cars were exploding for no reason at WTC on 9/11

by **maggrwaggr** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:41 am

they're trying out new weapons in Iraq. It's exactly what my Dad did in Vietnam. Gave the experimental weapons to the South Vietnamese, let them use them in battles. He would fly in later to see how they did. Sometimes they worked okay, sometimes .... they didn't. He's the one who told me that a human body and that of a pig will explode at the same sound frequency. And you know what would happen if you put a car in, say, a microwave oven. BOOM.

by **banned** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:03 am

...was so weird that virtually EVERY MSM article about it has to explain it away by saying something like, well, he was upset. Look, I've had to call relatives and tell them another relative was dead. I've had to call friends right after I was mugged. I'm not a big frickin' six foot five athlete. I never threw my last name on when talking to people close to me just because I was upset. Here's three examples of what I mean about having lots of 'splainin' to do about it: <a href="http://www.markbingham.org/legend.html">www.markbingham.org/legend.html</a> Bingham called his mother early Tuesday morning from an airphone on the plane. He began their conversation with the words, "Hi Mom. This is Mark Bingham," providing a clue to his state of mind as he spoke. [Yes, the CLUE may have been, I'm making this call under duress and lying like a trooper.] ====== <a href="http://www.glib.org/discus/messages/890/945.html?1008132853">www.glib.org/discus/messa...1008132853</a> "Hello, Mom, this is Mark Bingham," he said, using his last name, which immediately alerted Alice that something was wrong. He told her three men were on board, and they had a bomb (it is still uncertain if there was a fourth accomplice). [Er, yeah, that did alert her 'something' was wrong. But he then calmly told her exactly what it was, bombers on board. Sounds to me like he had it together pretty well.] ===== <a href="http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/abcnews091301.html">billstclair.com/911timeli...91301.html</a> "Mark said, 'Mom, this is Mark Bingham.' He gave me his last name, he was so rattled," Hoglan told ABCNEWS' Good Morning America from her home in Sacramento, Calif. [Here is my idea of 'rattled': "Jesus Jumping Christ, Mom, there's bombers on the plane and I'm about to die!" Frankly, I don't even think if I was calling my mom to say adios forever I'd even use my FIRST name! I mean come on, my mother isn't going to recognize my voice?] All you have to do is google and you'll find many more examples of trying to explain the odd locution.

by **ano n** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:08 am

one of the guys from the site WTC7, also co-author of a smallish book, said (a while ago ...) that he was thinking they used microwave or em [same?] which would have allowed pretty precise/artful destruction. But then, he said, he thought about the power needed to run the machines; they could have tapped in to the various power mains but much of the eastern seaboard, or whatever the significant geographical area, would have experienced a brownout or blackout because of the enormous power needed. true?

by **starroute** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:09 am

I know he's branched out into new areas since the days when he was going through Dylan's garbage, but can't remember whether 9/11 was one of them or not.

by **maggrwaggr** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:10 am

<a href="http://thememoryhole.org/mil/nl-weapons_terms/">thememoryhole.org/mil/nl-weapons_terms/</a> Unfortunately the text is in the form of a graphics file, so you'll have to scroll down and read it. But many of these electromagnetic, microwave weapons sound like they could very easily blow up cars. Or the insides of buildings. Or whatever they wanted them to melt/blowup. And these are the "nonlethal" ones! And these are also from 1997!

