IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Burning Vehicles At Ground Zero, Slide Show

DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 30 2009, 08:19 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



A number of vehicles around the WTC caught fire during the attack. In order to understand why some vehicles caught fire, it is important to collect as much evidence as possible. The slide show at the link is a collection of the visual evidence. I've tried to put them in (sort of) chronological order and when possible by location. The idea is o create a virtual walking tour through the damage.

Ground Zero Burning Cars - Slide Show

This is a work in progress. If anyone has any info or corrections please let me know, so that I can update the data. I've been able to map about half of the images. The other half I'm still working on and if anyone can id the locations or correct anything I've already identified, I would greatly appreciate it.

Enjoy!

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Nov 30 2009, 05:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 30 2009, 04:05 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Nov 30 2009, 04:19 AM) *


I've always been curious about all the locations relative to the towers.
...but there is a problem with the link.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Nov 30 2009, 04:53 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Morning lunk,

The link should be

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoY...mview=slideshow

Cheers,
KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 30 2009, 05:10 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 30 2009, 03:05 PM) *
I've always been curious about all the locations relative to the towers.
...but there is a problem with the link.
Oops. Fixed. Thanks!

doh1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 1 2009, 10:26 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It is these sort of pictures that give credence to Directed Energy Weapons.

Who knows?

Also the papers scattered everywhere would seem to mean something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Dec 1 2009, 08:17 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2009, 09:26 AM) *
It is these sort of pictures that give credence to Directed Energy Weapons.

Who knows?

Also the papers scattered everywhere would seem to mean something.

How on earth do these picture give credence to exotic untested weapons?

I really doubt the POB would resort to such things, when they didn't need to. The DOD has plenty of more conventional weapons and explosives that could do the job even better. The Twin Towers were not that hard to bring down. Anyone who actually bothered to study their construction, could figure out what parts of the structure to attack in order to get the buildings to fall down in a certain way. And whoever brought these buildings down did about as perfect a job as possible. They even controlled the direction most of the debris would fall.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Dec 1 2009, 09:26 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 2 2009, 02:26 AM) *
It is these sort of pictures that give credence to Directed Energy Weapons.

Who knows?

Also the papers scattered everywhere would seem to mean something.



I for one cannot tell when I see a picture of a burning car surrounded by intact, unburnt paper, how long that paper has been there and whether two seconds after the picture was taken, the paper didn't catch fire.


So, although interesting and some logical conclusions can be drawn from some of the photographic evidence, I think it is important to have the picture in context. For me, that would entail comparing a series of photos (including the burning car somewhere within the series) of how the fire progressed throughout the time frame of the series.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Dec 1 2009, 10:40 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



Existing window glass on a burned police car depicts signs of interior pressure blast which left most of the vehicle and a portion of it's glass intact.

What would cause the interior and the rear portion of these vehicles to heat up / explode / burn the way they have?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Dec 1 2009, 11:33 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (alanj @ Dec 1 2009, 08:26 PM) *
I for one cannot tell when I see a picture of a burning car surrounded by intact, unburnt paper, how long that paper has been there and whether two seconds after the picture was taken, the paper didn't catch fire.


So, although interesting and some logical conclusions can be drawn from some of the photographic evidence, I think it is important to have the picture in context. For me, that would entail comparing a series of photos (including the burning car somewhere within the series) of how the fire progressed throughout the time frame of the series.


Almost all of the pictures in the slide show were taken on 9/11. By the next day, most of the vehicles had been pushed to the curbs or taken away in order to clear the streets.

I've tried to organize the images so that the first one is from Liberty St which was on the S-SE side of the complex, from there they start going north on Church Street. Then from Church to the Vesey Street area, which is the NE corner of the complex, down Vesey to West Broadway where most of the damage is located. From there they continue over to the West Street, which is on the NW side of the complex.

Whenever images are available of the same scene at different times, I've put the pictures next to each other in order. So in some instances we are able to see the same vehicle at different points in time.

Most of the fires were extinguished by firemen at the scene, so that is why there are some vehicles that are only partially burnt.

The big question is why did so many vehicles burn? Except for the two pics from Liberty Street, which were taken after the planes hit but before the collapses and are clearly from burning debris that came down from the impact zones, the rest of the fires started after the first and second collapses. In most of these fires, there are large pieces of aluminum cladding nears the vehicles. But if the cladding was on fire and hot enough to cause fires to restart on the ground, then I think we would see lot's of other things burning, especially the paper that was everywhere. It seems that what ever caused the vehicles to catch fire, did not effect paper, concrete or people in the same way. So what would react with metal, but not with other materials?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 1 2009, 11:34 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Excellent collection!

