Blue_Tackler wrote:
A pencil is hollowed out in the middle to be filled with brittle lead. But the same is true for pretty much any object given high velocity because of the amount of energy it possesses. A heavily fueled Boeing plane traveling at 400mph contains more kinetic energy than the capable stress energy of the steel beams which is why it's able to shear through them. You can find the scientific calculations for it all somewhere. I disagree the wings should fall off because again, their shape and speed, coupled with the very heavy mass of the engines (which weigh about 5 tonnes each) would ensure penetration even if they did decouple from the fuselage.
I'd be very skeptical about anything from the webfairy.

Ok Space Bandit I shall submit the point as I can not provide further evidence.

Another point if you don't mind looking it over.....

Cars are 'toasted' half a mile away from the WTC location, this in your opinion is caused by ........... ?

And why would cars be burned/toasted/deformed half a mile away ,by this mysterious source and paper is not burned?

Edit - Oh yeah link drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#map

Another photo from the above link.

Notice how the middle section of cars in the car park are 'toasted' yet the others appear not to be....
It seems like an energy source of some type has been channelled through the car park.

can't believe people still believe judy wood on this.
this madness is why i distanced myself from large chunks of the so called 9/11 "movement" ... especially all areas who follow judy.

conventional explosives explains a lot of what we saw on 9/11 not sat based weaponry.

i guess some people just want to be extra extravagant in their conclusions as to what happened on 9/11.. judy wood being one of them.

sorry but she is still and always will be a fraud in my eyes.

My question is not 'is Dr Wood a fraud'.
My question is what happened to the cars, what caused them to deform and singe over half a mile from the WTC towers.

I'm looking for logical and rational explanations not allegations about the theories of individuals.

you said in the post about the cars....

"Notice how the middle section of cars in the car park are 'toasted' yet the others appear not to be...."

it's called seat of a fire, or do you reckon because some cars were burnt out and twisted due to heat of said fire all cars should be... doesnt make any sense.

you mention in previous post showing a line of burnt out wrecks lying under a underpass...... call me crazy but i would say they were probably towed there for collection at a later date.

you also mention / ask why paper seems to be scattered around and not burnt ..............simple explanation really.
have you seen other pictures from buildings that were blown out by explosives?..... paper and other contents get blown out of said buildings by the concussion / blast wave caused by explosions.

you wanted logic there ya go, whether you accept it as it is and not try reaching for the extra spicy explanation is up to you.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I can't remember tbh I've seen it explained & Skanny gives good reasoning for it.
I'm not necessarily a disbeliever in the space weapons theory although I think it quite unlikely, I just don't buy into no planes at all.

I hear you skinny, I just think it needs more investigation than to simply dismiss it.
See these cars here... There is a lot less dust under them than around them, it's clearer to see this on the cars parked further up the road.
Now we could put this down to, the dust didn't fall until after the cars were 'towed' there or we could put it down to something out of the ordinary occurred to damage those cars where they were already parked?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
there would have been "dust" falling / being kicked up on a wide area long after the towers came down though .. no?
all the construction wagons kicking about and the cleanup process, notto mention the wind picking up the dust and carrying it about for weeks after the event.

and to note... look at the damage to the cars, i see crush damaged cars, fire damaged cars etc etc... to me they just look as though they have towed there and dumped to clear access routes to and from the scene there must have been thousands of cars destroyed / abandoned by their owners.

i find it a bit too much to believe tbh ... it is usally best to stick to what is reasonable and provable until you know for sure of something else before people like judy wood tells us what we should believe... i just dont see her argument bearing fruit at all.

i still stand by my feelings on judy wood, she doesnt make any sense and her "explanations" are pretty thin and you have to discount a ton of facts to swallow her theory.

for a scientist with her qualifications she sure doesnt explain anything in a scientific way at all tbh... i am totally convinced she is a disinfo agent.

Sorry for typing skinny instead of skanny it was just a typ0.