by **anotherdrew** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:58 am

maybe massive release of gamma rays from a point in the basement of wtc, release would be is a sphere, with burried metal and such absorbing a lot of it in some directions, other areas the rays encounter less 'shielding' and keep going till they hit a car, the metal absorbs a lot of the ionising radiation, and sparks fly igniting the car and sometimes leading to an imediate or eventual fuel tank explosion. enter: the hafnium bomb <blockquote>Quote:<hr>. . . snip . . . Recently, hafnium has been put into development of newer nuclear weapons by the U.S. government.DARPA has been intermittently funding programs to determine the possibility of using a nuclear isomer of hafnium (the above mentioned Hf-178-2m) to construct small, high yield weapons with simple x-ray triggering mechanisms—the hafnium bomb. There is considerable scientific opposition to this program, both on technical and moral grounds . . . snip . . . Another reasonably stable nuclear isomer (with a half-life of 31 years) is hafnium-178m, which has the highest excitation energy of any stable isomer. One kilogram of pure Hf-178-2m contains approximately 900 megajoules of energy, or about a quarter of a kiloton of TNT. Further, all of the energy released is in gamma rays at 0.05 nanometers. As with Ta-180m, there are disputed reports that Hf-178-2m can be stimulated into releasing its energy, and as a result the substance is being studied as a possible source for gamma ray lasers. These reports also indicate that the energy is released very quickly, so that Hf-178-2m can produce extremely high powers (on the order of exawatts). As of 2005 the claims that hafnium isomers can be used as potential energy storage devices or even weapons is generally regarded with derision in the general scientific community and future prospects for the idea's vindication appear very dim. . . . snip . . . Hafnium is used to make nuclear control rods, such as those found in nuclear submarines because of its ability to absorb neutrons (its thermal neutron absorption cross section is nearly 600 times that of zirconium) . . . snip . . . The hafnium bomb is a hypothetical explosive device based on a metastable excited state of hafnium-178 (a nuclear isomer, Hf-178m2, half life > 10y, decay energy 2.5 MeV). While this excited state was known as a curiosity for some time, in the 1990s Carl Collins of the University of Texas at Dallas claimed to have discovered a method of inducing it to rapidly decay through exposure to x-rays. As x-rays of the required energy were relatively easy to produce, and the energy of the released gamma rays was far greater than the required energy input, this discovery had considerable applicability as a radiological weapon. To date, the claimed effect has not been duplicated, casting doubt on the use of Hafnium-178m2 as a weapon component or power storage mechanism. . . . snip . . . <hr></blockquote> longer article: link=<a href="http://www.you.com.au/news/2012.htm">www.you.com.au/news/2012.htm</a>]describes the thing a bit more[/link] texas based scientist finds a way to make a useable nuke-like bomb, out of meterial that is used in nuclear control rods (a good way to turn normal Hafnium into 178m2?). control rods are 'missing' from a storage facility, btw (although of course we're told it's just a paper-work error). Anyway they are now pretending this isn't possible, no one is able to replicate the original experiement (I don't know who's tried, but I wouldn't be surprised that this would go own deep black real quick, the texas guy may not have released all the needed info to replicate anyway). this might also explain the need to disapear the remains of the building as fast as possible, with no forensic samples taken, or later permited: when one of these hafnium bombs goes off, it may leave a lot of hafnium oxides all over the place. That maintenence guy who came up and out from a very low level and talks of seeing the results of a huge explosion all around... I wonder how long hafnium would stay in the body? Someone who I think has wound up dead was talking about mini-nuke-like bombs being used at Bali and in the embasy bombings, possibly others, can't remember who that was and I'm done googling for now.

by **anotherdrew** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:12 am

the longer article is really hosted here: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049">www.newscientist.com/arti...?id=dn4049</a> I don't know, one would think that the gammarays would have killed all the people around too, but perhaps they were weekened enough comming up through the foundation and ground to not give a massive dose to people, but still cause sparking in some metal structures...

by **thumperton** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>...here's what I expected to happen: East Coast targets would be WTC, Capitol Building, Pentagon, and Three Mile Island (that's where I think the one that went down in Pennsylvania was headed). Then they'd hit targets across the country--that other flight that supposedly landed in Cleveland may have been headed for either the Perry or the Davis Besse nukes, both are on Lake Erie. Others would have taken out the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Space Needle in Seattle, the Bank of America Center and Golden Gate Bridge in Frisco...you get the idea. Terror unfolding from East to West. But somebody ordered all the planes grounded and that was that. They scrubbed the one that supposedly augured in at Shanksville. I think the real plane was the other one in Cleveland. What hit the deck in Shanksville was an unarmed drone, which had been the plan all along. The cell phone calls and "let's roll" were all faked and preplanned to provide 'human interest' and a patriotic bit of twaddle to rally around. (No, I have no evidence for the latter except nobody calls their mom and says "This is Mark Bingham." Mark Bingham may be the real hero of 9/11 because he probably had a gun to his head and a speech to read and he did the one thing he thought might make people realize something was funky.<hr></blockquote> I meant Alex Jones. And yes, it was supposed to be something that spectacular. The real kicker though was the fact that the plane that was shot down didn't make its way to capital hill, since that was the one that was suppose to decapitate congress and set up George Bush as generalissimo. God's grace didn't allow it to happen, and we're given this extra time to wake more people up. <img src="http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/happysad.gif" style="border:0;"/>