I wonder, is there an over view map
of all the burnt vehicles?

I wonder if this is caused from radiant heat,
from very hot sources, or burning thermite
flung from the towers in the demolition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Dec 1 2009, 11:42 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 1 2009, 10:34 PM) *
Excellent collection!

I wonder, is there an over view map
of all the burnt vehicles?

I wonder if this is caused from radiant heat,
from very hot sources, or burning thermite
flung from the towers in the demolition.

This is one I started a few years ago. Unfortunately, I haven't updated it since then, so there are pictures in the slide show that I have not plotted on the map yet, but it still gives us some idea of the pattern of the damage.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Dec 2 2009, 01:18 AM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i am pleased that you brought these photos up.

one of the interesting aspects of the aftermath of the event[s] is that no entity cared to show the public any aerial photos[or any photos] of the wtc buildings.

that is what i liked about eric hufschmidt's fotoessay - painful deception.

to see wtc 4, 5, 6 on that day. photos that really were not aired for the public.

for me, to see those photos is to see that there was a whole lot more going on that day than aircraft colliding with terrain.

just as the collapse of wtc 7 has been avoided. just as the reconstruction of a building on that site, completed in 2006-7 has been avoided.

finally, do any of you know what happened to the gold, the silver in the nymex[comex] vaults?

perhaps there has been an accounting for it, i don't know of it, however. if you do, share your knowledge.

even the gold anti-trust action committee doesn't want to deal with what happened to the contents of those vaults.

melted? or were the events of that day a cover for the theft of those vaults?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Dec 2 2009, 04:45 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Dec 2 2009, 03:33 PM) *
It seems that what ever caused the vehicles to catch fire, did not effect paper, concrete or people in the same way. So what would react with metal, but not with other materials?

The main stumbling block for me though is still, if I'm only using these photos as my reference it still doesn't answer the question, how long had the paper been there and did the paper subsequently catch fire? I agree that if "..what ever caused the vehicles to catch fire, did not effect paper, concrete or people in the same way" then that is very interesting. But it's a big "IF" based on massive speculation and using just these brief glimpses of time to pose that question is a bit of a leap IMHO. I'm fascinated by Judy Wood's research and method (if indeed that is the school of thought that you are coming from) but this is one of the suppositions that does not quite gel for me. Lunk's explanation seems more likely and could explain pockets of isolated fire just as well, but we can only speculate.

In other areas of research in to the events of 9/11, researchers such as CIT and P4T have demonstrated a chronological series of events that indisputably support the case they are making. With the question you are posing, I do not get that same feeling of assurance using the photos alone. But, some of the observations that Dr. Wood has made using the photos of the day do raise an awful lot of questions that remain unanswered regardless of where the answers may lead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 2 2009, 05:56 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Hmmm, Wood,
no good.

I was interested in her work too, but
everything she pointed out, she thought,
was caused by space beams.

Then, she affiliated herself with Hutchison effect,
which i had already had looked into, and concluded,
that it was smoke and mirrors (and strings).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR2c0g4tVdM

The explanation, may be as simply as, a hot enough
source radiates heat, in all unblocked directions.

Don't you know, thermite is not enough.

She also took her theories to court, where the judge
not only threw them out, but banned any future "directed energy weapon" theories, going to court, in the future.

A thermo-nuclear device, is also a directed energy weapon,
and they tend to break glass, as well as,
radiate directional heat, and energy, a distance, that is reflected, not absorbed,
by white paper.

But we are not allowed to investigate this, any more,
due to the Wood work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Dec 2 2009, 05:56 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Hi Alan,

I've always thought Judy Wood's work was designed to "own" the burning cars so that mainstream people don't look into it too hard - she comes up with pseudo-scientific babble about beam weapons and thus turns people away from the main issue with the burning cars - namely that it is very, very odd and cannot be explained by the official fire and collapse theory. She then proceeds to claim that the molten metal and high temperatures under the remains of all 3 buildings is in fact a hoax and thus turns people away from the main issue with the molten metal - namely that it is very, very odd and cannot be explained by the official fire and collapse theory.

