your account while cleaning out the spambot account requests--would you mind re-registering? Sorry about that!