by **maggrwaggr** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:16 pm

I've been waiting for someone else to come up with this, but here's what I think: The buildings were rigged with explosives that were designed to be triggered by a microwave blast of a certain frequency and intensity. This would mean that they wouldn't have to wire all the explosives together, one of the big problems with your basic low-tech controlled-demolitions. Very time consuming, high-profile to be running around wiring everything together in a building that big. (These cars exploded right before the building came tumbling down.) I believe the microwave blast was sent to detonate the explosives in the building, and also ended up blowing up the cars due to the gas in the engines (imagine putting a semi-full gas tank in a microwave oven). The microwave could have come from building 7, which was conveniently destroyed later. It could have come from a vehicle as well. On that day nobody would have noticed anything. This was a test, for the black ops folks, of new weaponry. They're using it elsewhere right now. Does this pass the smell test?

by **Iroquois** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Does this pass the smell test?<hr></blockquote> Actually, this has just the right kind of stench. I did a couple of quick searches and came accross this article: <a href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-285856.php">www.airforcetimes.com/sto...285856.php</a> Here's an excerpt that seemed particularily relevant: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>“You’re dealing with the ability to pre-detonate the majority of improvised explosives that are used right now,” said Pete Bitar, president of Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems, an Anderson, Ind., company that is developing a rifle-sized directed-energy gun for the Marines.<hr></blockquote> Now, I remember seeing once a photograph of the towers on 9/11 from across the river that showed a large dish antenna in the foreground with US flags mounted on either side that looked like it was pointed right at ground zero. Does anyone have a copy of the photo or know anything about that antenna? Wouldn't that be interesting if the cars that exploded just happened to be in line with it and the two main towers?

by **banned** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:44 am

...the aroma of truth. thumperton, I honestly didn't steal from Jones, this is what I was telling people within days of 9/11 and they were doing the old rotating-finger-on-the-temple behind my back. Within a few months they were thinking maybe I wasn't so nuts and by now most of them act like they thought it all up on their own <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> . I only disagree with one thing: yes, the Capitol was supposed to be taken out (and, dare I say it, seeing the way Congress on both sides of the aisles have rolled over and let BushCo fuck them since then, it would not in my opinion have been any great loss). But as I've said before so was Monkeyboy--remember the 'threat' on Air Force One? And letting him sit there in FloriDuh and then mosey to AF1 and have his photo taken waving from the door with no Secret Service anywhere around? It was supposed to either be crashed into on the tarmac or rammed in mid-air. Then Cheney and the rest take over, impose martial law, no more need for the sock puppet. Yes, we had a window, but we didn't use it well enough, and it's closing. The PTB are ready to throw the Chimpster under the bus. But the question is, what about Cheney and his crew? I could well be wrong (I was once, now was that '75 or '76? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> ) but I think the real conservatives and the 'old line' intelligence community and BushCo and the PNAC/Chertoff/Goss/Negroponte/Poindexter bunch of bozos are and have been locked in a life and death behind the scenes struggle and the PTB have, perhaps unwisely, been waiting to see who would get the upper hand. (Unwisely if whoever wins comes out virtually invincible.) My questions are two: 1. Has the PTB had it only with Chimpy or with all of the neocons? and 2. If the latter, what broom will they use for the clean sweep? I see Plamegate as the probable broom, and it's infinitely flexible--it can turn into a total Fitzfizzle, or it can turn into the Fitzy night massacre. I saw somewhere earlier today as I was surfing around something about Fitz going deeper into the whole yellowcake/Niger thang. If he ties the forgery to BushCo, it's adios motherfuckers. I don't think we know much more about what's really going on behind the scenes at the highest levels than most people did at the time about the plot against FDR that Smedley Butler blew the whistle on. We see of it what we are allowed to see, and when it's all over, we will have the popular mythology version, not the whole truth. Just like with Watergate.

