FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - Molten Metal
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carcdr wrote:
Lord Carpainter wrote:

It wouldn't need to get knocked back because it would simply be redirecting energy that it received from a ground base. It would simply redirect that energy in a focused fashion to the desired target.

No. If enough energy to whack WTC was delivered, then whatever was in the way (even a perfect mirror) took a hit from that energy.

Now, if you want to argue that classical physics was side-stepped, OK, but give me more explicit details. E.G. explain how energy that crushed the WTC towers was bounced off of a mirror without crushing the mirror in the process.

Frankly, I think that Tesla may have discovered something new. But, without details, all we can do is sift the data and see if there is anything that cannot be explained by any of the physics we already know.

Quote:

Also, how could explosives explain the flipped cars,

Explosives don't explain the flipped cars.

Front-end loaders, clearing the way for rescue crews do explain the flipped cars.

Quote:

the melted/wilting cars,

Google for car crashes. (Try the phrase "car crash"). Look at the photos where the cars caught fire. Explain how the burned cars look any different from the ones at WTC on 911.

The appearance of the burnt cars at WTC is very (if not exactly) similar to cars that burned in car crashes.

I admit that I find it odd that many of the 911 photos show cars burning at the front (engine compartments, I assume). I don't understand why cars would preferentially burn at the engine end instead of at the gas-tank end.

Still, the end results were burnt-out cars that looked no different from burnt-out cars (and fire engines) involved in highway accidents.

The burn patterns on the 911 cars are no different from burn patterns in highway accidents. The melted grills, the toasted paint vs. untoasted paint, etc.

One other theory I keep in contention is that of the use of thermobaric weapons within the WTC towers. Thermobarics produce a shock wave and a heat wave. This would also explain the flipped cars (although more exotically than the simple use of front-end loaders). It would explain the front-end burn patterns on cars - e.g. rescue workers would have driven towards the towers, parked, then ran on foot. Their cars would be facing the towers. If the thermobaric heat wave emanated from the towers, it would have toasted the cars on the sides facing the towers (i.e. the front ends).

The thermobaric theory has its own set of problems, though.

Quote:

the weird holes,

I don't know. I agree that the holes look weird when viewed from above.

Quote:

the fuming,

I don't know.

I am not even sure that this has been reported accurately.

Quote:

the weird fires,

What weird fires?

Quote:

and the bent/twisted beams?

This is easily explained by the blown-from-within theory.

If one set of entrained explosives went off moments before the other set, then a differential heating pattern could have occurred and might have caused curdling.

Quote:
I think unknown exotic weaponry was used. Black technology.

You are resorting to magic in trying to understand the WTC collapses.

Magic has been used for eons to fool people, employing only simple trickery. It is a sleight of hand and relies on proven technology.

911 can be explained using simple technologies - CGI (Toy Story, et al) and embedded explosives. If you want to explain it using more complicated technologies, then the onus is on you to provide clear details of how the complicated technologies work and how they were deployed.


Quote:
Now, if you want to argue that classical physics was side-stepped, OK, but give me more explicit details. E.G. explain how energy that crushed the WTC towers was bounced off of a mirror without crushing the mirror in the process.


I am not the one who thought of this idea. This was official stuff.

"Also underway are dual mirror systems which will be based in space or suspended from large, high flying airships. They will be able to receive laser energy from ground systems or space-based lasers, then redirect that energy to targets around the world." http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+octopus&sitesearch= (23:43-24:04)

Quote:
Explosives don't explain the flipped cars.

Front-end loaders, clearing the way for rescue crews do explain the flipped cars.








Quote:
Google for car crashes. (Try the phrase "car crash"). Look at the photos where the cars caught fire. Explain how the burned cars look any different from the ones at WTC on 911.

The appearance of the burnt cars at WTC is very (if not exactly) similar to cars that burned in car crashes.

I admit that I find it odd that many of the 911 photos show cars burning at the front (engine compartments, I assume). I don't understand why cars would preferentially burn at the engine end instead of at the gas-tank end.

Still, the end results were burnt-out cars that looked no different from burnt-out cars (and fire engines) involved in highway accidents.

The burn patterns on the 911 cars are no different from burn patterns in highway accidents. The melted grills, the toasted paint vs. untoasted paint, etc.

One other theory I keep in contention is that of the use of thermobaric weapons within the WTC towers. Thermobarics produce a shock wave and a heat wave. This would also explain the flipped cars (although more exotically than the simple use of front-end loaders). It would explain the front-end burn patterns on cars - e.g. rescue workers would have driven towards the towers, parked, then ran on foot. Their cars would be facing the towers. If the thermobaric heat wave emanated from the towers, it would have toasted the cars on the sides facing the towers (i.e. the front ends).

The thermobaric theory has its own set of problems, though.


I googled "car crash" and "burnt car" but I was unable to find anything that really showed the same type of anomalies at the WTC. Especially the wilting. I was not able to find vehicles that had certain parts wilting like dead plants, like this firetruck ladder:



Quote:
What weird fires?