The question remains, if a load of rubble fell on those cars, they were crushed by WTC falling on them, why would a load of rubble and dust cause a car to scorch, surely if anything such material would cause a suffocation of fire, as for the cars in the car park on one of the above photo's (reposted), why would cars in the middle of a car park catch fire?
What in your opinion would cause them to ignite, there is no rubble or bits of 'tower' (just dust) anywhere near them, so are we to construct a theory that some type of flammable material went along to the car park and caused the middle section of cars in the car park to ignite?

I cant see what part of 'buildings collapsing' would cause cars, in that car park to catch fire, or to even scorch cars in general?

Here is a photo of what I assume to be that very car park, displayed on one of my previous posts, (reposted) the cars are actually still burning, it seems, I can't see anything that would have triggered the cars in the middle to burn and not the others, so it's not the 'seat of the fire' as you described, but more like, some cars had reason to burn whilst others did not, I wonder what this reason was?

Unless I've made a mistake and it's not the same car park, either way, then we have two instances of some cars catching fire/scorching and some not so, in the same locations. Why would this energy source effect some cars and no others? it's not the 'seat of the fire' it's fire selection.

On the bottom photo we can see, group of cars in the middle, about 10 in a small pack, unburned, but they have cars to the left, right and in front all burned, this means the fire energy made an impact on the cars in the car park that missed about 10 cars in the middle but toasted the cars around them, there is another instance in the bottom photo where there are (just to the left of the middle) two completely toasted/scorched cars next to each other, yet another car directly behind them seemingly intact/showing no signs of heat damage?

kinda pointless going round in cirlces with you tbh, this is why i stopped trying to reason with judy wood supporters, its a circular argument that never ends and i for one dont chase other peoples tails.

you are entitled to believe what you like and discount any and all other rational / logical explanations for what you see.

i see cars damaged by debris from the buildings in the wtc complex, remember burning debris can be seen being ejected from buildings, large pieces of steel, molten white hot material, but you still claim space based weapons.

you will continue to see what you want to see no matter any explanation given no matter how reasonable they may be you will still choose to grasp at straws to uphold your belief system as to what happened.

Skanny wrote:
Ok that's fine by me, I don't know why you chose to post on a thread with people that you disagree with, and then opt out when they refer you to the evidence that you ignore.

On the photo where we see cars on fire in the car park, there is no bits of burning debris to be seen anywhere, I don't see any evidence of any molten debris in the car park, on my previous post.

I don't understand where you get 'pieces of steel, molten white hot material' from?

Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging.

www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/772/hy...quipment-reliability

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius).
Steve Jones suggests we only need 845°C to 1,040°C to explain our glowing steel.

Either way hydraulic fluid systems would fail at such temperatures


To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.
www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

oh dear.... you quoting from 911myths.... lol???

appears it may not just be judy wood that are disinfo.

Skanny wrote:
Oh I get it now, everything that you disagree with is 'disinfo'

Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging.

www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/772/hy...quipment-reliability
'disinfo' ?

Contact-free measurement of the temperature of molten steel boosts the productivity of arc furnaces. That’s why Siemens has developed a system called Simetal RCB Temp, which consists of an optical sensor that can determine the temperature of the molten metal in the steel production process (over 1,500 degrees Celsius) at shorter intervals than was previously the case. As a result, the best time to tap can be determined more exactly, thus saving time and energy and increasing work safety

Read more at: phys.org/news/2011-08-eye-liquid-steel-temperatures.html#jCp
'disinfo' ?

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

'disinfo' ?

What their describing is likely molten metal that is on steel, the steel was not molten and flying down the road into a car park

Those temperatures would have stopped the hydraulic machines from working you know 'Tonker toys' no worky worky at molten steel temperatures.

I don't see one bit of 'molten steel'

"Oh I get it now, everything that you disagree with is 'disinfo'"

no... you claiming there was no molten metal at ground zero is disinfo, there's a differance.

"What their describing is likely molten metal that is on steel" .. you make no sense whatsoever.

i notice how you just skip over anything that disputes you and judy's nonsense..... you will be quoting popular mechanics next.

They are describing the Hutchinson effect exactly we even see the deformed steel exactly as described, yes we see that, liquid molten steel, no Mr I don't see that.

Skanny wrote:
Try a pay attention, other metals go molten at lesser temperatures than construction steel, let me know when you've processed that information and I'll chuck you another nugget of knowledge.