Can a collapsing building melt hundreds of cars 7 blocks away?

[Darren Dirt]

Here's a collection of photos that have never made it onto the airwaves/webpages of the mainstream networks...
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html


Disturbing images... The real question remains: What might have caused this kind of damage?

[Lazybones]

It is not on mainstream because it is bad science, they are saying a beam weapon from space did it now? I have watched the complete footage, I was even watching the live footage, it is clear that two very large planes full of fuel crashed into the building, destablided the upper stucture and caused it to crash in on it self. The reason it crushes everything to dust is two fold. 1 it was a freaking tall skyscraper, to the inner and outer wall structures where such that the innerfloors stayed within as they went down on top of each other.

As for the dome they refer to, it is not at all the same thing, you need to compaire it to another skyscraper of similar construction to compare the amount of dust that it should create.

[Darren Dirt]

I know it's tempting to jump to the "conclusion" section of a site like this.


You said "The reason it crushes everything to dust is two fold..." but what about the photos showing the rescue workers walking upright immediately below, in the underground mall and subway station? You'd think that a collapse so intense that it turns concrete and office furniture into talcum-like powder would keep going, and punch through the ground, at least causing some roof collapses -- what kind of weight was that underground mall's roof designed to support? I would expect far less than the entire weight of the building falling on top of it. And how would a simple gravitational collapse cause the intense heat damage to those cars?



Might I suggest you temporarily ignore the "what caused it" speculative page (i.e. the second link). Heck, even ignore the speculations and theories comparing collapsing buildings. Instead simply consider what are your thoughts about the first linked page? Seriously.

A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. [Reference] These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles. What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not.

Look at those photos of those cars, forget the conclusion that you suspect (or know) that it is pointing to. Just ask yourself what you think about the damage your own two eyes are seeing. And the lack of damage around. And consider the fact that these images were not exactly on the front pages the days immediately following that horrible day. :-\

(Just cuz we don't know the answer to what "did" does not mean we are unable to dismiss the obvious answer to what "did not".)

[Lazybones]

You said "The reason it crushes everything to dust is two fold..." but what about the photos showing the rescue workers walking upright immediately below, in the underground mall and subway station? You'd think that a collapse so intense that it turns concrete and office furniture into talcum-like powder would punch through the ground more than it did... And how would a gravitational collapse cause the intense heat damage to those cars?

The sub structure of the building was incredibly strong as is the foundation of any tall building.. This is event as in the past the lower park aide at the WTC was bombed yet the building did not collapse because it was the strongest part.

The collapse of the building would only go as fast as gravity permits, minus the resistance of each level the derby slammed into. If anything the collapse probably got faster, then slower again near the bottom.. but not to any noticeable degree.

[Darren Dirt]

Okay, so as I suggested let's put aside the collapse issue for now, and the question of what made the building turn to toxic dust (search Google for WTC EPA and you'll find out about the more-than-just-simple-dust health issues that have been experience by Ground Zero rescue workers).


What about the intense heat damage to the cars, as seen in the photos? Do you recall ever seeing those photos, or seeing any MSM news stories mentioning them?



- - -

And btw the theory about the energy weapon, although it sounds like something out of a Bruckheimer movie, it's not exactly just speculative science fiction with no evidence (including MSM news coverage, and military documentation). ( Or perhaps billion-dollar contracts have produced nothing useable? )

[Mr. Analog]

1. Do we know for certain when these photos were taken?

2. Do we know that all these vehicles were in the same place at the same time?

3. Are there any reliable eyewitnesses to any of these happenings?

4. Why only unattended vehicles, why not vehicles on the road? What about people? Of the fatalities reported in NYC on September 11th are there not some who died in "unexplained" car accidents?

Suffice to say, I'm highly sceptical of this "report" because there is a lot of information without cited sources or references. There was a car park under the WTC, my suspicion is that these vehicles may have been towed out of the rubble into any convenient space possible (in front of other buildings, under no parking zones, etc). What sort of cinches the deal for me though is the fact that rescue vehicles are pictured too, there were several Ambulances, fire trucks, Department of Works vehicles, etc all at "ground zero" when both the first and second building collapsed.

Q: "Why do these vehicles appear to be burned out by intense heat and appear smushed?"
A: "Two giant burning buildings fell on them!"

Of course, this is only my conjecture, but I don't see it as being any more outrageous than Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

P.S. If the US Government has access to beam weapons, why haven't we blasted the @%&# out of North Korea or Iraq (before we went in)?

P.P.S. If the US Government has access to beam weapons I'M GLAD WE'RE ON THEIR SIDE.

[Lazybones]

Okay, so as I suggested let's put aside the collapse issue for now, and the question of what made the building turn to toxic dust (search Google for WTC EPA and you'll find out about the more-than-just-simple-dust health issues that have been experience by Ground Zero rescue workers).

Hundreds if not thousands of smoke detectors where crushed relesing the toxic contents. Not to mention thousands of PCs and monitors which are known to contain all sorts of nasty things. Many things in our houeholds are dangerious when smashed into dust.

What about the intense heat damage to the cars, as seen in the photos? Do you recall ever seeing those photos, or seeing any MSM news stories mentioning them? (See link below.)

What about the gas lines to the building where set on fire, and fire crews needed to wait for the main gas lines to be shut off so the fires would go down. A house was set on fire not far from my place, it burnt so intensly that it melted the siding off of every house for almost 100 meters in every direction. Now imagine the giant gas connections for two of the tallest buildings in the world on fire.. Bet it was intensly hot in many areas around the site.

[Thorin]

Okay, so we see a bunch of pictures for which we're given no real source information, artfully arranged together to prove a particular theory; in this case, a theory that the US government caused all the damage with some airplane- or space-borne beam weapon.  How come that particular theory holds more merit to you than the theory put forward by the government's agencies?  Is it that when a government agency compiles a document, it may get filled with lies?  Is it not possible that the people responsible for putting this website together have their own agenda and are filling their document (the site) with lies?

Oh, and to respond to the title of this thread:

Can a collapsing building melt hundreds of cars 7 blocks away?

I have no idea.  I have never been even close to collecting any empirical data to be able to answer such a question.  Neither have you.  Any opinion you may have formed on that question is purely theoretical and untested.  For all you know, it *is* possible; after all, you've never been able to collect the empirical evidence to prove it's *not*.  Ah yes, the basis of science: be skeptical of *every* theory until enough empirical evidence exists to support or refute the theory.

[Shayne]

Normally I would post some message about how the government wouldn't be able to do this type of thing as far to many people would be in the loop and blah blah blah.  Such a post would normally fall on deaf ears for the people thinking that "the man" is everywhere. So instead, as a tribute, I'm going to to take the Mr Analog approach and answer in a single picture.

[Mr. Analog]

LOL, spot on!