Most of the post-collapse events are very hard to piece together chronologically unfortunately.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Dec 2 2009, 04:36 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



QUOTE (KP50 @ Dec 2 2009, 09:56 PM) *
Hi Alan,

I've always thought Judy Wood's work was designed to "own" the burning cars so that mainstream people don't look into it too hard - she comes up with pseudo-scientific babble about beam weapons and thus turns people away from the main issue with the burning cars - namely that it is very, very odd and cannot be explained by the official fire and collapse theory. She then proceeds to claim that the molten metal and high temperatures under the remains of all 3 buildings is in fact a hoax and thus turns people away from the main issue with the molten metal - namely that it is very, very odd and cannot be explained by the official fire and collapse theory.

Most of the post-collapse events are very hard to piece together chronologically unfortunately.

Hi KP50 hi Lunk, hope it's a bit warmer where you are, Christchurch has been cold and wet now we are officially in summer!

I guess this isn't the place to debate the validity of any one piece of research, and I am definitely not going to defend Judy Wood. I agree wholeheartedly with what your saying (although she has seemingly tried to distance herself from the "space beams" moniker and I agree aligning herself with John Hutchinson lost any credibility she might have once fostered, especially when you check out some of the other links to that work) but she still uses the photos to point out some interesting observations (even though her conclusions may be skewed!).

But, like the paper not burning next to a burning car, some of her observations are based on photos that have been taken out of context and if you compare the photo to a video clip of the similar episode (whether it be the collapse of the towers or whatever) those observations are oftentimes a bit contrived. Which is how I feel about the topic of this thread and that's all I'm trying to point out when I bring her name up.

My point is that, these photos on their own are wildly speculative nowhere on a par with the extraordinary work that Craig and Aldo of CIT and everybody at P4T involved with the analysis of the FDR and other key technical issues has managed to put together through their hard work.

If there was some more supporting evidence that could be used to establish any peculiarities I would feel stronger about the issue, that's all I'm trying to say. Are there any other sources (such as the firefighters on the day) who report how unusual these scenes were?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Dec 2 2009, 06:32 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Morning Alan,

It is certainly warmer where I am Alan, in the sunny North Island of NZ where it has rained all week.

I agree with what you say, the burning cars is more of an oddity than a smoking gun. This photo on Wood's site



appears to show cars catching fire in the dust cloud from the collapse of the North Tower (and not on fire after the immediate rain of heavier debris). The car park is some way away from the North Tower (further than building 7). So the question is, what in the dust cloud could possibly cause these cars to combust?

KP

QUOTE (alanj @ Dec 3 2009, 09:36 AM) *
Hi KP50 hi Lunk, hope it's a bit warmer where you are, Christchurch has been cold and wet now we are officially in summer!

I guess this isn't the place to debate the validity of any one piece of research, and I am definitely not going to defend Judy Wood. I agree wholeheartedly with what your saying (although she has seemingly tried to distance herself from the "space beams" moniker and I agree aligning herself with John Hutchinson lost any credibility she might have once fostered, especially when you check out some of the other links to that work) but she still uses the photos to point out some interesting observations (even though her conclusions may be skewed!).

But, like the paper not burning next to a burning car, some of her observations are based on photos that have been taken out of context and if you compare the photo to a video clip of the similar episode (whether it be the collapse of the towers or whatever) those observations are oftentimes a bit contrived. Which is how I feel about the topic of this thread and that's all I'm trying to point out when I bring her name up.

My point is that, these photos on their own are wildly speculative nowhere on a par with the extraordinary work that Craig and Aldo of CIT and everybody at P4T involved with the analysis of the FDR and other key technical issues has managed to put together through their hard work.

If there was some more supporting evidence that could be used to establish any peculiarities I would feel stronger about the issue, that's all I'm trying to say. Are there any other sources (such as the firefighters on the day) who report how unusual these scenes were?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Dec 2 2009, 07:15 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



QUOTE (KP50 @ Dec 3 2009, 11:32 AM) *
This photo on Wood's site appears to show cars catching fire in the dust cloud from the collapse of the North Tower (and not on fire after the immediate rain of heavier debris). The car park is some way away from the North Tower (further than building 7). So the question is, what in the dust cloud could possibly cause these cars to combust?

KP


A very dramatic photograph, but without wishing to sound too argumentative, are they actually in the process of "catching fire" as the dust cloud moves through? Is that corroborated by anything other than this photo? I see cars on fire but saying that it is the dust cloud causing it is a bit of a leap based on this one photo . I would like to see a series of photos (or a video clip if anybody has a link) showing the progression of the dust cloud before and after and see if the cars actually do catch fire as the result of the dust cloud touching them or hear from witnesses who were caught by the cloud that saw cars catching fire left and right as they ran, I personally can't make that association from an isolated photograph.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm nit-picking I don't mean to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Dec 2 2009, 07:37 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (KP50 @ Dec 2 2009, 05:32 PM) *
Morning Alan,

It is certainly warmer where I am Alan, in the sunny North Island of NZ where it has rained all week.