by **robertdreed** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:16 am

I have a friend who used to be a USAF flight maintenance mechanic, working on the F-111. He said that one time when he was stationed at Lake-and-Heath, the crew trapped a rat, but it in a box, and turned the F-111 radar on full blast in the hangar. Result: one exploded rat carcass. The F-111 is a powerful aircraft with a sizeable power supply. But if it's possible to turn its radar up full-blast inside a hangar without much more ill effect than a fried rat in the direct path of the radar beam, I doubt that any street-legal vehicle, including an 18-wheeler, could house a microwave power supply capable of blowing up automobile gas tanks. Really, if microwaves are that powerful, why don't fighter jets simply turn on their radar and blow up enemy bodies and vehicles with microwave power? Understand the Inverse Square Law. From any given distance at which it's first measured, electrical power decreases 6 db for every square of that distance. Half-power is -3db. That scientific principle helps explain why people don't get cooked to death, every time an airliner takes off or makes a landing approach at an airport. It also helps provide some idea of the practical constraints on using microwave weapons. It's still a lot more practical to fire projectiles like bullets or artillery shells. Any sufficiently powerful microwave source has to be plugged into something...unless it's being used as a pulse device with only a few uses in its storage capacitors. And even in that case, the power capacitors (power capacitors are the equivalent of rechargable batteries, in AC electrical components) have to be enormous in order to store sufficient charge to make a microwave weapon. I've read about the HAARP program, which supposedly relies on a dedicated multi-gigawatt level power generation station powered by natural gas up North in the tundra somewhere, transmitting microwaves to specially equipped satellites to charge their on-board power supplies. HAARP is another topic altogether. If HAARP has the ambitious capabilities that some of those who have studied it claim, those satellites must have huge, vast power capacitors and rechargable power supplies. Monstrous. If they exist, I find their zero-maintenance stability remarkable. Electricity is tricky. Controlling it is dependent on a precise balance of components. It only takes one part failure to throw the whole thing out of whack, and then you don't have a circuit any more, it either shuts down or the lightning gets loose. Power transformers and caps blow up all the time down here at ground level. Any MASER weapon that's portable on the ground is going to have to be physically huge, and connected to an even more impressive power supply. And there's simply no need to posit the use of microwave EMP weapons to trigger explosives in the WTC. It's much, much simpler to use something like a pager or a cellphone as a trigger. This is one case where Occam's Razor really does settle the issue. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/25/05 2:07 am

by **cortez** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:54 am

<img src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/matrixreloaded/neo_cars01.jpg" style="border:0;"/> ------------- now seriously, do the scorched cars have anything to do with this news report on 9/11? Quote:”Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion…I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it.” <a href="http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.police.found.explosives.wmv">Video clip[//</a>

by **maggrwaggr** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:07 am

is certainly true about point sources. However, one can easily construct devices that focus a beam any way you want it. I work with motion picture lighting equipment. It's what I do. There are plenty of lighting instruments out there that project parallel beams of light, that simply don't fall off with distance. It's not difficult. Microwave radiation is just another form of electromagnetic energy, just like light. You can put a beam of it anywhere you want. Especially from a satellite, or from the top of another building. Maybe even from a ship. Do you have any ideas as to what caused parked cars to simply blow up? This is really the only thing I can think of. Unless they planted bombs underneath cars all around the WTC for a radius of 10 blocks. But then why would the ambulances and firetrucks, which had presumably just arrived, explode? I think something very very strange was going on that day.

by **robertdreed** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:13 am

Light is different. Light is optics. The wavelengths are, well, light speed. Coherent light waves- that's LASER. Coherence, that's how you defeat the inverse square law in optics. Lasers can shine for miles on a few watts. You can put your hand in the way, and it won't burn. Supplying a laser with enough power to put a hole through your arm, or to cut steel- well, that takes some juice. Microwaves are down in the megahertz range, and they require a lot more power to project. Actually, come to think of it, they're close to the red spectrum- infra-red, right? But I still think we're talking wattage as the important thing, in a weapon. And that power drop-off is still -6dB over the square of the distance from point of measurement. Tesla had a brilliant idea for a particle accelerator- but it still required a mass to act as a projectile, not simply a directed electrical wave. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/25/05 2:31 am

cars were exploding for no reason at WTC on 9/11

well you can bet

Bingham's phrasing...

EM

Re: Does "AJ" mean AJ Weberman?

Here's one site regarding electromagnetic weapons

here's a possibility

Re: here's a possibility

Re: Not sure who AJ is--Alex Jones?--but...

Here's what I think happened

Re: Here's what I think happened

Yup, mags, it has...

microwave power

Re: microwave power

the inverse square law

Re: the inverse square law

Who is online