This firefighter does not appear to be hurt by walking through this fire.



Why is the paper not lighting on fire when the cars are? Looking at this photo, every piece of paper on that street should have caught fire, but they didn't. Why was paper unaffected by this fire when cars were?

Quote:
You are resorting to magic in trying to understand the WTC collapses.

Magic has been used for eons to fool people, employing only simple trickery. It is a sleight of hand and relies on proven technology.

911 can be explained using simple technologies - CGI (Toy Story, et al) and embedded explosives. If you want to explain it using more complicated technologies, then the onus is on you to provide clear details of how the complicated technologies work and how they were deployed.


Watch 911 Octopus. It accurately explains the motives behind using covert technology.

Quote:
This is easily explained by the blown-from-within theory.

If one set of entrained explosives went off moments before the other set, then a differential heating pattern could have occurred and might have caused curdling.


I agree, but this is also consistent with Directed Energy. John Hutchison found that "The Hutchison Effect" had strange effects on metal beams, such as this:



At the WTC:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:

I googled "car crash" and "burnt car" but I was unable to find anything that really showed the same type of anomalies at the WTC.


Try harder. Here's an example:

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/accident_story/3-10-04.html

and here is a further analysis of toasted cars:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=218&topic_id=3488

(As a side note, the member DoYouEverWonder of
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/, found many of the photos used by Judy Wood, long before she mentioned them).

Quote:

Especially the wilting. I was not able to find vehicles that had certain parts wilting like dead plants, like this firetruck ladder:



Which way was the truck pointing (towards WTC, possibly)?

Where was the engine in this truck?

What material was the wilted ladder made out of? Was the the rest of the ladder made out of the same material?

If some energy (dissociation) beam was targeted for certain materials, then why is only a portion of the ladder wilted? Shouldn't the whole ladder be wilted, if a material-sensitive beam was used? When I examine the toasted cars, what I see is that the front ends of the cars/trucks were toasted, regardless of the material used in them. This would indicate that the toasting "force" was directional and not selective. Again, the emergency vehicles would have been parked facing the WTC plaza. The fact that the toasting occurred at their front ends implies that some outward heat flash toasted them and not a space-based energy beam. The cars at the Embassy Suites parking lot were also directionally toasted - not all of the cars were facing the WTC, but the burn pattern appears directional to me.

Quote:
Quote:
What weird fires?



This firefighter does not appear to be hurt by walking through this fire.


What I see is a fireman, wearing heavy boots, stepping on to a piece of burning office paper.

Quote:



Why is the paper not lighting on fire when the cars are? Looking at this photo, every piece of paper on that street should have caught fire, but they didn't. Why was paper unaffected by this fire when cars were?

Good question. I've been baffled by this photo for a while.

Now that you mention it, I wonder where the "next" photo in the sequence is. Was this photo taken just before the fire spread to the rest of paper? Or, was the fire simply not hot enough (spraying enough sparks) to light the other paper in the vicinity. Why did the cars catch on fire? Did someone walk around and torch cars manually? Were the cars on fire long before the paper fell to the ground? Maybe the fire in the cars was burning out, as the paper fell to the ground, hence, the fire was not spreading? Do we know at which point in the 9/11 day this photo was taken? What is the location of the cars relative to the WTC plaza? Why is the car in the forefront not on fire?

Quote:
Quote:
You are resorting to magic in trying to understand the WTC collapses.

Magic has been used for eons to fool people, employing only simple trickery. It is a sleight of hand and relies on proven technology.

911 can be explained using simple technologies - CGI (Toy Story, et al) and embedded explosives. If you want to explain it using more complicated technologies, then the onus is on you to provide clear details of how the complicated technologies work and how they were deployed.


Watch 911 Octopus. It accurately explains the motives behind using covert technology.

Quote:
This is easily explained by the blown-from-within theory.

If one set of entrained explosives went off moments before the other set, then a differential heating pattern could have occurred and might have caused curdling.


I agree, but this is also consistent with Directed Energy. John Hutchison found that "The Hutchison Effect" had strange effects on metal beams, such as this:



At the WTC:




The Hutchinson photos show a bent piece of small copper pipe. The WTC photos show a huge lump of steel that is bent. No comparison - not the same materials, not the same orders of magnitude, etc. In the Hutchison interviews, he says that he produced this effect using a room containing tons of equipment and that he can't predict "where" the effect will occur. And, we see from his photos that the effects manifested themselves on small objects.

The conclusion is that the Hutchison Effect is not ready for prime-time - the parameters are not understood.

That conclusion leaves us guessing as to what technology was used for 911. Did the MIC develop Hutchison effects into a reliable technology and did they choose to use it on 911? Maybe.

Can 911 be explained using simpler, more well-understood technologies? I think the answer is yes. CGI and blown-from-within explains what we saw that day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.