I agree with what you say, the burning cars is more of an oddity than a smoking gun. This photo on Wood's site appears to show cars catching fire in the dust cloud from the collapse of the North Tower (and not on fire after the immediate rain of heavier debris). The car park is some way away from the North Tower (further than building 7). So the question is, what in the dust cloud could possibly cause these cars to combust?

KP

First of all, Wood is not the original source for that photo. Like all the other photos on her site, they are just images she's found and posted there. Unfortunately, Wood does not follow good data collection procedures and many people have the impression that these are 'her' photos.


As far as I can tell, this is the original source for the West Street Parking Lot images.

911-images

Hi'adanie Website

Anyone can put together a bunch of pictures and then make up nonsense about what they mean. That is not what I am doing here. All I've done so far is to collect and document the available data, which in this case consists of images of burning vehicles taken at Ground Zero on 9/11. At this point, I am no where near being able to draw any conclusions, not without presenting this data to other people who have more expertise then I do in regards to how thermite, nanothermite and other types of explosives that were used to destroy the Twin Towers work and react to various materials.



The claim that the paper did not burn is simply not true. It is clear in the above image, that the fire in this area did spread to the paper. There are other images in the collection where the paper did burn, but I'm not collecting pictures of paper burning, I'm collection pictures of burning cars.
Since there were literally 100's of fireman all around the WTC complex, most of these fires were put out very quickly and that is why they did not spread. I guess the firemen were all suppose to stand around and do nothing?

Unfortunately, some people who call themselves 9/11 researchers do not have the background or training to do credible work. I believe Ms Woods claim to fame before 9/11 was a paper or 2 on dental engineering? That wouldn't matter if she would use the scientific method properly. But she doesn't. I first got to know her work, when she was posting on Democratic Underground under the name Jane Doe. Then she became Fetzer's darling and I think the spotlight went to her ditsy head.

What she does is form the most radical hypothesis and then refuses to test it, but instead she cherry picks the data (images) to support her conclusions. She refuses to consider any other possibilities or evidence that might prove otherwise. That is not good science.

Before anyone can figure out how the buildings were blown up, you have to understand how they were built. Yet, most people who claim that exotic energy beam weapons destroyed the WTC, seem to have no interest in how these buildings were constructed. Only when you understand their construction, can you see how they were taken apart.

The reason why I've spent time putting together the 'burning vehicles' collection is because I think this is important evidence. But the pictures alone are not enough. It takes looking at these images for a long time, plotting their locations and figuring out the chronology of these images, for them to have any real meaning. One advantage I have is that I grew up in NYC, I've walked these streets and I've been inside the Twin Towers. I don't think people who have never been there can understand how massive these buildings were and strongly they were built. Steel buildings don't just fall down at near freefall speed, without the help of very well placed explosives and there is plenty of visual evidence from the collapses that supports this. These pictures are important clues to what happened that morning and it is a shame that so much effort has gone into corrupting their meaning.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Dec 2 2009, 07:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Dec 2 2009, 09:10 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (alanj @ Dec 3 2009, 12:15 PM) *
A very dramatic photograph, but without wishing to sound too argumentative, are they actually in the process of "catching fire" as the dust cloud moves through? Is that corroborated by anything other than this photo? I see cars on fire but saying that it is the dust cloud causing it is a bit of a leap based on this one photo . I would like to see a series of photos (or a video clip if anybody has a link) showing the progression of the dust cloud before and after and see if the cars actually do catch fire as the result of the dust cloud touching them or hear from witnesses who were caught by the cloud that saw cars catching fire left and right as they ran, I personally can't make that association from an isolated photograph.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm nit-picking I don't mean to.

There is a sort of sequence on Judy Wood's website but I didn't really want to drive any traffic there. The problem is that the "sequence" consists of photos from different angles and different sources so while you can see a photo of the North Tower collapsing without the cars on fire, you don't know how much later is the photo I posted above.

My surmise that the fires are caused by the dust cloud is caused by an absence of any other rational reason for the cars to catch fire. I agree it isn't great evidence either way, it just interests me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th November 2019 - 03:16 AM